House of Representatives
21 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2957

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 the 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.

  1. b ) 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 Birney, Mr Bourchier, Mr Braithwaite, Mr Bungey, Mr Cadman, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Carlton, Mr Dean, Mr Drummond, Dr Edwards, Mr Ellicott, Dr Everingham, Mr FitzPatrick, Mr Fry, Mr Giles, Mr Haslem, Mr Humphreys, Mr Jull, Mr Killen, Mr McLean, Mr McVeigh, Mr Martyr, Mr Millar, Mr Moore, Mr Neil, Mr Ruddock, Mr Sainsbury, Mr Short, Mr Simon and Mr Wilson.

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 IAC in 1977 and 1979 be rejected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding, Mr Humphreys, Mr Hurford, Mr Jacobi, Mr James, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Kerin, Dr Klugman, Mr Les McMahon and Mr Martin.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

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

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.
  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by-

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

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baume, Mr Innes, Dr Jenkins, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Keating, Mr Lynch, Mr Leo McLeay, Mr Nixon, Mr Sainsbury and Mr Uren.

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 Ewen Cameron, Mr Howe, Mr Peter Johnson, Mr Lusher and Mr Martyr.

Petitions received.

Taxation

To the Rt 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.S per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove Life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of $2500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bradfield, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Drummond.

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 weight 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 Chapman and Mr McVeigh.

Petition received.

Taxation

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

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 Fry and Mr Newman. Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Armitage. Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, 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 prayThat appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governent organisations, in employment of individuals under the 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 discrimintion 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,

Petition received. by Mr Donald Cameron. Petition received.

Airline Services

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Dean. 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, by Mr Humphreys. Petition 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 regulations 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 derivatives. If so, the ingredient and source should be indicated.
  2. whether the research and development of that prod uct or any of its ingredients involved experimentation on animals.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

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

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

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1 977 should immediately be repealed because:

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

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

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

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

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

Olympic Games

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received, by Mr James. Petition received,

Olympic Games

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

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

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

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

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

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectively pray that the Australian government do all in its power to ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 1 9 July to 3 August 1 980.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Keating. Petition received.

page 2960

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery the Right Honourable Edward Lumley, Minister of State for Trade in the Government of Canada. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.

Honourable members- Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2960

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Appropriately, I address my question to the Prime Minister on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday.

Mr Anthony:

– Wish him happy birthday.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-That depends on the answer. I ask the Prime Minister whether, as a result of the letters sent to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on 5 December 1979 by Sir Reginald Ansett, he held any discussions with the Minister and /or the Attorney-General as to what action they should or should not take in the light of the matters raised by Sir Reginald in his letter. If so, did the Prime Minister agree that the best course to follow was to take no action at all in response to the letters? Has the Prime Minister subsequently held discussions with the Minister and /or the Attorney-General in the light of the revelations to the Parliament since last Thursday of the existence and nature of these letters? If so, what was the nature of those discussions?

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

-The Prime Minister has decided that I should be the one to get the birthday present today. The answer to the honourable member’s question is that I indicated yesterday and on an earlier day that I desired those questions which related to the searching of records, correspondence and what have you to be placed on the Notice Paper and that I would endeavour to answer them yesterday or today. It is still my intention to provide a written answer in the normal fashion before the day is out.

Opposition members interjectingMr STALEY-It is still my intentionMr SPEAKER-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Hurford:

– Was the Prime Minister involved?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask honourable members on the Opposition benches to remain silent. The question was asked in silence and the answer should be heard in silence.

Mr STALEY:

-The Prime Minister was certainly not involved in these matters which relate to administration by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Attorney-General and me. As I say, we intend to make available today written answers to many of the clutch of questions that have been asked. It may not be possible to answer all of them. Records in a number of cities and in a number of departments and authorities need to be searched. As many questions as possible- certainly the Leader of the Opposition ‘s question- will be answered later today.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. The answer given by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications does not deal with the substance of the question, which was directed specifically to the Prime Minister asking what the Prime Minister did personally- what action he initiated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The honourable gentleman has been here long enough to know that if the question asked is in order I permit the question; once the question is asked the Minister can answer as he chooses, provided his answer is relevant. It was relevant. There is no compulsion in the Standing Orders for the Minister to answer the question in the way the questioner wishes it to be answered.

Mr Innes:

– I raise a further point of order on the basis of relevance. The question was directed to the Prime Minister. I understand that the Standing Orders provide that the Minister who answers the question at least must be responsible for the area about which the answer is being given. The question related to the behaviour or actions of the Prime Minister. I would put it to you, sir, that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications cannot be responsible for something personally attributed to the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As I understand it the question related to matters which were in the knowledge of the Minister. The Minister therefore answered the question. In any event, under the practice of this House any Minister may answer the question.

page 2961

QUESTION

AFGHANISTAN

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Having regard to the recent announcement by the Government of Afghanistan purporting to be a submission designed to provide a solution to the international crisis resultant from the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, can the Minister advise this House of the reaction of the Australian Government?

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

– I am, of course, aware of a proposal attributed to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan purporting to contain elements for a solution to the Afghan crisis. The statement put forward proposes unconditional bilateral talks with Iran and Pakistan and guarantees by the Soviet Union and the United States, and provides for the return of Afghan refugees to Afghanistan under an alleged general amnesty and then the eventual withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

In the Government’s view this represents absolutely no advance on previous positions taken by the Soviet Union and by Afghanistan concerning the presence of Soviet forces in that country. Elsewhere it has been characterised as a proposal which is Soviet engineered to bring about support from the Islamic Conference which concludes today in Islamabad. This important meeting of Islamic Foreign Ministers is expected to reaffirm the continuing concern of Islamic countries over the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union has maintained that its forces are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the Afghan Government and will not be withdrawn until those foreign forces alleged to be interfering in Afghanistan’s internal affairs give guarantees that they will cease their subversive activities. Both the Prime Minister and I have said here and elsewhere- and I reiterate it- that the Soviet Union’s reason for its invasion of Afghanistan is totally spurious. We have no evidence to support the accusation that foreign powers other than the Soviet Union have been interfering in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. Guarantees by Afghanistan’s neighbours and other major powers not to engage in subversive activities would only legitimise the presence of the Soviet occupying army.

The Australian Government considers that there can be no lasting political settlement in Afghanistan until the Soviet Union withdraws its forces and allows the Afghan people to determine their own future without external interference. There is no evidence to suggest that the Soviet Union is willing to accept such an expression of free choice by the people of Afghanistan.

page 2961

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, by saying that it is a very simple question and that any self-respecting Minister in command of his portfolio should not require public servants to prepare his answers for him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will ask his question or I will rule him out of order.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask: Was the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal initially ambivalent about taking an active role in the High Court case brought against it by the Australian Labor Party? Were discussions subsequently held between the Attorney-General, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and the Tribunal, as a result of which the Tribunal opted to involve itself in the case?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– As I indicated yesterday in answer to a fairly similar question, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal made its own decision in this matter. It was not a decision based on advice from the Attorney-General’s officials. Indeed, I believe that the Attorney-General and his officials would have regarded it as the AttorneyGeneral said in the Senate yesterday, as an odd decision of the Tribunal. But it was the Tribunal ‘s decision to do that. I believe the Tribunal knew the position of the Attorney-General’s advisers but chose, in its own way and for reasons of its own, to be represented.

page 2961

QUESTION

MILITARY CADET SYSTEM

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister for Defence: Are some schools in all areas of Australia experiencing difficulty in providing resources to continue the new cadet system? If so, is there any way in which the Government can grant extra resources to any such schools? Have any girls been admitted to any cadet corps?

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

-I am glad that the honourable gentleman used the adjectival description ‘new’ in relation to the cadet scheme because that is essentially the case. When I announced the scheme some four years ago I placed emphasis upon the Government’s determination to ensure that those associated with the schools gave the maximum of support to cadet units. In other words, they should allow the spirit of the volunteer to have full sway. My experience of the Navy league going back to 1969 convinced me deeply that there was splendid scope for more parents and more supporters of the. schools to participate and to help the schools. As a consequence, the Government was determined that the substantial cost associated with running and maintaining cadet units throughout Australia would be reduced. Even so, I inform my honourable friend that the cost is of the order of $6m. There are some shortages in some areas. If the honourable gentleman has some particular shortage in mind I would be grateful if he would bring it to my attention. At the same time I ask the honourable gentleman, and all members of the House, to seek to make it clear to the schools that it is the aim of the Government to secure the maximum voluntary support of the cadet units.

In relation to that part of the honourable gentleman’s question regarding girls entering cadet units, the answer is no, not officially. I know of a number of schools that have accepted girls on an unofficial basis.

Mr Nixon:

– What are you saying?

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member can put whatever interpretation he likes on that. I say to the honourable member for Darling Downs that the matter is progressing. As the opportunity presents itself, girls will be taken into the units.

page 2962

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact that during the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s inquiry into the transfer of shares to WIN4 Wollongong last year from the News group of companies to interests associated with Mr Bruce Gordon, the chairman of the Tribunal announced that he was in a conflict of interests situation? Is it a fact that the conflict of interests arose because of his close personal and business relationship with Mr Edwin Maxwell Cowley, who is one of the trustees of shares in WIN4 for Mr Gordon, and with Mr Gordon himself? Is it a fact that the chairman said that he would take no part in the deliberations of the Tribunal because of this conflict of interests? Is it a fact that, whilst Mr Gyngell abstained from voting at the meeting of the Tribunal on 28 July 1979 at which the WIN4 transaction was considered, he was present at that meeting while the other Tribunal members deliberated on the matter?

Mr STALEY:
LP

-The answers to the honourable member’s question are as follows: As to the first part, yes; as to the second part, yes; as to the third part, yes; as to the fourth part, I do not know but I will make inquiries.

page 2962

QUESTION

ROAD FUNDING CAMPAIGN

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I draw the Treasurer’s attention to the recent campaigns that have been conducted by such organisations as the Australian Automobile Association and the National Roads and Motorists Association in which they have urged the Government to earmark revenue from the crude oil levy for funding additional road grants. Is the Treasurer aware of these campaigns? Can he indicate to the House the Government’s attitude to this campaign and, in fact, to the whole question of hypothecating funds for particular expenditure programs?

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

– As it happens my attention has been drawn to the campaign conducted by, amongst others, the National Roads and Motorists Association and the Australian Automobile Association in the interests of obtaining an increase in the Commonwealth’s provision for roads. Whilst I make it clear at the outset that I can understand, as indeed I am sure all members of this House can understand, the interest of many organisations in securing the greatest possible support for road building in Australia, I also make it clear in reply to the honourable member for Cook that the Government does not accept for a moment the principle of earmarking or hypothecation in relation to raising revenue and spending money.

We reject that concept for two reasons. If it were adopted in the manner urged upon us by bodies such as the NRMA we would reduce, to a very major extent, the flexibility available to governments in their budgetary planning. If, for a moment, one thinks of the implications involved, one can understand why that statement is correct. There are many areas where it simply is not possible to match revenue and expenditure. For example, what revenue would be earmarked specifically for the provision of funds for education? What revenue would be earmarked specifically for many areas of health? What revenue would be earmarked specifically for many areas of social security? It is very convenient for some organisations to say that, because motor vehicles consume large amounts of fuel, it follows, therefore, that it is logical and proper that oil revenues be earmarked for the maintenance of roads. If one extends that principle to other areas, one finds that it falls down. On the basis both of practicality and of a major reduction in budget flexibility, governments of both political persuasions in this country over the years have rigidly rejected the concept of earmarking. The Government again rejects it so far as the campaign on roads is concerned.

While I am on the subject of roads I remind the House that, as announced last week by my colleague the Minister for Transport, there will be an increase of 1 1 per cent next year in the Commonwealth’s provision for roads. It is true -

Mr Kerin:

– Not for rural roads.

Mr HOWARD:

– I am glad to hear the honourable member for Werriwa interjecting. It is true, as has been pointed out to us, that spending on roads by State and local government has increased at a faster rate than has Commonwealth direct spending on roads; and so it ought to. It happens to be true that in the five years that this Government has been in office it has increased massively the untied money available to State and local government. If the Government had not spent that money on roads at a much greater measure, it would have fallen down in its job. The provision of general revenue funds to State governments in four years has increased by 74.6 per cent, and to local government by no less than 177.5 per cent. Against those sorts of figures, is it any wonder that the expenditure on roads by State and local government should have increased at a somewhat faster rate than has direct Commonwealth spending on roads? We have discharged our responsibility in this area by maintaining the real level of our spending for next year and, through our federalism policy, enabled the States and local government, with their greater access to untied moneys, to spend more on roads.

I make the final point that some of the claims that have been made on the Government for roads expenditure and, indeed, in a number of other areas, reflect some unreal expectations held in the community as to the financial flexibility of the Government. Some people speak as though the revenues available from crude oil have totally removed all the Government’s budgetary problems. The figures are exaggerated. The Australian Automobile Association has mentioned a figure of $3, 000m when in reality the levy receipts are $2, 500m. As every honourable member in this House knows, $2, 100m of the additional $2,500m was provided for in the Budget last year. For very convincing monetary policy reasons, the additional revenue was applied towards a reduction of the deficit. I conclude by saying that those who argue that that revenue should be earmarked for a particular purpose are, in effect, arguing that government expenditure on areas such as defence, social security, pensions, and the responsibility of this Government, where possible, to reduce the deficit and to reduce taxation, should be given a lower priority than the case that they themselves are putting.

page 2963

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF SUGAR

Mr KERIN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it correct that Ansett Airlines of Australia imported for the use of its airlines 0.9 tonnes of white sugar manufactured in Holland? Is it correct that sugar is a prohibited import? If this is correct, what action is being taken to prevent further imports of sugar by Ansett? Will Ansett be prosecuted for a breach of the regulations?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to verify the information given by the honourable member. I will ascertain the facts, see whether what the honourable member says is correct, and give him a considered response.

page 2963

QUESTION

NATIONAL WAGE CASE

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the attention of the Minister for Industrial Relations been drawn to developments in the national wage case this morning when the Confederation of Australian Industry sought an adjournment because of industrial action by metal trade employees in support of reduced working hours?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes, I am aware of the request by the employers for an adjournment of proceedings of the national wage case. They requested the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to stand firm and call on the unions to desist from all industrial action associated with the Commission. The Commonwealth supported the employers’ request, as did the governments of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.

I am advised that the President of the Commission, Sir John Moore, expressed the Commission’s deep concern about the metal trade unions’ campaign and said that the Commission felt that the whole indexation package had been put in peril as a result. Honourable members might recall that last year the Commission indicated that it was on the brink of abandoning wage indexation. Sir John said this morning that the Commission felt it was in much the same position now as a direct result of the metal trade unions ‘campaign.

The responsibility for the position which the Commission has been placed in rests squarely on the shoulders of the union movement and its president, Mr Hawke. The union movement has to realise that it cannot have it both ways. It cannot argue for wage increases based on a full flow on from the consumer price index and, at the same time, give its blessing to campaigns of widespread industrial disruption.

page 2964

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to his comment in the House on 30 April in answer to a question by the honourable member for Gellibrand. The Minister stated:

The labour force series is a series that has been used for a long time and accepted as an indication of the growth in the labour force.

Is it a fact that the April labour force figures which were released today show a drop in the employed labour force of 5 1,000? Is this not the largest drop for the month of April since the figures have been collected on a monthly basis? Will the Minister now repudiate his statement to the House on 29 April that ‘Australia has the potential for strong and sustained employment growth’?

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

– I can tell the honourable gentleman unhesitatingly that I will not repudiate that statement. I stand by it. As the years of the 1 980s go by -

Mr Innes:

– He is an out and out liar.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw that remark.

Mr Innes:

– I withdraw. He just handles the truth carelessly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The house will come to order. The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw unqualifiedly.

Mr Innes:

– I withdraw.

Mr VINER:

– I was saying that I will not repudiate the statement that I made. I stand by it. As the years of the 1 980s go by the correctness of that statement will unfold. The fact is that our economic strategy is geared to economic growth. We recognise that only through economic growth will there be employment growth. In that way Australia will be able to employ more people and will be able to stabilise and then lower the level of unemployment.

On an annual basis the employed labour force rose by 135,700 to April 1980. It is correct that there was a phenomenal rise in the number of people employed in the labour force last month. Because the number of persons employed rose by such a large amount last month it was not unexpected that there would be a fall this month.

If the honourable gentleman reads the Australian Statistician’s report he will see that the Statistician made that very comment. The annual rate of growth of employment for the year to April shows that total employment continues to maintain a strong annual growth rate. It is precisely what this Government has sought to achieve and what we have seen achieved. The employment growth has also continued to outpace the labour force growth. With an employment growth rate of 1 35,000 over a year we see a very strong growth in the level of employment. One of the features in which the honourable member might be interested is that the growth in both labour force and total employment has been concentrated among females. That ought to hearten the honourable gentleman because for so long people have complained that females have been relatively worse off in the improved conditions in the economy. I hope that from here on we will see continued opportunities for employment for males as well as females. We will then have an even-handed situation in the economy.

page 2964

QUESTION

NATIONAL WAGE CASE

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, refers to the national wage case. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a decision of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive to lodge a general 5.5 per cent wage claim based on movements in productivity? Can the Minister provide any further information regarding the decision by the ACTU Executive to pursue a campaign on an industry by industry basis for shorter working hours based, amongst other things, on the residue of productivity movements not covered in the wage claim?

Mr STREET:
LP

-The Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive decided yesterday to lodge a general wage claim based on award movements in productivity to a limit of 5.5 per cent. In addition, the Executive decided to lodge a claim to increase the minimum wage by $7.30 a week plus the 5.5 per cent. As to the merits of the productivity claim I would like to quote from part of a decision by a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which states:

It is not possible to have across the board increases, industry by industry, under Principle 7(A) (work value), and national increases under Principle 6 (productivity) and Principle 1 (CPI) without substantial double counting and severe inflationary consequences . . .

It is quite obvious that large wage increases in Australia now would drastically affect our international competitiveness. The success of the 35-hour working week campaign of the metal unions and the campaign of the ACTU Executive to pursue an industry by industry campaign for shorter working hours would have disastrous employment consequences. The inescapable fact is that if pursued these policies of the union movement would cost thousands of jobs. It is about time the leadership of the union movement started to consider economic reality instead of compounding economic folly with industrial foolishness and greed.

page 2965

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls stating in his speech on the 1979 Budget:

I think it is one of the remarkable things of this Government over nearly three years that during periods of real financial stringency we have shown our real concern for those in need and made sure that even though other areas of expenditure have had to be restrained to the utmost extent, areas of real need have been met by increasing expenditure.

In the light of that statement about the 1979 Budget, how can he justify a reduction of more than 30 per cent in real terms or more than $35m this year in Aboriginal welfare spending as against spending in 1975- an accumulative real cut in the Aboriginal Affairs budget since 1975 totalling $128m? Will the Government immediately replace its prejudicial treatment of Aboriginal Australians as third class citizens and raise expenditure to an appropriate level to combat the grave human need behind the increasingly appalling statistics in areas such as Aboriginal health, housing, education and employment?

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

-The Government has, over approaching five years in office, given very close attention to the needs of elderly and disadvantaged people in the Australian community no matter what groups they may come from. I will respond to the honourable gentleman’s request in relation to Aborigines in a moment. I remind the House first of some of the other things that this Government has done or initiated to support the less well-off people within the Australian community.

Over the last five years there has been unparalleled support for the building of hostels and homes for elderly people. Right around the country grants have been provided to expand enormously the provision throughout the community for elderly people, including homes for the aged. The Minister for Social Security has been pursuing programs in relation to the disadvantaged. The expansion of sheltered workshops and the assistance to the disadvantaged have also been unparalleled and unequalled by any other government. The introduction of family allowances early in the term of this Government, which were designed to give special and particular support to lower income families who would not have the benefit of tax concessions because their incomes were too low, was a notable achievement which has been applauded right around the country. The Government has helped in many other ways. The introduction of family allowances was a notable achievement and it materially assisted low income families throughout this country. The only cause for resentment from the Labor Party is that it was this socially reforming Government that introduced that proposal rather than the Labor Party, which had an opportunity but did not do so.

I remind the House that this Government is also concerned for single income families. Tax reforms announced by my colleague the Treasurer, which will come into force on 1 July, will materially assist the position of single income families because the spouse allowance will be increased very substantially. There will be a substantial tax reduction, therefore, for many single income families. In all these ways, across a very broad spectrum, this Government has shown concern for disadvantaged groups within the community. One could, of course, go on. The Government replaced the hard to understand and unfair capital and income tests on age pensions with a single, clear, simple income test which again removed a disadvantage from many people throughout the Australian community. In whatever area one looks, there are reforms that have been pursued and introduced by this Government which the honourable gentleman could have introduced but did not when he was in government.

The honourable gentleman asked questions about the Aboriginal people in particular. If he is in close touch with the National Aboriginal Conference and with the work which our two Ministers from Aboriginal Affairs have consummated over recent years he will know that the work this Government is doing on behalf of the Aboriginal people is very much appreciated in every corner of this Commonwealth. One of the things the Aboriginal people understand, and they understand it much better than the Opposition- it is a tragedy for the Opposition that it does not realise this- is that their problems will not be solved merely by the throwing of money at them as the Labor Party did when it was in office. They know quite well that they need programs and policies of self-management, programs that will enhance the dignity and self-esteem of the Aboriginal people. These are not matters that can be solved by wildly scattering’ money around, as the honourable member for Wills did when he was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in a way that did much more harm than good. The Aboriginal people have come to a recognition of that fact and they have no thanks for the honourable gentleman for, in a sense, having deceived them that that was a solution to their problems, when they know quite well that it was not.

In addition, it clearly needs to be understood that, under the programs of this Government, the policies for Aboriginal people have been well devised. The funds have been directed to specific objectives. The employment program introduced only recently by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, directed specifically at government departments and government instrumentalities of the States and of the Commonwealth and also at the private sector, is starting to have some significant results for the employment of Aboriginal people. That is just another example of an area in which we have shown an initiative of a practical kind. The Aboriginal people understand that. They know that our policies are devised to get to the real source of the difficulties.

I think it is worth noting that in the last Budget, when grant funds were made available to a much greater extent in support of welfare housing, for the first time we put in a special provision that a significant sum- I think $20m of that total grant- be made available through the States specifically for Aboriginal housing. That therefore enabled a greater expansion of government support for Aboriginal housing than had occurred on other occasions. That, again, is an example of funds being directed to areas of real need.

I suggest only that the honourable gentleman speak on a personal basis with members of the National Aboriginal Conference and learn how they appreciate and understand what this Government is doing for the Aboriginal people.

page 2966

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING LEASE: NORTHERN QUEENSLAND

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of reports that a uranium rnining lease has been granted to the Minatome company for its project at Ben Lomond near Townsville in northern Queensland and that the Queensland Minister for Mines has said that the granting of the lease will now allow mining to go ahead? Has the Minister been approached concerning an export licence for uranium from Ben Lomond?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I have seen reports relating to Minatome. a French company, in regard to developing a uranium lease at Ben Lomond in Queensland. I have not been approached at all by this company. Development approval cannot be given by a State; it has to be given by the Commonwealth. Only when the Commonwealth gives approval can an export permit be approved for the export of uranium. Before any development approval can be given there has to be an environmental assessment of the project. We also have to look into the relative foreign equity situation of the company undertaking the development.

Up to this time the company has not approached me. Until it does I cannot designate it a proponent subject to an environmental examination in accordance with the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. At this point there has been no official contact with the Commonwealth Government and under those circumstances there can be no approval for the project to proceed.

page 2966

QUESTION

CHINESE TEST OF INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE IN PACIFIC

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Government’s indulgent attitude toward the recent test by China of an intercontinental ballistic missile in the South Pacific. In view of the Government’s anxieties about possible Soviet influence in the South Pacific, why does it not object to an act which can only introduce a new element of great power rivalry into the region? Why does the Government not share the concern expressed by Papua New Guinea and Fiji over the recent Chinese test?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-This Government has taken more realistic action on disarmament than any previous government in the history of this country. The Government’s active participation in the Committee on Disarmament is very real evidence of that. The statements made in regard to that test by the Prime Minister and the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs when I was absent stand for themselves and do not need to be elaborated on. In the broader picture on disarmament the Opposition’s efforts were minuscule in comparison with ours. Of course we have a very close interest in the South West Pacific. Of course we want the region to be one of peace, harmony and freedom from tension. But honourable members opposite ought to direct their attention to the statements that were made on behalf of the Government by the Prime Minister and the Acting Foreign Minister, and pay attention to our activities in the Committee on Disarmament.

page 2967

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIR FARES

Mr McLEAN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister for Transport to the continued advocacy by West Australian members for the establishment of an independent inquiry into the structure of domestic air fares in Australia and ask, further to the question that was asked yesterday by the honourable member for Tangney, when the Minister will be able to inform the House of the terms of reference for such an inquiry and the personnel selected to undertake it?

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

– I have some good news for the honourable member for Tangney and the honourable member for Perth. Following my recent announcement that the Government had decided to establish an independent inquiry into the domestic air fares structure, I can now release further details. The chairman of this public inquiry will be Mr W. J. Holcroft, who has had a long association with the transport industry and with various government advisory bodies. Amongst other tasks, he has been chairman of the Transport Industries Advisory Council and the Manufacturing Industry Council. He will be assisted by Dr Harold Bell and Professor Warren Hogan. Dr Bell has had a distinguished career as an economist in the insurance industry and has also been associated with the transport industry. In particular, his role as a member of the Transport Industries Advisory Council, I am sure, will place him in good stead to understand the factors involved in the inquiry. He is also a Commissioner of the Australian National Railways. Professor Hogan of Sydney is of course a very well known Professor of Economics at Sydney University and a distinguished economist. He has also served on a number of important government advisory bodies.

I am sure that the collective experience of these gentlemen will enable the inquiry to address itself adequately to what will be a very demanding task. I do not know whether I should bore the House with a recital of the terms of reference.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman might ask to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Mr HUNT:

– Yes, but I will try to summarise the principal points, for the benefit of those who might not read Hansard. The terms of reference provide for the examination of air fares on the trunk and regional routes operated by the two major domestic airlines, namely Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia. The inquiry will also look at the way in which fares are set on the individual routes of the national.net- work by the use of an air fare formula.

Mr Young:

– Did you write this yourself?

Mr HUNT:

-I did, but I did not type it.

Mr Morris:

– I rise on a point of order. This is a very important issue that is worthy of special time being devoted to it, following the making of a proper statement. It is an abuse of Question Time to arrange a whitewash such as the Minister is trying to indulge in now. I ask that the Minister make a statement to the House on the subject and allow debate upon it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable member for Shortland well knows that. I would have thought, out of courtesy to the Minister and out of deference to the importance of the inquiry, that honourable members on the Opposition benches would remain silent and that honourable members on the Government side also would remain silent.

Mr Morris:

– I rise on a point of order. Equal noise is coming from the other side of the chamber, but your constant reference is to the Opposition. Please be reasonable and name the other side, not just this side.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Shortland obviously did not hear me reprimand honourable members on the Government side immediately after reprimanding honourable members on the Opposition side. The Minister will now be heard in silence.

Mr HUNT:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. The existing and alternative pricing policies and the degree of cross-subsidisation will also be examined. In this manner the question of equity between the long and the short haul fares will be addressed. As the House will be aware, this issue has been a matter of particular concern for Western Australian members of Parliament. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the terms of reference of the inquiry.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

INDEPENDENT PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO DOMESTIC AIR FARES TERMS OF REFERENCE

The inquiry is to examine air fares on the trunk routes and regional routes operated by the two major domestic airlines, Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia, with special reference to the way in which fares are set on individual routes in the national network by use of an air fare formula.

In respect of these routes the inquiry should report, and make recommendations as appropriate, on

costs, revenues and load factors

existing and alternative pricing policies

the degree of cross-subsidisation.

The inquiry shall have regard to

the public interest

government domestic aviation policy including the objective of increasing competition

the effect of competition on fares

the Report of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Committee

the desirability of a nationally consistent approach to setting first, economy and standard class fares

vi ) factors which affect operating costs on particular routes

vii) the assignment of corporate overheads

operations of other airlines over routes referred to in( 1’

other relevant factors.

page 2968

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Education aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by many of the young unemployed and their parents at the restrictive nature of the financial payments made under Foundation Course 1980 in that many participants lose their unemployment benefit, which is replaced by a much lower means-tested benefit under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme? Is he also aware of the concern expressed by Department of Further Education authorities that they cannot attract enrolments in the program because of the greatly reduced payments available when compared with unemployment benefit? In view of the general dissatisfaction, will the Minister give consideration to a more practical alternative scheme, as the present scheme appears to be a white elephant?

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The only people who would regard the scheme referred to by the honourable member as being a white elephant would be one or two members of the Opposition. The scheme referred to by the honourable member has the support of educators throughout Australia and, indeed, of the State administrations as well as the Commonwealth Government. In relation to his general question concerning the various levels of assistance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and the relationship of those benefits to the unemployment benefit, I draw his attention to a statement made by my predecessor following the tabling of the Williams report and as part of the Government’s response to that report.

It will be recalled that Professor Williams in his report made some references to the incentives and disincentives that applied across the spectrum as a result of the variations in the various levels of assistance. The Government said that it would examine very carefully those disincentives and would take some action towards rationalisation. That matter is presently under consideration by the respective departments and Ministers and will be considered by the Government in the Budget context.

page 2968

FISHING INDUSTRY

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

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1 969 1 present the annual report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee 1979.

page 2968

AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present resolutions of the ninth meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council held on Lindeman Island, Queensland, on 2 November 1979.

page 2968

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 45 of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Wheat Board 1976-77. For the information of honourable members I advise that this report is being further considered.

page 2968

LIFE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Mr HOWARD (BennelongTreasurer)Pursuant to section 1 1 of the Life Insurance Act 1945, 1 present the annual report of the Life Insurance Commissioner 1979.

page 2968

AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION ON THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Australian delegation on the United Nations General Assembly thirty-fourth session 1 979.

page 2969

SUPERANNUATION

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, I present the annual reports of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation 1977-78.

page 2969

SUPERANNUATION

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, 1 present the interim annual reports of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation 1978-79.

page 2969

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 41 of the Australian National Railways Act 1 9 1 7, 1 present the annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission 1978-79.

Motion ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2969

TRAFFIC RULES

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present a report entitled ‘Rules of Precedence at Intersections- an Examination of Alternatives for Australia’.

page 2969

FAWNMAC GROUP

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

-For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Fawnmac Group 1979.

page 2969

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Study Group on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

page 2969

EDUCATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Education Research and Development Committee 1978-79.

page 2969

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misreported.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does he wish to make a personal explanation?

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman may proceed.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I refer to an article in the current edition of the Bulletin, which must have been published some time yesterday. The article appears under the heading ‘People’, a section to which anyone can contribute without providing clarification. The article referred to the launching of a book written by Russell Schneider. The article stated: . . . it was launched by former Prime Minister Sir William McMahon, you will be excused for assuming that the book doesn ‘t sing Malcolm ‘s praises too loudly.

I launched a book at 1 o’clock today. I accepted the invitation because if I had not the book would have been launched by Bob Hawke. I was asked not by Mr Schneider but by Angus and Robertson. I did not know what the book was about; nor had I discussed it with Mr Schneider. Notwithstanding the words used in the article, I must point out that what I did say was that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had a remarkable track record and that I was prepared to bet anyone there that he would handsomely win the election to be held at the end of this year.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Speaker, during Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BRYANT:

– Absolutely.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation he may proceed.

Mr BRYANT:

-Thank you. I am deeply grateful. During Question Time the Prime Minister referred to Aboriginal programs carried out during Labor’s term of office, in particular those which were generated during my ministry. He used terms such as ‘money that the honourable member for Wills threw about so wildly’. Of course, he was implying that the money was wasted. What I ask him to do- what I challenge him to do- is to turn to the record of projects, which he will find in the Hansard of the first week of October 1973-set out there are 17 to 20 pages of projects established during my term and continued during the terms of my successorsand say which projects ought not to have been carried out and where the money was wasted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is now debating the matter.

Mr BRYANT:

-I am just making it quite clear that I want the Prime Minister to examine the record and find the specific instances instead of perpetrating the racist canards which have destroyed so much of Aboriginal progress.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation he may proceed.

Mr JAMES:

-Thank you. The Leader of the House (Mr Viner) made a speech yesterday on the proposed 35-hour working week during which I interjected ‘Rubbish! ‘ I intended the remark to relate to the whole of the Minister’s speech, but the Minister quickly replied as reported at page 2906 of Hansard:

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 -

Mr Viner:

– You called them rubbish.

Mr JAMES:

– That was in connection with the whole of the Minister’s speech. If he knew the history of the northern coal mines he would think as I think with regard to shorter working hours for men in the bowels of the earth. However -

Mr Viner:

– I was only half way through my speech so it could not have been the whole speech.

Mr JAMES:

– There is a lot the Minister has not learned.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is making a personal explanation. It is the custom of the House to listen in silence.

Mr JAMES:

– Any remarks that I made yesterday, or at any time, were not intended to reflect on my leader. I have complete faith in his honesty, integrity and competence as the leader of my Party.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable gentleman claims to have been misrepresented, he may proceed.

Mr KERIN:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. My attention has been drawn to the fourth edition, January 1980, of a private document in the Parliamentary Library entitled Federal Government

Guide 1980. The editors were Jonathan Gaul and Susan Grant. In itemising all the names of the members of the House of Representatives in alphabetical order my name has been left out completely. To add insult to injury, the item which starts ‘McLeay, Leo Boyce, Member for Grayndler since 23.6.1979’, nearly a year after I was re-elected to this House, states:

He was elected at a by-election following the retirement of Gough Whitlam.

I think that is incorrect.

Dr Klugman:

– The accuracy is the usual accuracy of people who work for the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will remain silent. As I understand the matter, it is not a government publication.

Mr KERIN:
Dr Klugman:

– They work for the Government. They get kick-backs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will remain silent.

Mr KERIN:

– I advise any member of the public seeking a guide to the Federal Government to stick to official publications.

page 2970

QUESTION

EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR UNEMPLOYED YOUTH

Ministerial Statement

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

-by leave- For the information of honourable members, I present a report of a major evaluation of the Education Program for Unemployed Youth, commonly known as EPUY. The evaluation was carried out for my Department by the Australian Council for Educational Research. It was commenced in September 1978. The report gives a detailed account of the methods and results of the evaluation, and is accompanied by a summary which presents the major findings.

The EPUY scheme was announced by the Commonwealth Government in February 1977. Under the scheme funding is provided to the States for the development and conduct of courses designed for young unemployed persons whose educational qualifications are inadequate in today’s labour market conditions. It is important to realise that participation in such a course is not a guarantee of employment. Rather, the aim of the program is to improve the employability of participants.

The purpose of the evaluation was twofold. The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of EPUY in achieving its stated aim of improving employability. A secondary objective was to study unemployed school leavers with a view to learning more concerning their educational, vocational and personal needs. There has been a need for alternative educational processes to be developed for EPUY courses, in order to make education more meaningful to young people who are early school leavers. The study was therefore concerned both with describing and with evaluating these alternative strategies.

The report presents a favourable assessment of the value of EPUY. In particular, it indicates that the scheme is achieving its major objective of increasing the employability of participants. There are a range of conclusions presented relating to staffing arrangements, to the selection of participants, and to the content of EPUY courses. I have asked my Department to review the current EPUY guidelines in the light of the findings of the evaluation, with a view to necessary modifications being made. This review will be carried out in co-operation with the State EPUY steering committees, which include representatives of the technical and further education authorities in each State and of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, as well as of my Department.

The report is particularly timely as 1980 is the first year of operation of a more recent Government initiative, the School to Work Transition Program. EPUY has a place as one of the activities that may be funded under the Transition Program. I believe that there is a great deal of useful information in the evaluation report for consideration in the broader context of the Transition Program. The results of the evaluation are expected to be of particular value to the technical and further education authorities in each State, which are responsible for developing individual EPUY programs. I commend the Australian Council for Educational Research and in particular the researcher, Dr Hubbert for the thorough way in which the evaluation has been carried out. I commend the report to the House.

I present the following paper:

Education Program for Unemployed Youth- Ministerial Statement, 21 May 1980

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-We welcome the statement by the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) concerning the report on an evaluation of the Education Program for Unemployed Youth. I think it is long since the time when this Parliament should have looked at our massive problems of young people leaving school with, in some instances, very meagre educational standards and of the number of young unemployed people in this country. As at April of this year 1 10,400 young people between the ages of 15 and 19 years were unemployed. The unemployment rate for 15 to 19 year olds in Australia is 17 per cent, a figure of which we all should be ashamed. There are 13.6 per cent of all young males of that age unemployed and 2 1 per cent of all young girls of that age unemployed. So, we face a massive problem. But it should not be a question of trying to skate over the problem in the way in which the original announcement of the EPUY scheme was supposed to do. One of the most important assessments- which we could have told the Government when it announced the scheme- is contained in one of the conclusions reached by the Australian Council for Educational Research. It states:

A typical member of the EPUY client group comes from a large family in the lower socio-economic levels of society. The father is a blue-collar worker with at best a secondary education. The typical member has left school during Year 10 of education and has been away from school for about three years, and unemployed for about half this time.

That is a very important conclusion to which many people would have subscribed long before this assessment of the scheme took place. I want to say more about the tables provided in the summary report tabled by the Minister today. It is important to look at the group of young people in Australia that we are trying to assist, because unless we do something far more substantial than this Government is doing at the moment, Australia will remain among the top three nations in the Western world with regard to unemployed youth. We find from the tables that 78 per cent of the fathers of the young people who are using the EPUY scheme or who have been participants in it are blue-collar workers. We find that 91 per cent of the fathers have a secondary education or less.

So, we are able to identify easily the group of young people that we are trying to assist. Eightynine per cent of the participants went to state schools and the overwhelming reason that they left school was that they were enthusiastic about going to work. But a person’s enthusiasm about going to work- perhaps being told occasionally by teachers to leave school as soon as it is possible to get a job- does not overcome the basic problem we have in Australia in that we are discriminating against a very large group of our young people whose job opportunities have not improved very much over the years. The Whitlam Government, which is much vilified by this Government, established the Schools Commission which invested millions of dollars in the educational system of Australia in the hope that we could bring about greater equality of educational opportunities in this country. But still we are a long way from seeing that all young people are able to attain a certain educational standard which will give them greater leverage when they apply for their first jobs.

At the moment many of our young people are not able to find work. In September 1978 the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said: ‘Our experience at the moment, because of the lack of enthusiasm and the lack of performance by government programs, is that many of the 1 10,000 people that we have unemployed between the ages of 15 and 19 will remain unemployed over the next five years. Many of those young people will never find jobs ‘.

I refer to a book that is to be published, written by my colleague, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones). The book is called Sleepers, wake! It will do honourable members good to read it. He refers to a report written in 1976 by Dr Ronald Fitzgerald who was on the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. I want to read what he said because it is basic to what this Government should be looking at when it discusses these sorts of programs. Unfortunately, what the Government tries to do when it has a massive problem like youth unemployment in Australia is to put up the curtains and say: ‘All this looks okay from the outside. Please do not draw the curtains back and look at the mess behind them. Really, the programs that we have announced, whether they be the EPUY scheme, the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Fulltime Training scheme or the Special Youth Employment Training Program, are only scratching the surface of the massive problem of youth unemployment’. I now ask honourable members to listen to what Dr Fitzgerald said:

Success in school and in the competition for rewarding careers is largely determined by such factors as social class, ethnic background and geographic location. The structural inequalities in our society are nowhere more evident than in our school systems. Far from being a way out for poor people, schools act as a sorting, streaming mechanism helping to maintain the existing distribution of status and power.

People who are poor and disadvantaged are victims of a societal confidence trick. They have been encouraged to believe that a major goal of schooling is to increase equality while, in reality, schools reflect society’s intention to maintain the present unequal distribution of status and power. Because the myth of equal opportunity has been so widely accepted by Australians, the nature of unequal outcomes has been largely ignored. Thus, failure to succeed in the competition is generally viewed as being the fault of the individual rather than as the inevitable result of the way our society is structured.

So long as access to careers is restricted to a minority of workers, the familiar stress on competition and academic success within the schooling system will combine to defeat all but very few children of low income families, irrespective of their intellectual ability. As a result, the growing gap between the haves and have-nots in a so-called egalitarian society will continue to widen.

The Government should not say that it is going to make some minor alterations to the EPUY scheme. Sooner or later governments of Australia have to recognise the problems that are confronted by children who come from low income families because the number of admissions to tertiary education and to universities is not changing very much. Less than about 5 per cent of young people go to private schools but over 20 per cent of those find their way into the universities. The reverse is true of young people who go to State schools. That is where we have to attack the problem. If we are to give young people an equal opportunity, that equal opportunity should be given both in schooling and in the encouragement given by the educational system, irrespective of whether they go to a government school or to an indpendent school. That is the problem we are facing. No minor change to the EPUY scheme will overcome that problem.

As I said at the outset, youth unemployment in Australia is of crisis proportions. One hundred and ten thousand four hundred young people between the ages of 15 and 19 are out of work. As the report of the Council has said- these matters have been raised by the Opposition- it is no good telling young children who leave school because they cannot handle the standard school system to partake in the EPUY scheme. It is wrong to put them back into the classroom, which is exactly the situation they have run away from, and say to them: ‘We will now give you extra training so that you can prepare yourself for the work force ‘. Under those circumstances the young people will run away again. The most successful schemes have been those operating in South Australia and Victoria where the Government has given the participants quite different conditions under which to do their training. These young people have been taken away from the school climate altogether and more full time teaching staff have been provided, especially in South Australia. Those things have to be looked at seriously if the Parliament and the Government are to be serious about putting these people back to work.

I want to raise another important point, and the Government ought to be cognisant of it. Whenever we talk about these programs, the Government says that it cannot afford them. It says that Budget restrictions do not allow it to spend any more money on job creation or job training programs. It says that it is not in a position to help the pensioners, to help the unemployed or to do anything for the groups that might be described as disadvantaged. To a very large extent that is what the Carter Administration in the United States of America has been saying in the past few months. However, in the last month the President of the United States has announced a new program which he wants Congress to discuss. He wants an additional $2 billion to be spent on school-to-work transition programs for disadvantaged groups throughout the United States. If Congress agrees to the additional $2 billion, the American Administration will be spending a total of $8 billion on direct job creation, school-to-work transition programs and job training schemes. In spite of the fact that it may have to cut back spending in other areas, it has kept a conscience and a commitment to people whom it believes are more disadvantaged than the run-of-the-mill people in the community. This Government ought to do the same thing.

There should be a very large commitment to overcoming the problem of youth unemployment. The Government ought to be doing what the Opposition has suggested on numerous occasions. The Parliament ought to have committees looking at how we can help these young people. It is no good just using the unemployment figure, as the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs does. One month he says that the labour force figures show that we have 181,000 extra in the labour force. He says: ‘Everything is good. We have mining programs coming up in the 1980s’. The employment figures show a drop of 50,000 this month but he still maintains the same argument that we can sustain growth in Australia and that everybody will find jobs. We know and Government members know that that is not true.

We need an additional massive financial commitment to help these young people back into the work force. We need to have not only direct job creation programs if they be necessary but also a more detailed look at the way in which our education system disadvantages young people who come from low income families. That is what this Council has told us and that is what the Committee of Inquiry into Poverty has told us. That is what everybody who has carried out a similar examination has told us over the years in Australia. It is the one basic reason why the Schools Commission, based on the Karmel report, was established in Australia. That Commission still has not done enough. If this Government ignores the problem and runs away from it again, as it has done over the last 4lA years, there will be absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel for the 1 10,000 young people who are unemployed now, for many of the young kids who have gone back to school because they cannot find jobs or for the couple of hundred thousand students who will leave school over the next five years. The Government, the Parliament and the Executives must make a more serious contribution to the massive problem we have in Australia, otherwise it will become a permanent problem.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned.

page 2973

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill 1980.

Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Bill 1980.

Securities Industry Bill 1980.

Securities Industry (Fees) Bill 1980.

Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1980.

Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1980.

Australian Federal Police (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1980.

Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1980. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1980. Income Tax ( Rates ) Amendment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 980. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980.

page 2973

ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1980

Assent reported.

page 2973

PETROL PRICING POLICY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

The impropriety of the Government’s proposed advertising campaign on energy prices intended to disguise its rapacious petrol pricing policies.

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

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government is about to launch the second stage of its national energy conservation campaign. But this stage of the campaign will be blatantly political. It will not have the informative quality of the previous stanza of the campaign and will be aimed principally at selling the Government’s unpalatable petrol pricing policies. The Government will use taxpayers’ money for clearly partisan political purposes. It has been reported that the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) was not happy with the first stage of the campaign. He did not think it was political enough; there was not enough political bite in it. The Government was not getting enough political mileage from it. So, now the Government is responding to the damage which has been done to its electoral stocks through its rapacious petrol pricing policies. We see now a concerted campaign in an endeavour to try to rectify the position electorally for the Government.

In recent times Ministers, whenever they have been invited to public functions, now stand and attend to the petrol pricing issue. Even Ministers with portfolios completely unconnected with national development or energy are up there defending the Government’s petrol pricing policy. We saw that approach illustrated late last year when the Secretary of the Liberal Party, Mr Tony Eggleton, produced a document for Government Ministers, which was published in the media. In that document we saw priority given to the Government’s petrol pricing policies and the need to explain them. The Government cynically believes that it can explain the policy on the cheap, that is, to use taxpayers’ money to explain it. The money of the ordinary motorist will be used now by the Government to explain away the high petrol pricing policy which is fleecing that motorist in the first place.

Not only will this campaign be an ambitious one, but also clearly it has political overtones. This is seen not only in its content but also in the way in which it will be constructed. There has been no open competition amongst the advertising agencies involved. Four agencies have been selected to apply. An invitation has been issued to them to lodge some kind of pro forma campaign. Of course, it came as no surprise at all that one of those agencies happened to be the Liberal Party’s advertising agency D’Arcy, MacManus and Masius Pty Ltd. That same company has handled the Liberal Party’s advertising for quite some time. One of the other companies concerned is Pope and Kiernan and Black Pty Ltd. We believe that those two companies are now on the short list. The list was short anyway at four but now has been narrowed down to two companies. The principal of one of these companies is Andrew Caro who is seeking Liberal Party pre-selection for the New South Wales seat of Kuring-gai. Andrew Caro is entitled to run an advertising agency. There are many Liberals in this country lurking around industry. The point I make is that Andrew Caro is running for

Liberal Party pre-selection in New South Wales. The Government is not entitled to use him on that basis but, of course, the Government reckons that it has a bet running to nothing. One of these companies is its own advertising agency. One would not get too many marks for guessing the difference it will make to the Liberal Party’s bill when these generous expenses are met by the people of the Commonwealth. When the Liberal Party is billed finally by D’Arcy, MacManus and Masius for its advertising campaign late this year, there will be a little bit of jiggery-pokery with the accounts. They will not reflect truly the real cost which the Liberal Party should pay.

Yesterday, my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) mentioned a matter involving certain banisters in the Greek conspiracy case. There was a clear implication that there will be a little debt settling in that exercise as well. This is a ploy which the Government has undertaken and in which the Government sees a way of relieving itself of this massive commercial cost of advertising. The Government cannot claim in any way that the campaign is informative. Right from the very start, it has been a blatantly political campaign to explain away the Government’s policies in order to manipulate public opinion in such a way as to advantage the Government parties with the cost falling upon the people of the Commonwealth.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not all. There is also an indefensible manipulation of the Public Service. This proposed advertising campaign has been co-ordinated by a number of Public Service departments. I am told that some officers are alarmed- and justifiably so- at the kind of political manipulation which the Government, through Senator Carrick as the Minister involved, is exercising upon what ought to be a non-partisan service, the Public Service. This politicisation has gone far enough. Earlier this year we saw a minute which was presented by the Department of National Development and Energy to the Minister, Senator Carrick, analysing the policies of the Labor Party in respect of petrol prices. I will add a rejoinder on that. I make the point that it is still part of the basic thrust that the Government adopts in this matter. The Government will use every resource available to it, including its departmental staff and the money of the Commonwealth, to explain away its policy. Departmental credibility will suffer seriously in this campaign. Public Service officers will be caught up in the machinations of the Government parties and their reputations put at risk by being part of this campaign, which many of them would find it difficult to resist when having regard to the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) operates.

Recently we heard the Prime Minister criticising some public servants for breaching the guidelines on official conduct. But, of course, the Prime Minister would not mind this action when it comes to advantaging the Liberal Party. We have seen two examples: The first stage of the advertising campaign and now the selection of the advertising agencies. We have seen the policy document prepared by the Department of National Development and Energy. We have seen also a document which I have before me called: ‘What is the Government’s policy on Petrol Pricing?’ This document has been released to schools in the various States trying to explain the Government’s policy. It is a very dishonest document. It poses the question: ‘Why does the Government set a world price for Australian petrol?’ This document never quite gets down to saying why. It talks about the cost of petrol in other countries and the costly search for oil. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), who is sitting at the table, knows quite well that both major parties in this country support import parity or the world price to be paid for oil yet to be discovered. We both support the concept of paying import parity prices for new oil.

Mr Anthony:

– You did not for a long time.

Mr KEATING:

– We did not for a long time? We started it! We introduced it in September 1975.

Mr Anthony:

– It took you three years to make up your mind to do it.

Mr KEATING:

– The Minister says that it took us three years to make up our minds to do it. Ha, ha!

Mr Anthony:

– You criticised me like hell and then went and did it yourself.

Mr KEATING:

– We found that action a little bit unusual on the part of the Minister, whose party is supposed to be the protector of the farmers’ interest, yet he is all about banging up the price of petrol. At the same time -

Mr Anthony:

– And then you did it.

Mr KEATING:

– At the same time as he was so doing, he was lambasting the Labor Party for listing the fuel equalisation subsidy. We could not work out what the Minister was on about and, therefore, did not take much notice of him. The Labor Party introduced import parity pricing in September 1975. The Government knows that; it now has the same policy. We have maintained that policy. The search for oil has nothing to do with the price of old oil which was discovered a decade ago in Bass Strait. Information paper No. 1 has not much information in it. It says:

The Government’s policy on petrol pricing aims to ensure that all Australians have an adequate supply of petrol and other forms of energy both now and in the years ahead.

That is like motherhood. One finds, on reading through this Government Information Unit publication, that in fact it is a Liberal Party advertisement. It is an advertising sheet for the Liberal Party. It is issued by that Unit from Parliament House in Canberra. The Government Information Unit is run by Mr Laurie Power, the former Channel 10 personage, and it is printed by C. J. Thompson, the Commonwealth Government Printer in Canberra. Quite obviously the Government will not abide by any of the norms of decency in respect of the appropriation of public funds. It will just go in and spend itself silly hoping that it can bury the Labor Party’s legitimate objections to this rapacious petrol tax policy.

I have already mentioned the Public Service and the kind of manipulation which is going on there. We found out this week that the Government is now holding a closed conference for top public servants at the end of next month, the sole purpose of which is to explain its energy policies, particularly its petrol policies. The conference is not a general thing that public servants can go to. Certain classifications of public servants have been invited. They have to be selected on the basis of some criteria, I suppose, proposed by the Government. All of these things fit into too much of a pattern. Quite obviously what is motivating all this is the fact that the petrol pricing policy of the Government is killing it in the country. It is killing the Government in the electorate.

The Government cannot explain its policy away on the basis that we need high petrol prices to keep up exploration. That is demonstrable nonsense. Even the paper which was prepared by the Department of National Development and Energy for the Minister himself took the Minister’s argument apart. The paper stated that in no way could the Government claim that there was a need for high petrol prices to increase and continue exploration activity because that runs under the new oil policy. Because the Government finds it difficult to explain the policy it will try to explain it in terms of conservation. In reality it is a tax policy and we all know that everybody in the country is suffering under the impost. An amount of $2,500m this year will be collected by the Fraser Government by way of the crude oil levy- the petrol tax. In the next financial year, without any alteration whatsoever in the rate of collection, the Government will reap $3,000m.

As I pointed out just a couple of days ago in this Parliament in a question to the Prime Minister, to which he positively responded by saying that he will maintain this policy, there is at least another increase of $4 a barrel in the system in respect of the Saudi Arabian price which the Australian Government aligns Australian prices with. That increase will mean an extra $500m. In the next financial year with just a modest increase- the one which is already in the pipeline- the Commonwealth Government will collect, if the Fraser Government were returned to office after an election at the end of this year and continued these kinds of arrangements, $3, 500m from petrol alone. An amount of $2, 500m equals a 21 per cent increase in personal income tax- pay-as-you-earn receipts. If one includes the $956m for the excise on refined petroleum products and the additional company tax from the Esso and BHP companies, the real collection this year will be about $3,496m. If we add to that another $ 1,000m, which is coming through the system, there will be a massive increase in taxation of nothing like 20 per cent but, in fact, about 35 per cent to 40 per cent in real terms, in 1980 dollars.

That is why the Government is now responding to this issue. That is why it is now manipulating the Public Service and why its own advertising agency is trying to ameliorate the costs to the Government’s own organisation for a campaign at the end of this year. That is why public money will be spent by the Commonwealth Government- to explain its petrol pricing policies. The truth of the matter is that we produce 70 per cent of our oil in Australia. Ninety per cent of our petrol is produced from Australian oil. The Prime Minister is always standing up and quoting the prices which prevail in France and Germany and saying that they are higher than in Australia. Of course they are higher than they are in Australia. Those countries do not have any oil. We produce 70 per cent of our oil supplies here. Therefore 90 per cent of our petrol is produced here.

Mr Baillieu:

– What about Great Britain?

Mr KEATING:

– The honourable member is talking about some other country. What about Canada? In the United States of America the price is 30c a litre; in Canada it is 21c a litre; we are at 34c; in Singapore it is 32c; in the Philippines it is 22c; in Indonesia it is 13c; and in Nigeria it is 26c. The prices in the oil producing countries themselves- we are an oil producerare: Bahrain, 14c a litre; Kuwait, 8c; Saudi Arabia, 3c; and Venezuela, 7c. As an oil producer, we have among the highest petrol prices in the world. The Government knows that we do not have to have such high prices. We do not charge the world price for electricity and natural gas. If we do not do it for these things why are we doing it for petrol? The Government is doing it for one reason only- that is, so that the Government can reap the tax harvest at the bowser. The Government has made every petrol pump in the country a branch of the Taxation Office so it can reap this money in to cover the services of government and to put the burden back again on the lower and middle income groups. Whether a person is on $5,000 a year or on $500,000 a year he still pays the same price for petrol- 34c a litre.

Mr Baillieu:

– How much cheaper would it be under Labor?

Mr KEATING:

– The honourable member asks how much cheaper would it be under Labor. The price of petrol will be very much cheaper because we will break the nexus with import parity pricing. We will give Australians the benefit of having an oilfield in their backyard. When we are in government we will not abuse the public purse by relying upon the revenue of the people to be improperly and dishonestly appropriated by government in the services of partisan interest of a political party. That is what the Liberal Party and the National Country Party is doing. It ill becomes the Government to consider spending public money in pursuit of the defence of its indefensible policy on petrol and energy. Let the Deputy Prime Minister stand up and refute the allegations. Let him tell us about the advertising agency. Let him tell us about Masius and let him tell us how he will give his friends a million dollars so that they do not bill him at the end of the year.

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

– We have listened to the usual banal arguments by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) in relation to energy policies. Today he is trying to beat up a phoney issue about the Government’s not accepting its responsibilities to inform and to educate the Australian people as to the energy problems that this country faces. Australia, as an industrialised nation- as indeed any industrialised nation around the world- has an enormmus challenge in front of it to see that its industries are fuelled with secure supplies of oil. This Government has to take measures to see that our industries can keep performing in five, 10 or 20 years time. The Government will not do that if the Australian people are taken in by these phoney policies- the promises of the Australian Labor Party- that Australia can have artificial prices for Oil. That is just not a reality and is not possible in the world that we live in today. Certainly the Labor Party might be able to do it for a few years, but it will not do it any longer. It would put us in a situation of near disaster, if this country is to remain a competitive producer which can sell on the world markets.

Everybody knows that our great industries, whether they be farming, fishing, manufacturing or mining, rely to a very heavy degree on the reliability of oil supplies. Our transport industries depend upon oil. There is no substitute at this point of time for portable energy in the form of oil. Therefore, what we have to do is to explain the situation to the Australian people. We intend to do it by advertising, if need be. What phoney arguments this alert shadow Minister brought up today. An article by Laurie Oakes in the Age of 9 May reveals that he was the one who beat up the story. He telephoned the honourable member and said: ‘What is the Government doing about this advertising business?’. The honourable member knew nothing whatsoever about it. This is all revealed in the article. All of a sudden the honourable member, in trying to justify himself to his own party men, introduced the matter for discussion.

There is a great need for the Australian people to understand that oil is a finite resource. It is scarce and limited. It will become more valuable and more scarce as we move into the future. The only answer to the problem is to try to get Australian people to conserve and to try to get them to understand the Government’s policies of trying to attract industry and people to use alternative forms of energy where possible and to encourage the development of other forms of fuel. That is a major responsibility of the Australian Government, and we intend to follow it through. The key to all these things falling into place is having a true market price for our products. If we try to move away from that other things will not fall into place. While we keep in line with the world parity price all the massive and interrelated decisions will fall into place.

What a sham the policies of the Australian Labor Party have been. One of the greatest legacies of the Australian Labor Party was the consequences of its attitude to energy, to the exploration policies of this country. What did we see during the three years Labor was in office? We saw almost a cessation of exploration in this country. It is to the Labor Party’s complete damnation that it did not realise the significance of the situation in 1973, 1974 and 1975. What did it do? It scared away prospectors and scared away exploration teams and development teams.

Mr Keating:
Mr ANTHONY:

-Let us look at the situation. When the Labor Government went out of office in 1975 there were nine exploration holes and four development holes being drilled on-shore. Today, in 1979, 23 exploration holes and 45 development holes are being drilled on-shore. What off-shore drilling occurred in 1975? There were 19 exploration holes being drilled but no development holes were being drilled- none at all. Now, in 1979, we have 20 exploration -

Mr Young:

-It is 1980.

Mr ANTHONY:

-There will be more in 1980. Eight development holes are being drilled now. Under the Labor Government the great Northwest Shelf development went by to the board. Why? Because the Labor Government took away all the exploration incentives that LiberalNational Country Party governments had given in the form of taxation concessions. The Labor Government jiggered up the in-farming arrangements whereby people could offer leases to other people. It had a xenophobia about any foreign capital coming into Australia. The thought of anybody getting involved in oil exploration was a complete anathema to it. All the Labor Government espoused was its ideas about nationalisation and socialisation of the energy industry, particularly the oil industry. All honourable members remember the background to the Khemlani affair and the illegal Executive Council minute. The Labor Government was trying to borrow $4,000m from overseas. Why? It wanted to borrow that money to nationalise those industries. It is little wonder that the whole area of exploration ground to a halt under the Labor Government. We have paid the price for that in the last few years. If the Liberal-National Country Party Government had not come into office to get things moving again the Australia people would have been in real jeopardy in the future.

This Government is trying to educate the Australian people. I believe that the Australian people understand that every measure has to be taken to conserve oil in this country. Our oil energy policy and our import parity pricing arrangements are working. The consumption of oil is starting to decline. The rate of increase certainly has dropped as against previous years. This Government is encouraging exploration and is encouraging people to look to alternative forms of fuel. Already underway is a massive changeover from oil to gas or from oil to electricity around the country. This is being brought about by the Government’s policies of giving tax incentives and encouragement to people. But, of course, nothing works like the economic force of price. That is the great incentive for people to achieve the most economic use of energy.

Of course, the major decisions being made as a result of our policy relate to alternative synthetic forms of fuel. There has been a tremendous uplift in the amount of research into and interest in methanol and ethanol. These are two alternative forms of fuel to oil. A great deal of research is being undertaken into converting coal to oil or oil shale to oil. Massive amounts of capital will be required if we are to get the necessary quantities of oil to meet Australia’s future requirements. This massive amount of money has to be provided by somebody. The Government does not believe that it can best be provided by Government. The Government believes it can best be provided by private enterprise, by people putting risk capital into these great ventures. If there is any vacillation, if there is any doubt at all as to what is the Government’s firm pricing policy people will delay these decisions. They cannot take the risk of ploughing thousands of millions of dollars into an oil shale venture, for instance, if they do not believe the Government is genuine. If it were thought that the Labor Party would gain office I venture to say that these projects would stop immediately.

The greatest thing that this country has to do is to provide security of supply of oil. Supply is the most important thing. It is far more important than price. Of course, nobody likes the price to go up. This is not a problem unique to Australia. It is a world wide problem. It will not diminish; it will become more and more intense as the demand for oil increases and as oil becomes a more limited resource. Oil is under the control of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which can determine the price and can determine the supply. For Australia to leave itself completely vulnerable to outside sources of oil is to take a completely unnecessary risk. Australia is probably more endowed with resources than any other country, but unfortunately these great energy resources are not in the form of oil. It is only by converting these forms of energy to a liquid form that we will be able to replace our requirements of oil. The Government’s policies have worked in relation to more exploration. They have worked in relation to the development of our oil fields. When we came into office our known reserves were about 1,800 million barrels of oil. Today those reserves have been upgraded to about 2,100 million barrels. They have been upgraded because the oil companies have been given the incentive to drill and to determine the extent of fields and because they have been able to exploit fields knowing that they will get a higher and better return.

The Labor Party has tried to excuse itself for having introduced import parity’ pricing for new oil. It did it and it will stand by that decision. The Labor Government introduced that policy about a month before it went out of office. It took the Labor Party three years to make up its mind that that was the only sensible policy to encourage exploration in this country. The import parity pricing policy for new oil helps to achieve greater exploration. It is also necessary to upgrade the price of old oil to import parity to achieve a proper rationalisation of energy resources in this country and to achieve full utilisation of the oil which is already in the old fields. Unless the producers can get a reasonable return they will not completely exploit and develop those old fields. It is necessary to have one uniform policy right across the board so that all these things fall into place. It is absolute nonsense for the Labor Party to say that it will have import parity pricing for new oil and an artificial price for old oil. All the Labor Party wants to do is to exploit as quickly as possible all the old oil. Any talk of a cheaper price for oil by the Labor Party is nothing but political bidding leading up to an election campaign. It is phoney and it is false. The Labor Party’s policy at the moment is that it will delay passing on one increase in the OPEC oil prices.

Mr Hodgman:

– A con trick.

Mr ANTHONY:

-That is all it is. It is a facade for election purposes. How does anybody know how high the price of oil will go? Some reports suggest that by 1985 the international price of oil could be $90 a barrel. How will the Labor Party stop the price going up? There is only one realistic attitude to follow- the international pricing of oil. Statements by the Labor Party that it will give a lower price do not take account for its policy of implementing a resource tax, a secondary tax. If that policy were introduced we would be back to exactly the same stage we reached in 1972-75. Exploration would just fall to the ground.

If one wants to stifle development in this country, bring in a resources tax. Everybody in the mining industry or the oil industry knows only too well that a Labor government spells disaster for them. It also spells disaster for Australia because if we do not have this exploration and development going on our future supplies of oil are put into jeopardy. There can be no security for our farmers’ continuing the ploughing of their fields or harvesting their crops unless there will be a regular supply of oil in this country in the future. We have to try to become as selfreliant as we can as quickly as possible. With all the delicacies of the world oil situation, nobody knows how long we can rely on a continuing supply of oil coming into this country. We have to try to make our own resources go as far as possible and, thereby, try to encourage as much conversion and conservation as possible in this country. If we have to have an education program by advertising to help, we will do it.

Mr Keating:

– Liberal Party propaganda.

Mr ANTHONY:

-There will be no propaganda and there will be no repeat of the period of the Labor Party in office when it used every Government device possible to try to hold it in office. We have a responsible job to do. We will do it. We realise that there is probably nothing more responsible on the Government’s part than fully explaining the energy situation of this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The right honourable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-One always knows when the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is in trouble. He becomes hysterical, discards the facts and goes for a bit of hyperbole. And if a few lies get carried along the way then that is just too bad.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw. The term is unparliamentary.

Mr DAWKINS:

-A11 right, I withdraw. If a few distortions get carried along the way, that is just too bad. One can tell that the Government is worried. It is worried enough to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on this expensive and blatantly dishonest, and probably illegal, campaign to sell its oil pricing policy. It has to resort to this because its policy is based on a lie, and the Government knows that its policy is based on a lie. The Government says -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member. The term is unparliamentary.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I will not withdraw that. The Government’s policy is based on a lie.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The simple fact of the matter is that the word that the honourable member persists in using is designated as an unparliamentary term, whether it refers to a situation or a person. He has the ability to express himself in adequate alternatives.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The policy is based on total dishonesty. The Government says that its policy is based on -

Mr Ruddock:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DAWKINS:

-Oh, for God’s sake, what is going on?

Mr Ruddock:

– I rise on a proper point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not a satisfactory withdrawal of an unparliamentary word simply to substitute another without a withdrawal.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I withdraw. I withdraw everything. The Government says its policy is based on the need to conserve our oil and to make alternative fuel sources more competitive. That is dishonest. This policy is based purely and simply on the need for this Government to obtain revenue and that is the only justification for this policy. Of course, it is convenient for this Government to tax petrol because it can always blame the Arabs for the resulting increase in petrol prices. Every time the price of petrol increases by $ 1 , Malcolm Fraser gets 83c -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr DAWKINS:

– The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) gets 83c. A total of $4!6 billion has already been collected in the last four years as a result of this policy. As my colleague the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has said, next year with no increases it will raise another $3 billion and, with the increases we already know about, it will raise $316 billion. This is equal to a 23 per cent increase in personal income tax. It is much easier to put the tax on petrol and to blame the Arabs than to increase personal income tax.

The Government has ordered that locally produced crude be priced at world parity. The price is adjusted by the Government in line with Middle East oil prices and the Arabs get the blame. This completely distorts the situation of 90 per cent of our petrol coming from our own oil fields. It is produced very cheaply for as little as $1 a barrel and yet the Prime Minister insists that the people of Australia pay $25 a barrel for Australian oil. It is because of this simple fact that the Government has decided to spend $lm promoting its own distortions about the oil policy in Australia.

The Government says, in its own defence, that it is interested in encouraging exploration. The Deputy Prime Minister said today that what the

Government is really interested in is securing future energy supplies for Australian industry and Australian agriculture. Not one cent of those billions of dollars that have been collected under this tax will go into exploration. If the Government were serious about encouraging exploration it would put some of its ill-gotten billions into the exploration field directly to ensure that Australia can supply some of its own oil and gas needs in the future. There is no guarantee that a cent of the windfall gains of millions of dollars which have accrued to oil companies will go into exploration either. The Government does not insist that the extra money that oil companies getand will get in the future as a result of its policies- should go into exploration.

Mr Keating:

– It is a disgrace.

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Of course it is a disgrace and it reveals the total idiocy of the Government’s policy. It is not interested in exploration. The only encouragement given to exploration in recent times was as a result of the Labor Government’s decision in 1975. The annual report of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd was released today. A report on it states:

The Association said the Federal Government’s commitment -

It should be talking about the Labor Party’s commitment- to import parity pricing for crude oil discovered after September 14, 197S had led to both an increase in exploration activity and spurred greater effort toward the search for alternative fuels.

The thing which has made the difference is the policy introduced by the Labor Government. The only thing which is likely to bring forward new discoveries is the decision to price oil from new discoveries at world parity prices. So all this nonsense about this tax being based on the need to encourage exploration is total nonsense. The Government has said, and the Deputy Prime Minister has repeated it today, that the Government is interested in assuring self-sufficiency for Australia; that is the objective of this Government. If the Government is seriously interested in self-sufficiency it is about time we had a statement from it in relation to the North West Shelf project. This project must proceed. It is vital to Western Australia’s interest and the Opposition has supported it absolutely from the day the project was first conceived.

In the spirit of this bipartisan support for this project it is about time that this Government came forward and told us what is going on and what are the new parameters involved in the scheme. Substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances which surround that scheme, yet we have not had a statement from the Government in relation to the North West Shelf for as long as I can remember. In the absence of that information a number of people are beginning to ask questions. They are drawing attention to the fact that it is the Government ‘s intention to allow fairly substantial exports of gas from the North West Shelf. As I said, we are not opposed to that, but it is about time we got some answers to questions which are being asked in relation to the need for that level of exports which was approved some time ago.

I have a letter from Mr F. Egerton Lefroy. He is not politically aligned, but he has written a letter in which he raises the question of the extra need for capital in relation to the export side of that project and the shorter life of the gas fields as a result of exports. I have asked the Deputy Prime Minister for permission to have this letter incorporated in Hansard. I now seek leave to do so.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows- 22 March 1980

The Editor The West Australian 125 St. George’s Terrace PERTH 6000

Sir,

page 2980

QUESTION

NW ENERGY- THE FALLACY OF EXPORT

I refer to a report “NW Shelf Natural Gas” published by the Conservation Council of WA in October 1979. The relevant figures are not in consistent units and are difficult to understand. But they appear generally in accordance with those published by the NW Shelf Consortium, which are even more difficult to comprehend.

I have therefore prepared two tables comparing alternative end uses of energy, viz: A- all energy to be exported, - and B- all energy to be used locally for home consumption. All cost figures are in 1 977 dollars.

Table 1

N.B. The cost of port installations was omitted from the CC of WA report, but it is a cost which must be met. The figure of $450m is a guess on my part.

The cost of shipping quoted is the high figure of the Consortium. It must be challenged. There is here a stark dilemma. Either the shipping cost quoted is far too low OR the agreed cost of the Royal Australian Navy’s new supply ship is far too high by a factor of 6 to 1. Since the ultimate responsibility rests with the Federal Government, I invite the Minister for Trade to tell us which is which. In addition to the high capital cost of the shipping, there must also be a high operating cost. The round voyage will be about ten (10) times the pumping distance to Perth.

Table 2 can now be set out, observing that the export only energy has been given as 24m units, while the home consumption energy only has been given as 8- 10m units p.a.

Table 2

Table 2 shows quite clearly that, while there is unlikely to be any economic advantage in exporting energy, there must be a catastrophic reduction in field life.

But there are two further aspects of great importance to future Australians:

The energy exported can only be sold for a price determined by the current world price. Its replacement, however, will have to be imported at the future world price (if available at all) in 30 or 40 years time. This price is certain to be much higher than the current sale price. Closing the cycle therefore must be fiercely uneconomic.

As if to rub salt into the wound, the shipping is to be paid for by Australian energy, but is to be owned and operated overseas. What is the national advantage of doing this?

Further, and importantly, there is independent, but compelling, evidence that the cost estimates of the NW Shelf Consortium need revision. The Maui gas field, in the Tasman Sea west of North Island, New Zealand, is being developed entirely without the aid of export income. If export is not necessary at Maui, how can it be essential for NW shelf energy? A lot has happened in the world since the NW Shelf Consortium figures were worked out. They are now only of archeological relevance.

Finally, it may interest your readers to know that the Conservation Council ‘s report on N W Gas of 1979 estimates that the local use of gas would be significantly more profitable, on a percentage basis, than the export of gas, see page 14, para 4 and S. It would also have a much longer life.

All those, therefore, who have children or grand children should sit up and take notice. The reasonable expectations of those children are about to be buccaneered and sold down the river for a mirage.

Yours faithfull

  1. EGERTON LEFROY

70 Labouchere Road SOUTH PERTH Western Australia 6151

Mr DAWKINS:

-I thank the House. Mr Lefroy raises some very interesting questions. These questions have to be answered by this Government, especially if it expects to be taken seriously in its ambition for self-sufficiency in energy supplies. The North West Shelf is the largest energy source indigenous to Western Australia, and if the project does not go ahead there will be very great trouble ahead for West Australian industry, and agriculture for that matter. So it is important that we have a statement about this project and that we know, given the changed circumstances which have occurred in recent times, whether the anticipated level of exports is really still necessary or whether the North West Shelf project can make a greater contribution to selfsufficiency in this country.

The point is that Western Australia more than any other State relies on imported oil for its energy needs. Therefore, the future of Western Australia, more than any other State, is in the hands of the Arabs, if you like. The need is therefore even greater for Western Australia more than any other State to ensure that it is more selfsufficient than it is at present. The only chance of our being more self-sufficient lies in the North West Shelf and the availability of that gas for domestic purposes in Western Australia. The Government’s campaign is based on a distortion. It is only necessary because the Government is embarrassed about its policy. It knows that its policy is doing very great damage. But I assert that its campaign, regardless of how much it costs, regardless of whom it compromises in the process, will fail because the people know the distortions on which the policy is based.

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

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

– It is obvious from the debate that is going on today and from the utterances of members of the Opposition that the Australian Labor Party does not want the public to know of the positive points of the Australian Government’s oil parity pricing policy. They want to keep putting out false information and half truths about this matter. They do not want to admit that the parity pricing policy of this Government is having positive and beneficial effects on the community at large.

I should like to take up a couple of points raised by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) towards the end of his speech. He claimed that the Western Australian Government and the Western Australian public would be penalised more than anyone else in relation to oil prices. It is well known that almost all of the oil used in Western Australia is imported. In fact, I think only about one per cent of the oil refined and used in Western Australia comes from the only possible cheap source of oil, that is Bass Strait, for Western Australia, and all the other oil used in Western Australia is imported at full parity pricing.

Mr Dawkins:

– What about Barrow Island?

Mr COTTER:

-The honourable member for Fremantle asks: ‘What about Barrow Island?’. That just shows the ignorance of the honourable member. Barrow Island has been granted world parity pricing of oil for some years. If the honourable member does not know that he ought to find out about it. So there is no cheap oil coming from Barrow Island at all. The only reason that Barrow Island is developed is that it has been granted world parity price for oil which applies in Australia.

Mr Dawkins:

– That is not true.

Mr COTTER:

– It is true and the honourable member ought to check the facts. He ought to look at a few of the projects which the Labor Party claimed closed down in Western Australia because of the parity pricing policy. Let us take some of the pellet plants in Western Australia, for instance. Every drop of the oil used in those pellet plants in Western Australia was imported directly into the plants and was brought from the Middle East countries at Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries oil prices. So to say that the parity pricing policy has closed down those plants is false and misleading. This is why the Opposition does not want to see the Government advise the public of the facts of these matters.

When we start to look at what the Opposition has in mind we would be quite wise to look at some of the things that the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has said on occasions. Let us turn, for instance, to the newspaper report of an interview of the honourable member for Blaxland by Mr Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald. The report states:

Gittins: ‘Would the resources tax raise more or less than the oil production levy?’

Keating: ‘ I think it would probably raise more. ‘

And again:

Gittins: ‘That sounds to me as if a resources tax is just a different version of “a branch of the tax office at every petrol pump”.’

Keating: ‘ Well it is to some extent. ‘

This is the key to the Labor Party’s policy. It is trying to keep very quiet about its plan for a resources tax but it is well known and has been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) that he would finance his Medibank scheme- a revamped and revitalised Medibank schemewith a resources tax, a tax which would apply across the board. When members of the Opposition talk about this Government’s parity pricing policy and the oil price levies which apply they say very little about the Labor Party’s proposed resources tax. That is the very thing which would penalise and cripple not only the oil industry but also the whole Australian community. It. would not result in cheaper oil. It is false for the Labor Party to claim that under a Labor government oil would be cheaper than it is under a Liberal government. It is quite clear that in raising more taxes and imposing more levies in fact oil and petrol under a Labor government would cost the Australian public a lot more indeed. Members of the Opposition say very little indeed about the beneficial effects of this Government’s parity pricing policy when it makes possible the development of huge coal deposits in the eastern States, the huge oil shale deposits at Rundle and the possibility of conversion of coal to oil. None of these things would be possible without a parity pricing policy.

I debated with the honourable member for Blaxland in a public debate at the Australian National University campus on 27 February 1980. 1 would like to mention a couple of things that the honourable member for Blaxland said at that time. For instance, he was asked this question:

What is the ALP policy on the development of shale oil on the central Queensland coast? Who would you like to see do it?

The honourable member replied:

Well I think there’s an announcement today by the Government that the Esso Corporation has been given the right to join with the Central and Southern Pacific companies in developing the Rundle shale oil deposit. I think it’s a shame that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. is not involved in that scenario . . . If it happens it will happen because of two things: an average grade of ore body; and a very easily back-filled mined ore body which can be bucket-wheeled. Without those factors, Rundle would just be a pipe dream. Parity pricing comes into it, . . .

Earlier in the same debate this question was asked of the honourable member for Blaxland:

Do you think that research and development of alternative fuel has been encouraged by higher prices? It must be effective to hit the hip pocket nerve rather than the Government trying to get things going itself. I suppose it’s better to try to get private enterprise to do it.

The honourable member replied:

That ‘s right. Those things are only a way of lifting the overall national fuel efficiency, that’s all I’m saying. It’s not going to provide every solution, that’s for sure. Of course, over time alternatives will be a function of price.

Those are the sorts of things which the honourable member for Blaxland has been saying quite publicly. In the same debate in answer to other questions the honourable member for Blaxland made similar remarks. It is worth noting what he said in an answer earlier in the piece. He said:

Now what we propose is to replace those multiplicity of levies with one resource tax which allows the deductibility by companies of all their expenditure including new development such as new production platforms that they happen to need in some of these new pools such as Bass Strait. That would return, under the present price, about the same amount of money as the crude oil levy.

A little further on he says:

Where would any future government get $2,500m in tax? Any government, be it Labor or Liberal, is committed now to take at least this level of revenue from oil because the alternative of scrapping the crude oil levy is to find $2, 500m in direct income tax. That would be politically impossible.

Those are the things that the honourable member for Blaxland has been saying in public debate. I personally challenged him on each of those points on that day and it is interesting to note that he has not the fortitude to stay in this place to listen to some of the things he has been saying for some time. It is quite clear and well known that the parity pricing policy has not pushed up the price of oil in Australia. It is the OPEC oil producing countries that have been raising the price of oil. This Government has taken the very responsible step of recognising those rises twice each year. It has consistently said that it will do so and that it will continue to do that. The Government has taken into account those price rises and has made a judgment of how much should be passed on to Australian consumers. But it is a fact that it has taken the lowest available oil price using the base price for the parity pricing of oil in Australia.

There is another point I would like to make in case there is any dispute of the matters I have raised. I refer to the Hansard of 1 1 September 1979 when the present Minister for Productivity (Mr Newman) as Minister for National Development said:

In case there is any doubt about what are the real feelings of the honourable member for Blaxland, I should point out that I know that deep down inside- I have a great respect for him, I must say- he agrees with what we are doing.

The honourable member for Blaxland interjected:

Yes, I do.

That is the sort of statement that we find day after day in publication after publication. It is hypocritical of the honourable member for Blaxland to try to criticise in this place the actions of the Government in relation to import parity pricing for oil. In the absence of such a policy there would be chaos in the Australian oil industry. The price at the petrol pump would be much higher than it is today. It is a myth, to claim, as the Australian Labor Party does, that it would be able to freeze the price of petrol and give the motorists of Australia . lower prices in the coming months.

It is very easy at this stage for the honourable member for Blaxland and other Opposition members to try to buy votes in the coming election by promising cheaper petrol. That is all that they are doing- trying to buy votes in a move of desperation. They know that they have nothing going for them. They know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has a bad image and clearly they are trying to buy a few votes in a desperate last minute move to try to salvage something out of all of this. The Government is completely justified in pursuing- and in giving the public, in cool, rational terms, the hard facts about- the import parity pricing policy. I refer to its positive benefits for the community and the ability of the Government, by the use of such a policy, to keep the price of motor fuel down in Australia. A short time ago the Minister demonstrated that Australia’s fuel prices are low by world standards. That illustrates the benefit of the import parity pricing policy, for not only small areas of Australia but also the Australian community as a whole.

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

page 2983

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present an interim report, with appendices by the Law Reform Commission, on the sentencing of Federal offenders. It was received by the Attorney-General on 15 April. Limited copies will be available in the Parliamentary Library until printed copies become available for distribution.

page 2983

CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH LABORATORY COMPLEXES FOR CSIRO

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of research laboratory complexes for the CSIRO

Division of Applied Organic Chemistry and Materials Science, Clayton, Victoria.

The proposal involves the provision of modern laboratories and associated buildings at a site which is being developed as a major centre of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation chemical research. The new facilities will replace existing unsatisfactory accommodation located at two different sites in Melbourne and will comprise research laboratories, administrative accommodation, library extensions, stores and workshops, technical testing facilities, a special hazards laboratory, and support facilities including roads, car parks and landscaping.

In recommendation six of its report, the Public Works Committee suggests that consideration be given to the inclusion in the project of a site occupational health centre rather than a first aid station. Investigations are now proceeding on how such a centre might be incorporated in the existing design. The estimated cost of the proposal examined by the Committee was $19m at February 1980 prices. I point out that the Committee recommended that construction of the project should proceed. If the House agrees to support the motion, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2984

COMMONWEALTH LAW COURTS, HOBART, TASMANIA

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

The proposal is for the construction of a law courts building to consolidate Commonwealth law courts functions in Hobart at a site in Davey Street. The proposed building is planned to meet the existing and projected accommodation needs of Commonwealth courts and tribunals in Hobart and will include facilities for: The Federal Court of Australia; the Family Court of Australia, including counselling and child minding facilities; the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and other Federal tribunals; the Deputy Crown Solicitor; and support activities including conference and hearing rooms, chambers and a library. It is another project of significance for Hobart and indeed the State of Tasmania.

In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee has suggested that the Accommodation requirement for the Family Court of Australia be reviewed. The Government notes the recommendation and I am pleased to say that such a review will be undertaken.

In its report the Committee made three important observations. Firstly, in paragraph 17 the Committee noted that only limited facilities are proposed for the Australian Federal Police. Secondly, in paragraph 32 it was suggested that the Department of Administrative Services should review its operations to keep abreast of property value movements. Thirdly, in paragraph 36 the Committee pointed out whilst the National Trust performs a vital function in the preservation of historic buildings it should carefully consider any significant financial implications in a request for preservation. These worthwhile observations have been carefully noted by the Government and will be drawn to the notice of the appropriate authorities.

The estimated cost of the proposal examined by the Committee was $8.4m at March 1980 prices. The Committee agrees that construction should now proceed. If the House agrees to support the motion, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– It is with very great pride, as the member for Denison, which is of course the electorate which encompasses the City of Hobart, that I welcome the motion proposed by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) today. I believe it is a very happy occasion for Hobart, and indeed for Tasmania, that the Minister is not only a Tasmanian of some distinction but also a very highly regarded member of the legal profession. Of course he will not be back in the legal profession for many years because his ministerial duties in this place will keep him here.

I am informed reliably that this report of the Standing Committee on Public Works has been presented more quickly than has any other in the history of this Parliament. It is worth reminding ourselves that it was referred to the Committee by resolution of this House on 1 5 April last and that the report has now been tabled in the Parliament, on 20 May. I commend the Committee, especially those members who were able to attend the hearings in Hobart, namely the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey), the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) and Senator Harold Young, upon the speed with which it approached the determination of the matter and the manner in which it conducted its inquiry in Hobart. I would be failing in my duty if I did not place on record my very deep appreciation to the Clerk of the Committee, Mr R. B. Fenton, and his staff, for enabling the hearing to take place as quickly as they did and for enabling the report to be made available to this Parliament before it rose for the winter recess.

The speedy submission of the report has enabled the Minister to introduce the expediency motion and the passage of that motion will enable the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that construction of the complex commences at the earliest possible date.

I do not intend to speak at length and will make only three basic points. Until this court complex is built, Hobart will be the only capital city in Australia without a Commonwealth law courts building of its own. Over the last quarter of a century, Commonwealth judicial matters have been dealt with in borrowed premises, hired premises and premises scattered around the city of Hobart. The Committee found, on the evidence, which was overwhelming on the point, that current facilities were inadequate and unsuitable.

I give one quick example. Unfortunate people who have had to attend the Family Court for the purpose of terminating their marriage have been forced to go to a commercial building, the MLC building, travel in a lift up to the court, and then wait in the passage outside the court until their case comes on for hearing. To make matters especially cruel, at this very moment a new shop is being fitted out on the ground floor of that building. The shop will sell bridal wear and wedding gowns. I make the comment that, in such a sensitive area of human relations as divorce, people have to enter a building, go up in a lift and walk past a wedding gown shop. That is just an indication of the sort of situation with which we have been faced. The Australian Royal Commission into Drugs came to Hobart last year. It had nowhere in which to sit. It had to sit in the State criminal court building. Witnesses rightly complained that it was an inappropriate place.

I could speak at length, but I will not. I commend the Government and I particularly commend the Minister. I must also commend the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for his part in this project. This project is overdue. It is an initiative of our Government, one for which I believe the people of Tasmania will be extremely grateful. The construction period will be approximately 3Vi years. The sooner the project is started, the sooner it will be finished. The expenditure of $8.4m on this project will ensure that we have a Commonwealth law courts facility in Hobart which will meet the needs of the Tasmanian community and the Hobart community in particular until the end of this century. I commend the Government on its initiative and on its keeping faith with the people of Tasmania on this very important aspect of the administration of justice

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I merely express the Opposition’s support for the construction of these Commonwealth law courts in Hobart. I might say that my Australian Labor Party colleagues on the Joint Committee on Public Works have facilitated the quick response to the sending of this matter to the Committee by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) so that we could get on with the job. I shall intrude a slight word of criticism here. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) only yesterday, Tuesday 20 May, criticised the Opposition for not giving him leave to speak. The granting of leave would have been quite unprecedented when this matter was merely sent to the Public Works Committee. It is proper that we should give him leave on this occasion when the matter has come back from the Public Works Committee. Of course we have fulfilled our usual obligation by giving him leave on this occasion. We knew that this -

Mr Hodgman:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr HURFORD:

– It will be a specious point of order and I hope you will name him, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is not a specious point of order. You are being impertinent. The point is that leave is not required to speak on this motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not speaking with the leave of the Labor Party. Secondly, to correct another matter -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s point of order relates to a breach of the Standing Orders. He does not have the Chair’s indulgence to make an explanation on the score of being misrepresented.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is a second point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I will hear the point of order.

Mr Hodgman:

-Both the honourable member for Adelaide and the Hansard record misrepresent what occurred yesterday. The Hansard record states: ‘Leave granted’. You were in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you know that leave was not granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Adelaide is acquainted with the facts. He will make his speech.

Mr HURFORD:

– It is no wonder that this man is taken as a joke in this place. He is looked upon with cynicism. In fact, he now has the reputation of being Hobart ‘s Andrew Jones. Anybody who is in the chamber at this time would know exactly why that is so. As the person who defeated Andrew Jones, I know something about the sort of behaviour that gives rise to such a reputation. There is one thing that is very relevant about the honourable member for Denison ‘s supporting the building of these law courts. Of course, I support it, but it is much relevant that he should do so because after the next Federal election he will have plenty of time in which to practise in those very law courts. Those of us who have to put up with him in this place for this temporary period will look forward to the day when he will go and practise in those law courts. The building of these law courts is long overdue. We are grateful that at last the Government has got around to pursing this matter. The Opposition fully supports the proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2986

ROADS GRANTS BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from IS May, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-This Government has an abysmal record in relation to road funding since 1975. In that period revenue from road users in this country has quadrupled from just under $ 1,000m to an amount now of almost $4,000m. In that same period, from 1975 onwards, Federal expenditure on road construction and road maintenance, expressed in real terms, has been cut by 6 per cent. That cut has not been forced by financial necessity on the part of the Government. It has been the result of a deliberate change in financial priorities. The Government knows what it is about. As I will point out later, the object of the Government’s financial strategy on roads is to continue to force the States into a financial position whereby they will be compelled to bring in a second income tax, or double taxation as it is more properly known. The provisions of this Bill are a grave disappointment to motorists, to road user organisations and to local government units and organisations throughout Australia. Because the Bill provides some Federal funds for road construction and maintenance throughout Australia, inadequate as they are, the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill. However at the conclusion of my remarks I will move an amendment which summarises our objections to and criticisms of the legislation.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide $628m to the States and the Northern Territory in the year 1980-81 for road construction and maintenance as detailed in Schedules 1 to 4 of the Bill. Schedule 5 of the Bill itemises the minimum quotas of expenditure to be incurred by each of the States and the Northern Territory in relation to roads to entitle them to the allocations which are set out in Schedules 1 to 4. 1 emphasise that these expenditure quotas are minima and are usually substantially exceeded by the respective States. The Bill reduces the number of road categories from eight to four. They become: National roads, rural arterial roads, urban arterial roads and local roads. The three former classifications of national highway construction, national highway maintenance and national commerce roads are to be consolidated into the one new classification of national roads, which will also include, as pointed out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), a new road type titled ‘developmental roads’. It should be noted that the currently declared national commerce roads will not be automatically eligible for treatment as developmental roads. The Minister for Transport pointed out in his second reading speech that national commerce roads would only be considered for declaration as developmental roads. I ask the Minister, now that he is present in the chamber, in his response to this debate to give some elaboration of the Government’s intention in respect of currently declared national commerce roads- something that firms up the reference he made in his second reading speech.

The Bill also provides for the amalgamation of the existing rural local roads and urban local roads categories into a single category of local roads. This is a retrograde move, a turning back of the clock, which in effect is a capitulation to the demands of the conservative State Premiers.

It is opposed by the Australian Local Government Association. It means that local councils will be subjected further to the undesirable pork barrelling practices of conservative State governments, aided and abetted by the National Country Party Minister for Transport in this place. The Labor-initiated category of minor traffic engineering and road safety improvements, or MITERS as it was known, is to be abolished. This is a further retrograde step and reflects a continuing abandonment by the Federal Government of responsibility for road safety. Honourable members will recall that a few years ago the Fraser Government abolished the independent Road Safety and Standards Authority. Now, with the abolition of the MITERS program, the Government has retreated one major step further from responsibility for national issues and national matters related to road safety.

It is interesting to note the remarks made by the Minister for Transport a few weeks ago when he addressed the Australian Automobile Association in Canberra. One of the principal subjects discussed at that symposium was road funding for the ensuing triennium. Perhaps I may quote some parts of the Minister’s address to that symposium. He said:

Indeed, I come from an area with some of the worst roads in New South Wales . . .

He went on to say:

There is no doubt that a well planned and maintained road system is a national asset.

That is something about which we would all agree with the Minister. He said:

A poorly planned, maintained road system or a no allweather road system such as some of those systems which exist in my home area is a liability.

He said:

An adequate road system is of vital importance to Australia ‘s future development.

He concluded by saying that an enormous challenge remained and that it would be met only by proper planning and adequate finance. The Minister for Transport, only a few weeks ago having made that statement, a statement with which all Australians who operate a motor car would agree, has turned out to be a dismal failure within the Cabinet room because in effect what has happened is that in the Government allocation of funds for road construction and maintenance for the ensuing year the Minister has accepted, and now tries to market as acceptable, a reduction in real terms in the allocation for road funds to the States and the Territory for 1 980-8 1 .

The President of the Australian Road Federation spoke at the symposium. He said:

At the existing rate of funding the national highway system declared by the Labor Government in 1 974 -

Which this Government has endorsed-

Will not be completed to an acceptable standard until 1990.

I am sure that many motorists do not want to wait until then to be able to use that national highway system. We should remember that the Australian road network consists of something of the order of 866,000 kilometres of road, of which only one-quarter is sealed and half is of less than gravel standard. We should remember also that there has been a growth in motor vehicles use in Australia. In 1938 there were approximately 124 motor vehicles per 1,000 people in our population. In 1979 there were 480 motor vehicles per 1,000 members of the population. That represents an annual growth rate of some 3.4 per cent. In spite of the tremendous growth in the use of the motor vehicle we have a road system that in many areas is decrepit. We have a government whose financial priorities are such that it is more intent on forcing a second income tax upon Australians across the nation. It wants to try to force or manoeuvre the States into the position of having to bear the responsibility for funds that this Federal Government is ripping from road users but is not returning to the States for road construction and maintenance purposes. Let me again refer to what is entitled the ‘bullock track’ system in New South Wales. There are over 1,000 curve warnings on the Princes, Pacific and Great Western Highways alone. There were 14,000 crashes on six specified highways, and 57 per cent of the bridges on those highways are below minimum standard. That is the kind of decrepit situation on our roads in New South Wales alone that this Government endorses.

The Minister for Transport floated a couple of other ideas at the speech he gave to the AAA symposium. It is worth mentioning in this debate that those ideas have hot surfaced. So one must wonder, the Parliament must wonder, just where the Minister for Transport and this Government are really heading in respect of road funding. We have before us a Bill which will result in a reduction in the length of road construction and maintenance that can be carried out. The 1 1 per cent increase in funds provided in the Bill is substantially below the increases that have occurred in road construction costs. At the symposium the Minister also referred to a global funding for roads. He said:

Briefly what I envisage is a co-operative exercise which aims at having transport Ministers- as distinct from governments- arrive at an agreed collective assessment of road needs and funding requirements for the next five to ten years.

He said that each Minister would then go to his respective government.

Mr Hunt:

– A good idea, too.

Mr MORRIS:

-The Minister says it is a good idea. It is a pity that he did not make some mention of it in his second reading speech. This Bill deals with funding for the next year. There is no clear indication in the Bill of what the Government’s intentions are in respect of the years 1981-82 and 1982-83-they are to be announced at the Premiers Conference next month- or of the level of funding. At the symposium the Minister also outlined a third possibility- a formula approach. Again, this was not mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech. However, it was promptly denounced by the State governments as a public relations exercise.

Mr Hunt:

– We made provision for that in the Bill.

Mr MORRIS:

-The Minister mentions that there is no provision. That is the point I am making. Having floated several ideas about how road construction ought to be funded, he then makes no mention of them in his second reading speech or gives no indication to the Parliament or to the Australian road users at large how the Government intends to provide in the future for road constuction or maintenance or when the Government intends to provide a fair return to road users of the money that is being stripped from them in petrol tax by this Government.

As a response to the Australian Council of Local Government Associations the Minister has tried to present the Bill and its provisions as being something that is beneficial to local government, State government and road users. It is interesting to note the response of that body to the announcement of $628m for 1980-81. Councillor Rogers, the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, said that local authorities throughout Australia would be appalled at the Commonwealth’s paltry allocation of $628m for roads in 1980-81. He also said:

The ACLGA has consistently argued what it believes to be a reasonable case for the Commonwealth to increase road funds but it appears to have had little effect.

It has had little effect and obviously the Minister has had little effect inside the Cabinet, where it counts.

The Tasmanian Minister for Transport has pointed out that once again it is the Commonwealth Government that is dictating the real terms and that no credence has been given to the fact that Commonwealth funding for roads between 1974-75 and 1979-80 has increased by 36 per cent in cash terms but road costs have risen in that period by 85 per cent. So clearly the people of Tasmania have been done a great disservice and are being denied essential funds for road construction and maintenance and a level of funds that can be properly justified by any reasonable measure.

The Honourable Harry Jensen, the Minister for Roads in New South Wales, pointed out that the announcement of the proposal for New South Wales of $ 196.5m, an increase of 11.15 per cent above 1979-80, was well below the 38 per cent of warranted road construction in all States. He went on to point out that, like Tasmania, New South Wales was getting a far lesser increase than it should if proper account was taken of increased costs that had occurred in the road construction industry in the past year.

Across Australia there has been a highly organised campaign, and properly so, by road user organisations, by motorist organisations in each State as AAA, the National Roads and Motorists Association and the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria to focus attention on the disproportionate and unfair share of road users’ funds being returned to State governments and the Territories for road construction and maintenance.

I would like to refer briefly to the condition of some of our major highways. The Bruce Highway is critical to the development of Queensland and its tourist industry. The condition of the road is critical in terms of saving lives. The highway is critical in terms of the saving of time and the efficient development of industry and commerce in that State. The realignment of the Marlborough-Sarina section of that national highway has been under construction for many years. At current rates of progress it will be at least three years before it is complete. Meanwhile, in the recent wet season the highway was closed for 33 out of a total of 45 consecutive days.

The Great Northern Highway in Western Australia is intended to connect Perth with the Pilbara and to serve as a link between the mines and ports of the Pilbara region. Work has not yet commenced and, based on current levels of funding, will take eight to 10 years to complete. Large sections of the vital Brisbane-Darwin national highway are unsealed and many major bridges require rebuilding or reconstruction. The highway is critical as a supply line to the Northern

Territory. The Stuart Highway in South Australia is properly titled ‘the graveyard for vehicles’. It is one of Australia’s most unreliable roads. At the current rate of progress completion could take some six to seven years. I will not repeat in this debate the gobbledegook, misrepresentation and repudiated promises made in respect of the Stuart Highway by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), the former Minister for Transport, at Alice Springs late in 1 977.

I return for a moment to the issue of double taxation and what this Government is really about with regard to road funding. A little earlier today we heard the Treasurer (Mr Howard) flay the proposal of hypothecation, a beautiful piece of economic jargon which means the pledging of a particular type of revenue to a particular purpose. He trotted out the traditional, classical and predictable Treasury argument that a particular type of revenue could not be pledged to a particular purpose. I do not know of any organisation which has advanced that proposal as a total approach to road funding. What is being said around Australia, justifiably so, is that road users, particularly those motorists who have to use their private cars to get to and from workthey comprise 62 per cent of employees today, according to the 1976 census- are entitled to and demand, through their organisations, a fair share of the revenue they pay for using the roads to be directed back not only to improving the roads but also to saving lives, in many cases their lives.

Having mentioned the classical and predictable argument and response of the Treasurer this afternoon, let me show a contradiction in that argument. This Government has prepared a number of reports on cost recovery in the transport industry and on its approach to air navigation charges on the basis that the revenue from that industry should equate the cost of the services provided in respect of it. The Government has less than 100 per cent recovery from the aviation industry, but is intent on achieving that rate of recovery. In another area, the maritime industry, the light dues imposed upon shippers and shipping operators for the provision of navigation services fully cover the cost of the services provided to the industry. So one arm of Government policy is based upon ensuring that revenue from the industry equates the cost of providing services to it. To turn that upside down, the Government is taking the opposite view with respect to roads and is saying: ‘We are taking off you much more than we need to meet the cost of constructing and maintaining roads’. It cannot have it both ways. I reiterate again that the Government is saying just what the

Treasurer said very clearly this afternoon: If the States want to divert more funds to a particular purpose than the Federal Government has specified, it is up to the States to use the revenue from the general revenue grants from the Federal Government or from ‘other purposes’. The Government expects those ‘other purposes’ funds to be raised from a second income tax or double taxation.

The Bill also provides for the abolition of the MITERS program, as I mentioned earlier. This is not only a retrograde but also a very sad step because it will mean in the years ahead loss of lives and the maiming and injuring of people on our roads which should not occur if this Government adopts a responsible approach to the funding of road safety improvements and engineering advances. I mention briefly the cost of this. I will quote from Dr Falconer Grant of the Royal Brisbane Hospital. He said:

Motor vehicle accidents are responsible, to a large degree, for the high cost of hospitalisation and for an ever increasing requirement for more hospital beds. At the Royal Brisbane Hospital the average stay for this type of patient is 4 to 6 weeks. At most times of the year, in the same hospital, there are about ISO of these accident victims in orthopaedic beds; and each bed costs the taxpayer about $ 1 15 per day. In other words, about $ 1 7,250 per day, or more than $6m per year, in one hospital.

If we multiply that according to the range of hospitals in this nation we get some indication of the total cost of road traffic injuries. To that we must add sickness benefit, loss of work, ambulance costs, police work et cetera. If increased federal funding for our roads can reduce the annual death toll of more than 3,500 Australians, and if a few hundred million dollars can reduce the figure of more than 90,000 Australians being injured or maimed on our roads each year, I ask the Parliament: What choice do we have? The choice that this Government has taken is to turn its back on that high rate of loss of life and of injury. I would like to quote from the former Minister for Transport who approached the MITERS program in a different way. He sought to gain much political capital from the MITERS program. His Press release of 22 September 1977- just to pluck one at random- stated, in part:

Mr Nixon emphasised that correction of known hazardous locations was an effective and low-cost method of improving road safety. ‘I believe the MITERS program will prevent some of the suffering and hardship caused by road accidents’, Mr Nixon said.

I can cite to honourable members opposite no better authority than the former Minister for Transport speaking in defence and promotion of the MITERS program. It is a tragedy for many

Australians that that program has been abandoned by this Government. It is a tragedy that this Government has stepped back from responsibility in the road safety area generally.

The Minister has claimed, with regard to the overall state of road funding provided by this Bill, that the funds provided will rise by 1 1 per cent compared with last year and that this at least will keep pace with inflation. I have already pointed out that that rate is much below the increase in road construction and maintenance costs. I will take one set of figures, that for bitumen- the major component of road construction. From May 1979 to December 1979 the price of bitumen increased from $149 a tonne to $208 a tonne. I understand that the May 1979 figure has now doubled. The cost of aggregate has increased in 12 months from $14.50 to $20 a tonne. Clearly the cost of those two major components has risen by way above the 1 1 per cent which the Minister seeks to represent, in the increased road funds, as being adequate for the ensuing year, 1980-8 1. The Queensland Minister for Transport has indicated that a 14 per cent to 1 7 per cent increase is required to maintain work in Queensland alone.

What this all flows on to is that if the level of funds is restricted, as indicated in this legislation, people in the road construction and maintenance industry will lose their jobs. Not only will the rate of road construction slow, but also the number of people employed in the industry will diminish. If we look at the share of road funds provided by the Federal Government as a percentage of gross domestic product, we find that in the year 1975-76, 0.609 per cent of gross domestic product was devoted to road funds. That reduced year by year to an all-time low now of 0.474 per cent of gross domestic product being allocated to the States and the Northern Territory for road construction and maintenance.

I have had prepared another table on the basis of the material supplied by the Bureau of Transport Economics. It is headed ‘Road Grants to all States’ and goes up to the year 1979-80. It is based on 1971-72 prices. The figures shown in the table give a comparison with funds provided in the base year of 1971-72. In 1971-72 the amount provided by the Federal Government for all types of road construction and maintenance was $255.464m. In the current year, 1979-80, federal funding for roads is $244.56m, in 1971-72 terms. We find that in every year from 1976-77 onwards federal funding for roads, in 1971-72 prices, was at a lower level than it was in 1971-72. 1 have not had a chance to show these tables to the Minister for Transport, but I seek his approval to incorporate in Hansard three tables, including the last table I mentioned and a table of road grants to all States for the years 1971-72 to 1979-80 in current prices.

Leave granted. The tables read as follows-

Mr MORRIS:

-I thank the Minister and the House. One of the major aspects of road construction and maintenance is its employment component. Some 64 per cent of direct and indirect expenditure on roads goes to the employment of labour. In cases of regional unemployment in particular, this Government ought to be returning a fairer share of road funds, road users ‘ revenues, to road construction and maintenance to increase employment, but in this area again the Government turns a blind eye. All sorts of statements have been made by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) about employment generation proposals and job creation programs. Let me make a comparison between what he says with what has been said by the President of the Australian Road Federation, Mr Farrow. He stated that the estimates of road expenditure required to create one job in the road industry varies from $30,000 to $80,000 per annum. If we take a middle point of $50,000 additional expenditure, the $450m being sought by road user organisations and by the AAA would create employment in a direct way for 9,000 persons. If we apply to that the multiplier of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs of 16 to one- that is the figure the Government’s using; for every one direct job created there are 16 indirect jobs- it means the creation of 15 1,000 new jobs by the utilisation of the money that has been proposed by Mr Farrow on behalf of the Australian Road Federation.

When one compares those figures with the employment opportunities offered in the North West Shelf, one finds that an expenditure of $4.3m is required to create each direct permanent job; in the case of uranium mining it is $650,000 to $950,000 for each direct job created; and so on down to the case of CSR Ltd ‘s Hail Creek project of $740,000 for each direct job created. But in the case of road construction and maintenance this Government steadfastly refuses to return a fairer share of road users’ revenue to road construction. The Government is more intent on continuing with its practice of ensuring that every petrol pump in this country carries the dual function of being a branch office of the Taxation Office. Half of the price being paid at the petrol pump is going straight to the Treasurer in Canberra. I mentioned that I would be moving an amendment. I move:

I conclude by saying that an essential aspect of road construction and maintenance is the opportunity for energy conservation that it offers: Better roads, particularly in urban areas; better traffic management; more traffic signal systems; turning lanes; channelisation; climbing lanes; and passing lanes. These are all part of any responsible energy conservation program. They all come under the MITERS program which this Government is in the process of abolishing. So whichever way we approach the Government’s financial priorities in respect of roads there is no justification for the decision that it has taken other than that road users, per medium of the petrol taxes of this Government, have become the most heavily taxed group in the Australian community. What is happening is happening under the guise of an energy policy. Money is being stripped from road users to be applied to other purposes within Government. A fairer share of road funding should be going back to the lifelines of Australia- our road system. I commend the amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-This afternoon we have heard the usual series of complaints from the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). He has had nothing new or original to say. As usual he has been particularly selective in his choice of facts to present to this House. I was also interested to hear the terms of his amendment in which he complains that the system now being introduced by this Government in this Roads Grants Bill will lead to inequitable allocations of roads moneys to local government. I presume by that that he means that the State governments are not to be trusted to distribute appropriately Federal money to local government. He may well, of course, have grounds to take a serious view of that in, say, New South Wales where it is true that there have been inequitable distributions. But under our policy we take the view very clearly that it is up to the State governments to distribute Federal money in a way that is considered to be appropriate so that there is not a duplication of the bureaucracy. Duplication of bureaucracies is an essential part of basic Labor philosophy. The Labor Party’s one solution for solving the unemployment problem is to produce more public servants and to duplicate jobs in the Federal and State areas.

Let me indicate to honourable members the manner in which it is possible for some local government areas to be unfairly treated even under the past situation. Let us face it; in the past the Government of New South Wales has distributed money between local government councils. I have a letter from the Council of the Municipality of Camden. The letter reads:

Dear Mr Baume,

I refer to your earlier advice concerning the Council’s 1978-79 allocation of $36,000 under the above Federally financed roads scheme, in which you pointed out that it appeared from information available as to the grants approved to other local government areas by the State government, that Camden Council was not receiving its correct allocation.

Following your advice, an investigation was made into this matter and an error was discovered. The error has now been rectified and Council expects to receive a substantially increased grant in 1979-80.

Council wishes to thank you sincerely for your interest in the matter, and for drawing attention to an apparent anomaly, which subsequently proved to be the case.

The fact is that this legislation will not in any way increase the capacity of a State government to misallocate Federal funds, particularly in view of the assurances that have been given by the State governments that they will maintain roughly the same proportions of funds in various road categories. That is simply a side issue to the basic issue. I do not mind if the honourable member for Shortland does not trust the New South Wales Government to do the job properly because, frankly, I do not trust it either. But I am glad to see that the honourable member for Shortland agrees with me.

Let me get to a matter of far deeper significance and that is the selectivity of the honourable member for Shortland in choosing to complain to this House that the Federal Government is not doing the right thing by roads in the States. My interest, of course, is in roads in rural areas. I seek leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard a table which dramatises this situation. I showed it to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) while the honourable member for Shortland was speaking.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Source: Minister for Transport, Hansard pages 718 to 726, 5 March 1980.

Mr BAUME:

-I thank the House. This table shows quite clearly the dramatic increase in the amount of money that has been made available in rural areas for roads by the present Government, particularly in those rural categories which were cut by the Labor Government. These figures are in constant terms- 1971-72 moneyand are calculated after accounting for inflation: In 1974-75 the amount allocated to rural local roads was cut from $ 1 1.44m to $9.82m. The allocation has since been increased under this Government to $ 13.27m. That represents an increase of 16 per cent, the allocation having been but by the Labor Government. That is an increase of 16 per cent after it had been cut by the Labor Party. We do not hear about matters of that sort when the honourable member for Shortland complains about the Federal Government’s performance in relation to roads. We do not hear that from those very few Labor members with rural involvement following the decimation of their numbers at the polls.

The Federal Government has done the right thing by road users in the country. Since 1974- 75, there has been a 14 per cent real increase in spending on rural arterial roads and rural local roads- in other words, since the time when the Labor Government left office. Since 1975- 76, the figure has been a bit higher than 14 per cent. In the category of rural local and rural arterial roads this Government has helped the man on the land whereas the contribution of the previous Government was to cut severely rural local road funding. I hope that local councils and users of rural local roads around this nation recognise the difference between a party that hates the man on the land and which does what it can to destroy the transport systems of the country and what this Government has done.

Mr Innes:

– Why don’t you tell the truth?

Mr BAUME:

– The honourable member for Melbourne asks: ‘Why don’t you tell the truth?’

He has the statistics before him. The overall statistics were quoted in the speech of the honourable member for Shortland. Although the honourable member for Shortland had these specific statistics, he did not have the courage to refer to them during his speech. He was very selective which is typical of him.

Mr Innes:

– You could not lie straight in bed.

Mr BAUME:

– The interjection is typical of the attitude of the Labor Party to rural Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Macarthur address his remarks through the Chair. He should not take any notice of interjections.

Mr BAUME:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I regret that the ridiculous nature of the interjections prompted me to respond. May I -

Mr Innes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. In his remarks, the honourable member said that the Australian Labor Party hated the people on the land. That remark is objectionable and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think that the honourable member for Macarthur went to those lengths in his remarks.

Mr Innes:

– That is exactly what he said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If that upset the honourable member for Melbourne, I ask the honourable member for Macarthur to withdraw.

Mr BAUME:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw completely. I am overjoyed to hear that the suggestion upsets the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes). I would have thought that these statistics dramatised that the party that sits opposite has withdrawn money from rural local roads. If it is not for the reason that it hates the country, there may be another reason. I do not know what that reason is but, whatever the reason, the Labor Party has withdrawn money from rural local roads. These statistics dramatise that fact in real terms after we have accounted for inflation.

I will deal now with another area basically involved in the rural road system. I refer to the Federal national highways and national roads. The bulk of the national roads expenditure is in the rural areas and provides links between the major cities of Australia through rural electorates and, particularly, through the electorate of Macarthur. I have been overjoyed to see the $75m worth of work on the Hume Highway replacement, since I became the member for Macarthur. That $75m has been spent entirely in the Macarthur electorate. This does not take into account other enormous amounts of money being spent on replacing the Hume Highway with a major new freeway system in other electorates. I am overjoyed to hear also, that the New South Wales Minister for Highways, Mr Jensen, at the recent opening of the Maldon Bridge- attended by the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt)- agreed that the last section of the major link between Mittagong and Sydney would be opened before Christmas this year. That is a remarkable achievement.

I congratulate the Minister for Transport and his Department on their enthusiasm and support for this major road system. I thank the Minister also for his attendance in my electorate to cast his eye over the progress of that major system and for his attendance at the opening of the Maldon Bridge. That was part of the National Commerce Roads Program which is now the developmental program. An amount of $ 10m was spent in my electorate on this program. When Labor Party spokesmen get up to speak we do not hear about all these projects. All we hear is the knock, knock, knock and the drip, drip, drip.

Let us examine the facts. When we look at the Federal national highways and roads system which was introduced by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones)- I congratulate him for introducing it- we see that this Government made it operative. In 1974-75, under the Labor Government, $35. 6m- in current money terms- was spent. Last year this Government spent $8 1.1 5m and, since then, the figure has been increased. After accounting for inflation that amount is not insignificant in real terms. Since 1974-75 in constant 1971-72 dollars- those are the ones to which the honourable member for Shortland referred- it has gone up from $24. 14m to $36.3 lm; that is an increase of 50 per cent about which the Labor Party refuses to speak and is too petty minded to admit. When the Labor Party discusses the whole question of roads, it pretends that these dramatic achievements have not taken place.

Overall, when we add the Federal funding for national roads, national highways and rural roads, we find that compared with 1974-75- the Labor Party loves to go back and to mention the wonderful things that it was doing then- there has been a 34 per cent real increase in the amount of Federal money allocated to these vital rural and national roads and highways since this Government came to office. If that is not a recognition of where the real road need is, I ask: For heaven’s sake, what is it? The Labor Party does not know what it is because it does not recognise that that need exists. Its total contribution is to whinge and bellyache about what has happened to urban arterial roads in New South Wales where the State Labor Government has cancelled the inner city freeways project and is trying now to blame the Federal Government for having cut its arterial road programs. Good heaven’s above! The State of New South Wales has multi-millions of dollars of land on the routes of these freeways bought with Federal road assistance. If the State Labor Government wants to spend a lot more money on roads, why does it not sell some of that land? I hope it does not and that those freeways go ahead. They are needed.

At the moment it seems as if the Labor Party’s attack on this Government on the basis of its road programs, is a totally misleading and miserable effort which is designed to mislead those people in the country areas. I am overjoyed that the Minister has announced recently a 17 per cent increase in Federal funding for national highways and development roads in New South Wales this year in addition to the funding that I have already mentioned. In other words, it is not simply the increase of 50 per cent that I outlined: it is much more than that. This year it must be something like a 6 per cent or 7 per cent real increase after accounting for inflation. This increase from $81m to $95m in New South Wales certainly will provide funding for further work on the replacement of the Hume Highway through the southern highlands. It should provide also plenty of opportunity for the building of development roads linking the coal mines in my electorate with the coast. Certainly I hope that those projects go ahead. I hope that we get the co-operation of the State Labor Government in New South Wales in these areas. (

In conclusion I must say that I was very glad to ‘ see the spirit of co-operation which was evident between the Minister for Highways in New South Wales, Mr Jensen, and the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Hunt, at the opening of the Maldon Bridge in my electorate. I wish that that kind of good spirit, that kind of friendly relationship, that kind of recognition of the joint role of the Federal and State governments, and that kind of recognition which is evident certainly in the Labor State Minister, were evident in this House from the people who sit opposite who do nothing more than whinge.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). I seek leave of the House to incorporate that amendment in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The amendment read as follows-

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that-

the Bill fails to provide adequate funds to the States and the Northern Territory for road construction and maintenance in 1 980-8 1 ;

the amalgamation of the former categories of urban local roads and rural local roads into a single category of local roads will lead to an inequitable distribution of road funds to units of local government;

the abolition of the minor traffic engineering and road safety category is a further abandonment by the Fraser Government of responsibility for road safety related matters, and will result in greater delay in the construction of much needed road traffic and road safety improvements;

the Government has again failed to utilise the opportunities for job creation that an expanded road construction and maintenance program offers, and

the Government has refused to provide sufficient road funds to the States and the Northern Territory for 1980-81 for the implementation of a responsible multi-modal plan for transport energy conservation ‘.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House and the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt). Mr Deputy Speaker, the veracity of the statements and the alleged facts contained in the speech of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) are something akin to his actions and his participation in a company called Patrick Partners that went bust.

Mr Cadman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I And that statement objectionable. On behalf of my colleague, I claim it is a reflection on this side of the House. There is no way in which it should be allowed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)Order! The comment has been objected to. It is not warranted in this type of debate and I ask the honourable member for Newcastle to withdraw it.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Is it unparliamentary? Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The remark was not unparliamentary.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-In that case I do not withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It is an imputation against -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-If it is unparliamentary I will withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker. If it is not I will not withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If it is an imputation against a member, it is unparliamentary. I thank the honourable member for withdrawing the remark.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I withdraw the part apropos Patrick Partners. As far as the veracity of the statement that the honourable member has made and the matters that he raised here today are concerned, they are not true. He knows they are not true. He has used them in a manner which is politically dishonest.

Mr Baume:

– I raise a point of order. The allegation that the matters are not true is acceptable. To say that I know they are not true is unacceptable. The remark is a reflection on me and I ask that it be withdrawn. It is an improper and untrue assertion.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I will withdraw that part, Mr Deputy Speaker, because he is such a big log that he would not know whether they are right or wrong.

Mr Baume:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle has withdrawn the imputation. He has called the honourable member for Macarthur a log. Is that what the honourable member for Macarthur is now objecting to?

Mr Baume:

– There may be a Baume which in German may well be a tree, but I wish the honourable member could see the wood for the trees and not call me a log.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member for Macarthur made reference to the amount of money that was allocated to rural local roads as against urban roads and the other categories that were involved under the 1974 road legislation. The honourable member would not know what is going on. Figures can be clearly produced which will show beyond question that the amount of money allocated for rural roads in the 1974 road legislation which was introduced by the Labor Government was increased. As far as rural arterial and rural urban roads are concerned, let us look at the facts. The vast majority of the money that was allocated to national highways had previously come under the category of rural arterial roads. That is why the honourable member for Macarthur is either dishonest, does not know, does not understand or did not read the legislation at that time. He should have been aware of the true position.

Mr Baume:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Before the honourable member for Macarthur raises his point of order, I would remind him that he was very provocative in his speech.

Mr Baume:

– I recognise that.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The truth hurts.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Before he takes his point of order. I remind him of that fact. As he soweth, he shall also reap.

Mr Baume:

– Under Standing Order 303, I must say that I regard the words ‘he was either dishonest’ as offensive and I seek their withdrawal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle was making a qualification, that he did not say that the honourable member for Macarthur was dishonest. He was saying that there was an alternative to it.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, if I might get on with my speech. I listened to him in silence. He quoted misleading figures and I am answering him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Macarthur has been offended by the imputation of the honourable member for Newcastle.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-If the honourable member is offended- I know he has a terribly thick hide- I will withdraw the remark. The Bill provides for a grant to the States of $62 8m for roads under various categories. The whole situation, if one reads the Minister’s second reading speech, is a further example of this Government’s blundering through on a year-to-year basis. Until such time as governments of this country are prepared to plan, not for one year ahead, but for a lengthy period of at least three to five years the States will continue to find themselves in a position whereby they do not know more than a few months in advance what money is to be made available to them.

When the Labor Government was in office it worked on the basis of a five-year plan so that at no time was there a position whereby the States did not know three years in advance what they would get. In other words, the Government created a roll-over situation whereby money continued to flow and the States could continue to plan on the basis of what they would get in the next two, three or four years’ time. This is something which this Government needs to do. It needs a Minister who knows and understands the problems of transport so that the States can at least plan ahead instead of operating on a yeartoyear basis, as we have now, and in the hope that they may get some sort of understanding at the next Premiers Conference.

The Roads Gants Bill is of no use unless we look at the overall question of transport. We cannot deal with roads just as roads. We have to look at the overall position of transport. What is the position as far as intrastate roads are concerned? What is the position concerning interstate roads, interstate railway systems, interstate shipping systems and urban public transport? I listened to the honourable member for Macarthur talk about the need for freeways in Sydney. All the freeways in Sydney can do is to create additional problems for the people who live there at present. They will continue to throw traffic into the central business district of the City of Sydney and the associate city of Parramatta and others which are to be developed in the future.

Unless the Federal Government works in close collaboration with the State governments on the basis of planning the needs of this country the Government will continue to blunder through by creating the problems of pollution in our major cities. Sydney is one of the three worst polluted cities in the world today. Probably it is topped only by Los Angeles and Tokyo. This is brought about by the excessive use of the motor car in Sydney. Freeways will not solve the problem. The greater use of urban public transport is one of the things that will have to be introduced. This Government, by reason of the position which it holds as far as money is concerned, is in a situation whereby in close consultation with State governments it should be able to provide a program over four or five years to upgrade the general standard of the urban public transport systems of the cities of this country.

It was not until the Australian Labor Party came into office in 1972 that an upgrading of urban public transport was introduced with a $500m program over five years which was aimed at improving urban public transport. It was aimed at getting away from the necessity for freeways which are all right so long as they do not involve one ‘s own city. Freeways are great so long as they do not demolish one ‘s home to provide the space to build them or are not in front of one’s home. They are all right if they are in the other bloke’s front yard, but it is a hell of a thing if it is in one’s own front yard. I am not a great supporter of freeways. There is a need to look at the alternative. One alternative is the use of urban public transport. The crowding of vehicles in the CBDs of Sydney and Melbourne can never be catered for. It is absolutely and totally impossible to cater for the amount of traffic that wants to use the CBDs of those cities. People come into this place and state that they hope the New South Wales Government does not sell the land that it has acquired- not so much the Labor Government, but the previous governments- to build freeways. I hope the land is returned to the use for which it was originally intended, namely, for providing accommodation for people. The building of freeways is not the solution.

As far as interstate and intrastate traffic is concerned, there is a need for an oversighting of the requirements by a Federal government, by a Federal department planning the requirements of this country, instead of getting to the situation in South Australia some years ago when the South Australian Government announced that it would not provide any money for the Eyre Highway because South Australians do not use it. The Government stated: ‘Let the eastern States provide the money for it’. What a ridiculous and stupid situation that was. These are the examples which crop up from time to time and which show the need for the intervention of a Federal department of transport. The same thing can be said as far as other interstate roads are concerned, where State governments plan and do things to develop their State and to hell with Australia as a country. Therefore, in the overall picture we need a Federal parliament rather than a Federal government to oversight these plans.

Let us examine the situation in the United States of America. It was not until such time as a federal road authority was set up to plan the road structure of that country that the requirements of interstate traffic were met. This did not apply so much to intrastate traffic, the responsibility for which remained with the States. I would be very disappointed to see this Parliament revert to the situation which applied some years ago when the Treasurer would introduce a Bill and say: ‘Here is $600m. An amount of $200m will be allocated for this, $200m will be allocated for that, and $200m will be allocated for something else’. In those days we would pass the Bill without question and then go home. That is not good enough. Federal intervention and Federal supervision are required.

The speech made by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) is a typical misleading speech. He said that the Government had increased the allocation for roads by 1 1 per cent. What the Minister did not tell the House was that an increase of 1 1 per cent only keeps pace with inflation and that in reality there is no real increase. If one examines the amount that has been allocated over the years for roads one will find that this Government is badly dragging the chain. I have a table that has been prepared by the Commonwealth Library Statistical Service setting out grants to the States for roads. It shows current prices and the 1971-72 prices. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard.

Leave granted. *The table read as follows-* {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP -I thank the House. This table clearly shows that the amount of money allocated in 1979-80 was $565m. In terms of 1971-72 prices the figure was, in reality, $259m. An amount of $628m has been allocated for roads this year. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that at present inflation is running at 1 1 per cent. This means that the additional 11 per cent that has been allocated this year by the Government in reality will only keep pace with the allocation of previous years. In 1971-72 the amount allocated to the States was $238,583,000. The amount allocated in 1979-80, in 1971-72 prices, was $259m. In 1978-79 the amount allocated, in 1 97 1 -72 prices, was $244m and in 1 977-78 it was $244m. Since 1975-76, the year of the last Budget of the Labor Government, when $259m, in 1971-72 prices, was allocated, the amount of money allocated to the States for roads by this Government has declined. The figure of $259m-that is the 1971-72 price-which was allocated last year was in reality only $250m when one takes into consideration the fact that $19m was allocated to the Northern Territory and that in previous years allocations to the Northern Territory had not been included in the total amount. I draw those matters to the attention of honourable members. I have another table which shows excise duty on petroleum products and the crude oil production levy. I seek leave to incorporate that table in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The table read as follows-* {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP -I thank the House. This table shows the rip-off that is taking place. It shows the amount of money that the Government is taking off the motorist. The estimated excise duty on petroleum products in 1980-81 is $ 1,005m. Revenue from the crude oil production levy is estimated at $3,200m. They are the amounts that it is estimated will be collected this year in revenue from fuel. Out of a total of $4,205m this Government will give a lousy $628m to the States for roads. It is something for which this Government has to answer. The Minister tried to confuse and mislead the public by saying that expenditure on roads would increase by 1 1 per cent. All that the Government is doing is maintaining the purchasing power of money as against last year. The record of this Government in previous years is a sorry one. A letter has been sent to me by the National Roads and Motorists Association- no doubt other members have received a copy as well- strongly condemning the amount that this Government has allocated for roads. I do not have time to read the letter. The former Director of the Bureau of Transport Economics, and later a Deputy Secretary to the Department of Transport, **Dr Taplin-** now Professor Taplin- recently made a speech concerning the benefits of increased allocations for roads. I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard* a table concerning that matter. Leave granted. Source: Calculated from BTE An Assessment of the Australian Road System: 1979 Part 1, Table 7.4. The first figure in Table 1 means that there would be about 2,000 fewer accidents annually. The BTE calculations imply that this reduction in accidents would include a saving of about 60 lives annually and almost 500 cases of injury. I have deduced from the sources given by the BTE that' they were valuing a life at $103,000 in 1976-77 dollars, equivalent to about $135,000 in today's prices. Personally, I think the lengths society goes to in other fields to save life indicates a much higher community valuation of an individual life-perhaps $100,000 more in today's values. If this is so then the discounted value of the reduced accidents is increased by almost 50 per cent from $ 1 37m to $203m. The discounted value of $607m for the reduction in vehicle operating costs would result mainly from more economical use of fuel and tires and lessened damage to vehicles. These benefits would be achieved through improved road surfaces, gradients and curves, as well as reduced congestion. {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP -I thank the House. I do not have time to deal with all the facts of the matter, but they are contained in that table. The table clearly sets out the improvements and the savings that can be achieved by an increase in the financial allocation for roads. It shows that a 7.7 reduction in the number of accidents would occur and that a 34 per cent reduction would occur in vehicle operating costs. It shows also that there would be a saving of 10.5 per cent in private travel time and a saving of 28.7 per cent in commercial travel time. This Government talks about saving money. These are some of the things that can be done to save money. I want to deal with the decision of this Government to abandon the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements program. I think we can give the Minister a new name. We can call him the demolishes When he was Minister for Health he demolished Medibank by gradually introducing various new schemes which finished at zero. Now he is in the position of getting rid of the MITERS program. The MITERS program was introduced by me as Minister for Transport in the Labor Government. Anyone who is interested in transport or road safety knows that the MITERS program was one of the best programs introduced in this country to assist in overcoming the problems of road safety. {: .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- Which Minister introduced that? {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP -I told the House who the Minister was; it was Charles Keith Jones, the honourable member for Newcastle. That legislation was introduced as a result of a report prepared under the direction of a Liberal Minister for Transport. An expert group on road safety was set up. It comprised some of the most knowledgeable transport men in Australia. It made three major recommendations. One of those recommendations stated: >The Commonwealth Government should involve itself more directly in road safety and in other ways promote a more vigorous, co-ordinated and multi-disciplinary approach. It also dealt with the setting up of the Road Safety and Standards Authority. One of the first things that the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** did when coming to office was to get rid of that Authority. Now this Minister, this demolisher, is getting rid of the MITERS program. This program was set up as a result of an inquiry carried out by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, and as a result of decisions by State governments and as a result of investigations carried out by departmental officers. Money has been allocated each year for the provision of road safety measures, for the provision of improvements to dangerous roads and for the provision of traffic signs. All of these things are essential if the lives of people are to be saved. Is this Government going to continue to have no regard for the fact that in 1979 alone, 3,504 people were killed in accidents on roads in Australia? In each of the previous 10 years a similar number of people were killed in accidents on the roads. If the Government wants to continue to allow people to be killed on the roads it only has to get rid of programs like MITERS. {: .speaker-KCT} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond: Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-38-0-s5 .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo -In rising to speak to the Roads Grants Bill 1980 one must, of course- as opposed to the honourable member for Newcastle **(Mr Charles Jones)applaud** the Minister for Transport **(Mr Hunt)** and the Government for taking the positive approach it has in providing an increased expenditure for roads. It was easy for the honourable member for Newcastle to say that the Government claims to be increasing the funding for roads by 1 1 per cent. He, of course, is happy to forget that this Government has increased the expenditure on national highways by up to 23 per cent. In real terms, this is a large increase in the allocation for those roads. It is important that the national grid should be funded and pushed ahead as fast as possible by the Federal Government. In the three categories applicable to States the Government has provided an increase of 1 1 percent. {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Bendigo has misled the Parliament. The 18 per cent increase on national highways is only in that particular category. The other categories have suffered as a result of that 18 per cent increase and he knows damn well that what he is saying is not true. {: .speaker-KCT} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond: Order! There is no substance in the point of order. {: .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr BOURCHIER: -Once again, the honourable member for Newcastle is wrong. In my State, Victoria, the increase in expenditure on national highways is 23.3 per cent; in the case of rural arterial roads, 11.1 per cent; urban arterial roads, 10.2 per cent and local roads, 11.1 per cent. This is a proper and significant increase in the funding for roads. If the State Government acts, as it has properly done in the past, and provides its share of money there should be quite a large increase in road funding in Victoria. The honourable member for Shortland **(Mr Morris)** in his speech referred to funding by the Australian Labor Party. When the Labor Party was in government, money did not mean much at all. We had a Treasurer who was prepared to print money. It was easy to spend money without having regard to the proper economic factors or the well-being of this country. The honourable member for Newcastle was a Minister at the same time. I draw attention to the fact that under our tax sharing programs we have provided- by way of States grants- considerable money, which is untied, which the States can use to fund their many areas of expenditure. They do not have to bring in some other extra tax, as the shadow Minister at the table has tried to suggest. Extra funds have been provided, without strings, which the State government is able to allocate in any area it wishes. If the State governments think that road funding is of paramount importance in their States, and I trust they do, they need to do only a little homework- it is merely a matter of tidying up expenditure areas- to allocate far more funds to roads. I am sure that in the State of the honourable member for Newcastle this will not happen. I am sure that it will happen in Victoria. The honourable member for Newcastle also referred to the money that will flow into Government coffers as a result of the parity pricing of petrol. There is no doubt that there will be an increase of funds in Government coffers, but this Government is a government of responsible economic management. I remind the honourable member, when he talks about expenditure on roads, government and all the other areas where expenditure was increased, that the proposed deficit of the Labor Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Hayden),** was $2.8 billion in August 1975. When he had to give up that portfolio in December the figure had risen to $3.6 billion- in three to four months. It was estimated that if we had not taken hold of the proceedings that that deficit would have risen to $5.5 billion. If the Opposition wants to be totally reckless with the economy it can propose to spend money in all directions, but nobody has any real regard for that sort of attitude. I think we can totally disregard any proposals put forward by. the Opposition. I will touch on a matter that concerns Victorians in my part of the State and people from New South Wales and other areas. A proposal was put forward that there should be an extension to the national highway grid. It involves the proposal that the Calder Highway from Melbourne to Mildura be part of a new national highway that would extend to meet the highway in the centre of Australia going to Darwin. Of course the highway from Adelaide to Sydney would meet up with those major roads. This proposal was put forward some years ago. In discussions that I have had with the Minister for Transport he has indicated to me that a review board will be looking at the program of national highways and development roads. It could well be that this road could be considered a development road because, under his interpretation of them, it is a road that has vital interstate links and opens up the opportunity for industrial development. I commend the Minister for listening to my proposal and request that this road be given serious consideration by the review committee. For many years the Calder Highway has been of some concern to both State and Federal members of parliament. We have always sought to have this road upgraded to its proper level. We have never had much success. Unfortunately, it becomes the ham in the sandwich. The State Government tells the local governments in the area that the situation is caused by a lack of Federal funds. The Federal Minister quite rightly has said up to now that the Calder Highway is part of the State highway network and it is the State's responsibility to fund it. Somebody has to be prepared to face up to the problems. The Minister at the table is prepared to look at the position with his review committee. I am quite certain that if the result of that review comes out in such a way as to indicate that this Calder Highway should be properly classed as either a development road or a national highway- I hope the latter- then the Federal Government will accept its full responsibility and provide 100 per cent funding. I look forward to that with hope. As I have mentioned, Victoria is to receive a considerable amount of funds. In the interim, whatever happens in regard to that review committee, I certainly hope that the Victorian State Government and the Country Roads Board- the body that looks after the building of roads in Victoria- listen to the requests of State members and take note that the Calder Highway is an area that needs a tremendous amount of attention in a hurry. It is a major road and an outlet from Melbourne to the north-western part of Victoria. It opens up the whole of that area which is developing greatly and we definitely want to see that road brought up to the proper level of a major highway instead of being the unfortunate, dangerous road it is at present. At this point I mention to the Minister at the table that I note from the proposal that the funding is for only a 12-month period. This has been done deliberately by the Government to allow State Ministers, the Federal Minister, the departments and other interested bodies to put forward proposals for a restructuring of road funding. I have always had a special theory on this matter. No doubt, the Minister will not be terribly delighted with this because, if it were accepted, he would obviously lose some of his portfolio and that, understandably, is a little touchy. Nevertheless, the Minister will take it in the manner in which it is given. I suggest to him that the Federal Government could, in the review of this whole situation, examine getting right out of road funding except for the national highway and development road system. I have always believed that State and local governments should be responsible in looking after the various expenditures under their control and without either monetary or other interference from the Federal Government. Our doing this would necessitate our increasing funds to State and local governments under the tax sharing program by a proportion that would ensure that neither received less funding than they did under the existing road funding. Whether they spend that money on roads would be entirely their responsibility. Equally, they would have to stand by that responsibility. If a State or local government under such a scheme failed to provide adequate roads to their areas, I am certain the voters would take just action and the members concerned would earn their just rewards. I ask the Minister to consider this matter. I will forward a paper on it at a later date. I brought the matter before the back bench committee of which I am a member, and we have been looking into the matter. I understand the Minister has thoughts- which he has outlined in his paper- of looking at a proposal by which local governments possibly can receive direct road funding from the Federal Government, or certainly some guarantee that local governments will receive proper funding for local roads. I commend the Minister for this. I ask him to extend his thinking a little further to look at the proposition of providing funds through the tax sharing program and thereby, once and for all, provide adequate funds to local governments so that they are masters of their own destinies and so that the roads are no longer a contentious issue which seems to be bandied from one government to another as an excuse for their not getting on with the job. {: #subdebate-38-0-s6 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -The Roads Grants Bill 1980 is a very significant Bill because it involves some $620m. It provides for non-repayable grants to the States. I am in agreement with the wide range of opinion that has been expressed to the effect that the amount is inadequate. When one takes into account that in four years this Government has collected some $4,300m in oil taxes, the amount can be regarded as inadequate on that basis alone. Taking into account the fact that the average Australian family is now paying about $800 per annum in petrol tax, one can understand that the community at large seeks to get something back. When one realises that taxes through the petrol pump now exceed all the company tax collections in Australia- the revenue from all company taxation- one can see further justification for the claim for additional funds for roads. When one takes into account the fact that government income from oil alone has risen from $2 50m a year to $2,500m a year over a four-year period, one can stake a claim, quite justifiably, for more money for roads. This Bill shows the low priority that this Government places on the national roads program. The funds provided will not keep abreast of rising costs. The Minister for Transport **(Mr Hunt)** asserted in his second reading speech that in real terms expenditure has been maintained. It is an assertion which the Government cannot really sustain. Just taking into account the rate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index alone, it is unlikely that inflation for the year 1980-81 will be contained to 1 1 per cent, which is the extent of the increase in road funds grants. The present policies of the Government have lifted the rate of inflation in the last year to 10.6 per cent. According to all the economic indicators, it seems that the increase in the rate of inflation for 1980-81 will be a lot more than the 0.4 per cent that is needed to bring the figure up to 11 per cent. The rate of inflation could well pass 1 5 per cent in 1 980-8 1 . The Bill provides for only one year's appropriation, and I think that is a matter of concern. I know that there is a ministerial undertaking to continue triennial funding arrangements after discussions with the Premiers at the coming June Premiers Conference. But the signs are that the level of funding could well be reduced. If this Government should happen to be returned after the next election and it set a new scale of funds over a triennium, there is no doubt in the world that the amount which we now claim is inadequate would be reduced even further. State and local government authorities are not in a position to set their programs on a three-year basis. They are unable to plan. Anybody who has anything at all to do with roads would understand the need for forward planning in acquisitions and matters of that kind in order to get on with a roads program. I, at least, as a former Minister for Housing and Construction and as one who has sat on roads inquiries of the Public Works Committee, have looked at the subject. But, unfortunately, that forward planning is not evident in this case. The States and local government just do not know what the amounts will be for the future. The inadequacy of the Commonwealth's funding arrangements can best be illustrated by the response of State Premiers, of local government spokesmen, of motoring organisations and of just about anybody who can be regarded as an authority on this kind of issue. I will make some mention of these comments. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -Prior to the suspension of the sitting I instanced the widespread concern of spokesmen associated with the road construction industry, local government and motorists' organisations about the inadequacy of the funds to be provided under this Bill. In the Melbourne *Age* of 29 April reference was made to an Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting. The article states State Transport Ministers yesterday asked the Federal Government for a 1 6. 1 per cent increase in road funds. Not 11.1 per cent, which is the extent of the increase provided under the Bill. The article continues: >The Federal Transport Minister, **Mr Hunt,** at a meeting in Melbourne assured his State colleagues he would present their claims forcefully in Cabinet. We now know that the Minister failed in those representations to Cabinet, so apparently he joins the disenchanted array of spokesmen from organisations and instrumentalities on this issue. Apparently he feels, as does the Opposition, that the amount should have been upgraded to a realistic level. The article states further: > **Mr Hunt's** promise soothed the Ministers, who met in Melbourne for a special meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council in the hope of learning how much the Federal Government would give them. We know now that it was all to no avail. The States based their request for an increase on the 16.1 per cent figure recommended by the Bureau of Transport Economics and on the huge rise in Federal revenue from fuel taxes, a matter to which I referred extensively in the earlier part of my address. I note that a press release by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, following a meeting in Melbourne on 28 April, states: >State Ministers also supported the assessments by the Bureau of Transport economics which showed that a 16 per cent per annum real increase in total roads expenditure was warranted. They also pointed to the decrease in Commonwealth road allocations as compared with substantial increases in State and local government roads expenditure in recent years. State Ministers acknowledged the budgetary problem . . . . . . they stressed that additional roads expenditure was economically worth while and would contribute to growth and development in the national economy. That is a quotation from an official news release after that very important conference. There are many articles on the subject. I have yet another. It is from the *Sydney Morning Herald* of 1 9 May. Usually I do not quote Press articles, but it is a good way of showing the widespread resentment at the Government's action in this matter. This article is headed 'Three-State attack on funds for roads' and mentions firstly that the President of the Australian Automobile Association, **Mr Rodney** Evans, had said: ... the $682m allocated for next financial year was totally unrealistic. Then the article quotes **Mr K.** Bourke, the spokesman for the National Roads and Motorists Association, as stating that the 166,000 New South Wales motorists who had signed coupons demanding better roads would see the allocations as a shocking decision. **Mr Bourke** is reported as stating: **'Major upgrading** of the road system is particularly necessary in New South Wales, which has worse roads and more vehicles than other States . . .' 'The benefits which will result from better roads are irrefutable. ' 'Inflation would be attacked because transport costs would be reduced. The toll of death and injury would be cut. Petrol would be conserved, pollution reduced. ' Those very forceful arguments are made by a man who speaks for the motoring public of New South Wales. In the political area a man called **Mr Hinze** the Minister for Local Government in Queensland, who is anything but a Labor supporter, is pretty critical of this whole matter. I cannot quote everything that he said, but in part the report continues: >Queensland needed at least $ 1,000m over the next three years to provide even basic facilities, **Mr Hinze** said. **Mr E.** Drinkwater, the Chief General Manager of the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, is reported to have said: . . . Victoria's grant was $ 12.6m more than the last one, but 1 6 per cent less in real terms because of inflation. So it goes on and on. I have before me an article from the Sydney *Daily Telegraph* of 1 8 February headed 'Wran demands better roads deal'. It states: >New South Wales Premier **Mr Wran** has demanded that as 'a matter of priority' the Federal Government earmark part of the new petrol tax to improve country roads. That is a fair proposition, and relates to what I said earlier. The report continues: 'In the past four years the State Government 's own contribution to road construction has risen by 80 per cent while Federal funds increased only 32 per cent, ' **Mr Wran** said. 'Allowing for inflation, the New South Wales contribution to road building has risen in real terms by 20 per cent during the past four years while the Commonwealth's contribution has fallen in real terms by 20 per cent. If the Minister disputes that, he will have the opportunity to put both **Mr Wran** and me right at a later stage of the debate. I notice that the honourable member for Maranoa **(Mr Corbett)** is the sole representative in the chamber of the National Country Party, or whatever it is called these days. I think it is called that in his State and different names in other States. He would be interested to know the view of the National Farmers Federation, because I know he has upheld its view on many occasions. I have in my hand the Federation's Press release of 14 March 1980, No. 22-80, which states that **Mr Whitelaw,** the executive director and spokesman for the Federation, had said: . . . funding arrangements for road construction between Commonwealth and States and also between States and local authorities left much to be desired. ... the States were forced to apply inequitable tax raising measures to attract the necessary funding. . . . the root of the problem with regard to road financing arrangements rested with the Commonwealth Government which was 'too stingy ' with its allocations. {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr Corbett: -- Who said that? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -The spokesman for the National Farmers Federation. I wonder whether the honourable member will deny the truth of that assertion. I will be interested to hear his remarks in the Committee stage of this debate if he dares to participate in the debate. I am inclined to think he will be too embarrassed to do so. One could quote pages of Press statements. For instance, there are the remarks of **Mr Field,** the Tasmanian Minister for Roads, as reported in the Hobart *Mercury* of 19 April 1980. The article states: 'In view of the Federal election and in view of the end of the triennium agreement this year on road funding, I urge all road users to campaign to have something done about the increasing funding, ' **Mr Field** said. **Mr Field** said that since 1974, road funding had risen by 36 per cent, but road costs had gone up 86 per cent. Are all of these people fools? It is perhaps fair for the Government to assail the Australian Labor Party and to seek to discredit it, but will the Government also discredit the spokesmen for the States, for local government and for the automobile organisations throughout the length and breadth of this country? I have referred to the views of local government. A report in the *Canberra Times* of 2 May 1 980 stated: >The Australian Council of Local Government Associations called yesterday for a substantial increase in Commonwealth funds for roads in the 1 980-83 triennium. The Council would probably be very disappointed to know that a forward-looking, rolling, ongoing program for the triennium is no longer in existence. That has been abolished too. The article went on to state: >The Commonwealth should spend at least $700m on roads in the 1980-81 financial year, compared with about $S58m it would spend in the current year. I notice that a recent Press release by the Australian Automobile Association headed '250,000 Motorists Demand Better Roads ' states: >Failure to provide adequate Commonwealth funds to improve the nation's roads could cost the Federal Government significant electoral support . . . It continues: >The benefits of good roads cannot be challenged. The road programme envisaged by the Bureau of Transport Economics would pay for itself in just three years and, over 20 years, would return benefits up to four times the amount invested. It further states: ... the State motoring organisations have been campaigning for an increase of $3 5 4m in Commonwealth roads grants to $900m in 1 980-8 1 . So it goes on. I will not have time to quote more, but many other similar reports are available for quotation. I hold in my hand a Bureau of Transport Economics report entitled 'An Assessment of the Australian Road System 1979'. It shows the percentage share of road funding by levels of government from 1974-75 to 1978-79. What is meant by levels of government, of course, is local government, State government and Federal government. The report is to the effect that in 1974-75 the Commonwealth's contribution was 32.2 per cent and that in 1978-79 it was 27.3 per cent. That is a very significant drop. I do not have the figure for 1979-80 but I am assured that it is in the vicinity of 28 per cent or maybe marginally under. It has fallen from 32.2 per cent in 1974-75. The Bureau of Transport Economics, in that report, states: >Trends in road funding by the three levels of government from their own sources is shown in Tables 4 and S. I will not be able to give the figures but will use the Bureau's summary, as follows: >Table 4 shows that State Government funds allocated to roads grew at the greatest rate, averaging 18.3 per cent per annum over the period. Commonwealth funding (in both the > >States and Territories) grew at the lowest rate (7.4 per cent per annum). The figures are given but I do not have time to go through them. I am very concerned about the inadequacy of funds for roads, for a number of reasons. Foremost among them, of course, is the consideration of road safety. The withdrawal of the national Government from the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Program, known as the MITERS program, represents a major blow to the campaign to bring down the national death toll on the roads. The sums allocated to the program since 1974 total $74m. On each occasion last year that the then Minister for Transport, **Mr Nixon,** announced Commonwealth grants to the States he stressed the importance of the scheme. It is important indeed. Let us look at the road traffic accident fatality rate for Australia for 1979. Some 3,504 fatalities are record in the Commonwealth statistics. I also notice that the incidence of road accident fatalities was 4.762 per 10,000 registered motor vehicles. It might help honourable members realise how alarming that situation is if they relate it to two other matters which the whole of Australia regards as important. The Army battle casualties in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War totalled 11,609 dead and 29,162 wounded, compared with 14,427 Australians killed and 360,261 injured on the roads between 1974 and 1977. We know that nationwide in 1980 more than 3,500 fellow citizens will be killed on the roads, and more than 90,000 will be injured, most of them requiring hospitalisation. The cost will be enormous. One would like to develop this theme. A serious mistake is being made by this Government. Not only will many people die or suffer injury, but also many people will suffer inconvenience and enormous costs which otherwise would have been avoided. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr** MillarOrder! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-38-0-s7 .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa -- I shall take just a few moments to touch on some of the matters that were mentioned by my friend the honourable member for Hughes **(Mr Les Johnson).** He made a number of mistakes. I will pick up only a few of them, to some extent for the sake of his education. He talked about the abolition of the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Program and what he saw as the resultant danger. In fact, the money that was being spent on the scheme has been incorporated in funds for road development and road construction. It has been taken away from the category to which it previously belonged. The State governments have looked for a change in categories. Some $74m has been spent over the last six years. That is not a lot of money to spend on roads. The costs of all the casualties were incurred in spite of the money that was spent in that area. Maybe we should look for a better way of spending money in small amounts. We could incorporate the funds in better schemes. We would get better roads as a result of a better allocation and a better use of the funds that are available. I congratulate the Minister for Transport **(Mr Hunt)** and the Government on the Roads Grants Bill and the proposed increases in expenditure on roads which it encompasses. The Government has maintained expenditure in real terms in every area, in spite of the very great need for this Government and any responsible government to maintain stability in the economy. That is one thing that the Labor Party, in its disastrous years, lost complete sight of. It is apparent after listening to the honourable member for Hughes that the Labor Party has not learnt its lesson yet. It would spend money regardless of whoever asked for it, whether it be a State Government or any other organisation. Provided an organisation asked for money, it would be provided with it. To follow that line is to follow a road to economic disaster, to the disadvantage of Australia and, indeed, of all Australians. The funds that are allocated in this Bill have to be considered against the increased untied grants that have been given to State and local government. I find that State governments are continually asking for just that. They are asking for more and more untied grants. Surely they cannot have it both ways. If they receive the untied grants, those untied grants can be used in any way that they want to use them. Certainly local government bodies have been delighted with the percentage of personal income tax collections which has been allocated to them. It has been a lifesaver for them. Local government is now receiving 2 per cent of income tax collections. If the honourable member for Hughes wants some percentage figures to show what progress is being made, that represents an increase of some 36 per cent. That is just one area in which an increase has been made. I think it is something in which the Government can take some justifiable pride. I appreciate that it would be desirable, if we could consider roads in isolation and did not have to consider the national economy, to spend more on roads. Sure, it would be a good idea. There is plenty of room in which to spend money. But, as I mentioned, at the same time we have to look at the situation against the background of all the expenditures that the Government has to incur. We must maintain economic stability. If we do not do so we will have the type of inflation that existed under the Labor Government. We will have increased interest rates and all the ills that go with irresponsible economic management of a nation. I do not have time to develop that theme much further, although I would certainly like to do so. I turn to the categories of roads. The Commonwealth Government co-operates with the States on road matters. The States have asked for a decrease in the number of road categories. That has been agreed to. We have reduced the number from eight to four. I would have liked to have seen the number reduced only from eight to five. I would have liked to have seen the Government do what has been done in respect of national roads and encompass three in the one. But we are maintaining in this area four categories of roads; namely, national and development roads, rural arterials urban arterials and local roads. I would have preferred to see the two categories of local roads maintained in the same way as two categories of arterial roads are being maintained. I put this proposition forward because it would have been logical to have retained a division in local roads also. Not only does justice have to be done, justice also has to be seen to be done and we must ensure it is done. This may not apply in some States although the Government hopes that the States will maintain their percentages in these areas. So whilst I commend that idea, I believe we could have retained a division in local roads to the advantage of everybody who wants to see how money is being spent. I do not think the cost would have been much greater if that had been done. The amount involved is not minor. The amounts are: Rural arterials, $92.3m; urban arterials $ 109.9m; and local roads combined $ 148.1m. Although a lot of money is involved there will not be a great deal of saving in administration. There are many aspects of this matter but unfortunately I can deal with only a certain number. It is a matter of selecting the features that one would most like to emphasise. Before leaving the category of roads section of this legislation, let me say that the local roads area was seriously depleted by the Labor Government. This is the area that the Labor Government cut into most heavily. This is recognised throughout Australia. In fact a Labor candidate for the seat of Maranoa said that he would not have anything to do with Whitlam at all. He said that the National Party might have paid **Mr Whitlam** to go to Brisbane. This is one area in which we can compare the performances of the Labor Government and this Government. I want to refer to the safety measures that were mentioned by my friend the honourable member for Hughes **(Mr Les Johnson).** States have the money to use on roads or parts of roads which they consider should be made safer. I believe that this money will be spent in a more efficient way as a result of this arrangement. Once again, let me say that the need for safety on roads cannot be over-estimated. Accidents are not always caused by the condition of roads. All accidents do not occur because of bad roads. Many accidents are due to human error such as speeding. It is a good idea to remember that when we are looking at the question of road safety. Nevertheless we should certainly be looking at the need to provide safe roads. The Government has stipulated that roads must be built to a required standard. This is one of the factors that has caused considerable expenditure on roads. Roads which carry heavier flows of traffic are required to be of a higher standard. Therefore, they are more costly. As a result of that requirement roads all over the place are continually being rebuilt. The Government very wisely is looking at a standard of construction that must be maintained if we are to have the type of roads which we need to serve this nation and which will provide a safer road system for the Australian people generally. I would like to comment on a number of other matters. It is hard to cover all the points that I wish to raise. I only wish I had time to develop my arguments because I believe that the Government has a very good case. This Government is asking for quotas. It is asking the State governments to pull their weight. One Opposition speaker mentioned certain people. However, these people are always looking for more money. We could not satisfy them no matter what we gave them. What this Government is doing courageously in an election year is limiting the expenditure in various categories to below what it would like to give. It is doing so in the interests of national economic soundness. {: .speaker-0F4} ##### Mr Braithwaite: -- It is being responsible. {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT: -As my friend the honourable member for Dawson said, the Government is being responsible. I would like to see more funds provided. I even suggest to the Minister for Transport that he might examine this area even more closely despite the ground work that has been done. I refute completely claims that the Minister has met with a lack of success. I think he has done a wonderful job in persuading the Government to allocate the funds that it has to this area. Quite contrary to what has been said, the exact opposite is true. The Minister deserves the gratitude of all Australians for what he has done in that direction. I will conclude my remarks because my time is limited. The Deputy Whip is glaring at me in an effort to get me to sit down. However, finally I want to say that we on this side of the House and this Government recognise the tremendous value of roads. We will increase expenditure on roads as much as we possibly can. A Labor Party speaker said that we have done away with triennium arrangements. That is not right. Funds will be made available for this year, but following the Premiers Conference we will take into account the other two years of the triennium. We are cooperating with the State Governments in a way that the Labor Government never knew how to. That Government wanted to have only a federal government with a few regional people, to the great disadvantage of so many Australians. We recognise the great need for roads. We also recognise the tremendous importance of roads in defence and tourism. The honourable member for Petrie **(Mr Hodges)** will be glad that I mentioned tourism because he is so interested in that subject. We will get benefits from the money that is spent on roads. We will be looking at improvements in road development and expenditure in line with improvements in our national economy. {: #subdebate-38-0-s8 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith **-Mr Deputy Speaker** - {: .speaker-00ATA} ##### Mr Hodges: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I realise that my Queensland colleague, the honourable member for Griffith, would like to speak in this debate. However, I am afraid I must move: Question resolved in the affirmative. Question putThat the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr Morris's amendment)** stand part of the question. That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question putThat the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr Morris's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) AYES: 67 NOES: 27 Majority....... 40 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. In Committee The Bill. {: #debate-38-s0 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr HUNT:
Minister for Transport · Gwydir · NCP/NP -- I wish to address myself to several matters in the course of the Committee discussion. The first point is that the honourable member for Shortland **(Mr Morris)** indicated that I did not make any reference at all to the concept of a formula approach which was mentioned in an address I gave during a seminar sponsored by the Australian Automobile Association earlier this year. If he re-reads the second reading speech and reads the Bill he will find that there is in the Bill provision for the establishment of a formula approach with the States. Indeed, I said in my second reading speech that I have proposed to the States that we examine the possibility of developing a formula approach appropriate to individual States to cover the distribution of Commonwealth grants to local government authorities. The reason I think this is absolutely necessary is that there have been occasions on which the Commonwealth's efforts in the area of road funding have been obscured, largely as a result of the administrative arrangements for the handling of Commonwealth grants by some State governments. I think that local government has a right to be able to comprehend the degree to which the Commonwealth Government is assisting local government authorities with road funding. In my State of New South Wales I have no problem whatsoever because the Commonwealth Government funds local government roads in that State to the extent of 100 per cent. Local government authorities are well aware of that and the amount of money that we make available to New South Wales is observable. The arrangement that exists in New South Wales, is, I think, an excellent one which perhaps should be followed by other States. I want to discuss this matter with the States in the course of the next 12 months. There has been criticism that this is a oneyearonly piece of legislation that will provide funding for the financial year 1980-81. I indicated in the second reading speech that the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** will be announcing at the Premiers Conference the total amount of funds that will be made available to the States for road funding purposes over the next triennium. We are introducing one-year legislation now to appropriate funds and to give me the opportunity of talking with the States about a number of matters. One of them includes the way in which the Commonwealth Government provides funds through the category system to the State governments to assist them with road funding programs. Suggestions have come from several quarters that there should be only two categories of roads grants- for national roads and for other roads. Discussions relating to the way in which funds are allocated to the State governments for road funding purposes will take place in the near future, certainly within the next financial year. Of course, as soon as those discussions have been completed I will report to my Government and make to the legislation any necessary amendments arising as a result of the discussions with the States. The honourable member for Macarthur **(Mr Baume)** was accused of misrepresenting the road funding arrangements. I make it quite clear that I had his figures checked out and they are accurate. I think he has given a very accurate account of how the Commonwealth Government has in fact, funded roads in the States for the last six years. From the financial year 1974-75 until this financial year 1979-80, there has been an increase of no less than 50 per cent in constant 1972-73 terms. There has been a 50 per cent increase in real terms for national highways and roads. {: .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr Young: -- Where are all the good roads? That is what I want to know. {: .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr HUNT: -- The honourable member for Port Adelaide asks the question: Where are all the good roads? Some of them happen to be in South Australia. By the time the South Australian Government is finished he will see excellent roads. The Stuart Highway will be finished within the next seven years. I am certain that, with this level of funding from the Commonwealth Government and also with the proper appropriation by the State governments, we will see a continuation of the development of the roads system in this country. Sure, we would like to see a lot more money spent on roads. Not one person in this Parliament would not like to see enormous increases in road expenditure. I would be the first to say that as Minister for Transport. But at the same time I have to be as responsible as every other member in Cabinet in order to ensure that we do not allow inflation and the economy to run out of hand. Our principal and primary responsibility must be to maintain this economy in a way in which we do not allow the advantage that we have to be dissipated by irresponsible and extravagant expenditure at a very difficult time. So we have to ensure that the funds that we allocate to road expenditure are consistent with the general economic policy that we are adopting to maintain an advantage to the export industries and to the general level of economic growth in Australia. By world standards, the Australian economy is poised in a position where we can take great advantage of the development of the resources of this country. I thank honourable gentlemen on this side of the House and particularly the honourable member for Maranoa **(Mr Corbett)** for the contributions that they have made to this debate. I have complete sympathy with the problem of the honourable member for Maranoa in trying to represent an electorate which is so large and so remote. He has a great sympathy for the people who are not served by good roads. But he is a responsible and sensible man. He recognises that there are constraints under which we have to operate. He has applauded the way in which the Government has extended a sympathetic consideration to Queensland. In the next 12 months, of course, I will be talking about the quotas and the way in which the funds are distributed to the States. Clearly there are two States that have not fared well in the last decade. These States are Queensland and New South Wales. In some way I hope that we will redress that situation and continue to allocate funds on a needs basis to ensure that those parts of Australia that are badly serviced by roads at the present time will not be badly serviced in the next decade. That is one of the reasons why, I must say, we have adopted a policy of ensuring that the great increase of funds is going to national highways and developmental roads and roads that are necessary to ensure that there is a balanced development in this nation. That is reflected, of course, by the 18.4 per cent increase that has been allocated to national highways and developmental roads. With those few words, I thank the honourable members who participated in this debate. Some other questions were raised by the honourable member for Shortland and I will see that he receives answers in due course. {: #debate-38-s1 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr MORRIS:
Shortland -- I wish to say something about being responsible. Is the Government responsible in keeping half a million Australians out of work? Is it being responsible by condoning the death of 3,500 Australians a year on decrepit roads? Is it being responsible in abolishing the Road Safety and Standards Authority? Is it being responsible in abolishing the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Program which has achieved the greatest return in human terms in road safety and on a benefit cost basis of any roads program? Is the Government being responsible in those actions? That is what Government members have been telling us for the last hour or so. Of course it is not being responsible. What they see as being responsible is spending $40m on two VIP Boeing 707 aircraft for overseas trips, $50m on the new High Court Building and $60m on the Casey University. That is where the money that ought to be allocated to road construction, road maintenance and saving lives in this country ought to be going. That is what being responsible is all about. We have sitting opposite us a bunch of economic squanderers. I do not see a group of responsible administrators but a bunch of economic squanderers. In a vote taken on the construction of the Casey University the other day, there was a split in the Government ranks. The Public Works Committee report was thrown out. That is the Government members' version of being responsible. Let us hear no more about the Government being responsible. In my speech in the course of the second reading debate, on the subject of funding I asked whether the Government's policy supported formula funding, global funding or funding similar to what is contained in this Bill. The Minister for Transport **(Mr Hunt)** responded that provisions are made for formula funding. A reference to that fact is contained in his second reading speech. I direct attention to clause 16 of the Bill. The clause is headed 'Principles relating to allocations for local roads '.Sub-clause 1 provides: >The Minister may enter into consultations with the appropriate Minister of a State for the purpose of formulating principles relating to the making of allocations . . . Sub-clause (2) of clause 16 provides that the Minister 'may make a determination'. Obviously, that is the aspect to which the Minister referred a few moments ago. Clause 16 merely provides a means for the Minister to discuss with State Ministers for transport an alternative method of developing allocations for urban local or rural local roads. {: .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: -- It is co-operative federalism. {: .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr MORRIS: -- It is coercive federalism because the two categories have been combined. Now that my attention has been drawn to it, I make that point. The Government has abolished the power of local government to have some say whether local road funding goes to the metropolitan areas or whether a fair share goes to the rural areas. What the Government has done is to place local government at the total mercy of the conservative State Premiers. {: .speaker-LE4} ##### Mr Baume: -- Don't you support what is being done? {: .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr MORRIS: -- Be quiet, little man. {: .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr Young: -- You were talking about his mind, were you not? {: .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr MORRIS: -- I was talking about his integrity more than anything else. This Bill places local government at the absolute mercy of conservative State Premiers. There is a capitulation by this Government. A reference was made a few moments ago by the Minister to the table of figures on road funding and the comparison between rural local funding, urban local funding and urban arterial funding that was incorporated in *Hansard* by the honourable member for Macarthur **(Mr Baume).** What both gentlemen deliberately avoided mentioning was that under the 1974-77 program of the National Roads Grants Act, the Federal Government accepted for the first time 100 per cent financial responsibility for national roads, national highways and national highway construction. The expectation was that the 20 per cent cost previously borne by the respective State governments in respect of national highways was to be allocated by the State governments of the day to the local road programs, particularly to rural roads. As history shows that did not happen. That 20 per cent saving on the part of the State in respect of national highways was purloined by the State premiers and applied to other purposes. So for the sake of accuracy in the record and to keep the integrity of the honourable member for Macarthur and the Minister for Transport in order I point that out to this House. I finish my remarks at this stage because of an undertaking to allow the honourable member for Griffith **(Mr Humphreys)** to speak in this debate. {: #debate-38-s2 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith -I point out to you, **Mr Chairman,** and to the Committee, how amazed I was at the speech of the honourable member for Maranoa **(Mr Corbett).** Whilst I have great respect for the honourable member I was amazed to hear him say that the roads in Queensland were not the cause of the fatalities in the country areas; it was the mad drivers. I will have to take him to task on that point. I have driven on roads in the honourable member's electorate for many years and I can say that they are absolutely disgraceful. They are only one track roads and when a big semitrailer comes along one is pushed off the side of the road and down into the ditch. The people who are dying on the roads in Queensland country areas are dying because of the disgraceful roads in those areas. I will deal again with that matter later in the very short time that I have available this evening. I would like to take up one of the many specious points made by the honourable member for Macarthur **(Mr Baume)** during his contribution to the debate; and that is a generous description of his effort. He referred to the scrapping of the inner city highway program in Sydney. The honourable member for Macarthur blamed the Wran Government, and there is nothing new about that. He always blames the Wran Government regardless of the facts. Yet he has the nerve to call members of the Opposition knockers because they echo the sentiments of every motor association and every State and local government representative throughout the country. I point out to the honourable member that the Australian Journalists Association newspaper in Queensland, the *Clarion,* revealed that the Main Roads Department in Queensland has scrapped its multi-million dollar north Brisbane freeway project. The official explanation given by the Minister for Main Roads apparently is a lack of finance and the Queensland Minister sheets home the blame to the Federal Government. Presumably the honourable member for Macarthur would blame the lack of finance on the Queensland State Government. When we come to who is responsible for the foul-up in our road system in this wonderful country of ours the conservatives run for cover. It does not matter whom they leave holding the bag as long as the heat is off them. The Opposition outlined its main objections to the Government's Roads Grants Bill in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Shortland **(Mr Morris).** I wish to emphasise one aspect of the Bill which has received little attention. It appears that the Minister for Transport **(Mr Hunt)** has been misled by his own Department. I refer to the abolition of the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Program known as MITERS. The Minister has provided a set of figures which purport to be the percentage increases in road grants for various categories in each of the States. For example, in New South Wales the national development roads category has increased by 17 per cent; rural arterial roads supposedly by 1 1.5 per cent; urban arterial roads by a pathetic 9.54 per cent; and local roads by 11.15 per cent. All figures are substantially below the rate of inflation. As has been shown by other members of the Opposition, these figures are a farce. The previous year's figures did not take account of the MITERS component. When the figures are adjusted so that they are a true reflection of the categories of spending for the last year, they certainly are revealing. For example, the amount spent on urban arterial roads ends up at a miserable four per cent and rural arterial roads at a shocking minus two per cent. If we add to that the ravages of inflation- which is now into two-digit figures- we have an accurate picture of what this Bill has done for the roads in New South Wales; and the same applies to the various categories in other States. I say quite deliberately that somebody is handling the truth carelessly about the state of our roads. {: .speaker-OD4} ##### Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister. {: .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr HUMPHREYS: -Two Ministers. I have come to that conclusion because two National Country Party Transport Ministers- one State and one Federal- are saying two different things about the state of roads in my home State of Queensland. The two National Country Party Ministers, the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, who I might add is best known for his ability to lose friends and insult people, and the Federal Minister for Transport- indeed, successive Federal Transport Ministers- have differed publicly and privately about the Federal Government's role in the funding, administration and maintenance of Queensland roads. When two National Country Party Ministers say two different things we know that at least one of them is bending the truth. Knowing the National Country Party as I do, both could be guilty of twisting, stretching and bending the truth for their own political ends. I wish to deal with the critics of the Government's road funding record; critics other than the Queensland Main Roads Minister. There is a great weight of criticism notwithstanding the Queensland Minister's very considerable weight. The Government has been reproached from all sides of Australian politics, from all levels of Australian Government, and from every major automobile association in the country. Indeed the Government has come under fire from every corner of this country for its abdication of responsibility over national road funding. Even the grand old man of the Liberal Party, the Western Australian Premier, has rapped the Government on its knuckles for its neglect in the Pilbara. It is the north-east corner of my home State which naturally interests me. It is the north-east portion of that State which has one of the most legitimate grievances as far as road funding and maintenance are concerned. {: .speaker-OD4} ##### Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- They are National Country Party seats, are they not? {: .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr HUMPHREYS: -Yes, they are all National Country Party seats. {: .speaker-OD4} ##### Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- You would think they would be in here showing an interest in the debate. {: .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr HUMPHREYS: -As the honourable member for Parramatta has observed, there is not one member from the National Country Party here this evening. How many times must the Government be reminded of the Marlborough-Sarina horror stretch? Members of the National Country Party are now interjecting that they are listening to a lot of nonsense. I wonder what they think about the MarlboroughSarina horror stretch. They know quite well that there is no nonsense in that horror stretch. How many people must complain, be inconvenienced and left stranded in floods and how many people must die before this Government accepts its responsibility? {: .speaker-EG4} ##### Mr Fisher: -That is rubbish. {: .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr HUMPHREYS: -The National Country Party member is saying that it is a lot of rubbish. The honourable member for Maranoa knows very well that the majority of people who die on Queensland roads die in that area. The honourable member for Maranoa is back in the chamber. As I said before, I have great respect for him. I am sure that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek when he tried to defend the National Country Party Ministers here and back in Queensland. *Government members interjecting-* {: .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr HUMPHREYS: -There honourable members go. They cannot take it and are whinging now. Listen to them whinge. They know what is happening in Queensland. I say to the Minister that it almost sounds as though the budgetary context is something over which the Government has no control or responsibility. The Minister really did not need to say that. It is a standard apology for all Ministers who preside over the most fundamental and far-reaching cuts in expenditure that have ever been imposed by the Australian Government. {: .speaker-EG4} ##### Mr Fisher: -- That is rubbish. {: .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr HUMPHREYS: -At least I am having a go. The honourable member will not have a go because he is disgusted with the roads and the funding of roads programs by the Government. Certainly to say that the expenditure on roads must come within the context of the budget priorities is superficially reasonable. The Government's priorities are of its own making and are determined by its own Cabinet. Of course, that Cabinet is totally dominated by the nineteenth century economic obsessions of its Prime Minister **(Mr Malcom Fraser).** When the Government says that it must spend within the Budget context it means that it must spend in accordance with the Prime Minister's outdated, one-eyed economic obsessions. I turn now to Queensland. In Queensland the saying is: 'All roads lead to Kingaroy'. In Queensland the debate never ends over who is responsible for what the Bureau of Transport Economics describes as the worst amount of underspending on roads in any State of the Commonwealth. According to the report of the Bureau of Transport Economics last year, at page 151, paragraph 2 expenditure in Queensland was two-thirds of the efficient allocations with underallocation in all categories other than rural local roads. As I said earlier, all roads lead to Kingaroy in Queensland. The report tipped the bucket on Queensland's roads and rightly so. It was noted that the only category of roads in which spending was adequate was rural-local. Naturally, such roads are in the electorates of members of the National Country Party. There was a great Main Roads camp on Highway 1 near Caboolture and without any ado the Premier lifted it up and took it away to the Kingaroy area. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon J. D. M. Dobie)- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-38-s3 .speaker-0K4} ##### Mr WILSON:
Sturt **-Mr Deputy Chairman** - Motion (by **Mr Bourchier)** agreed to: >That the question be now put. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-38-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Mr Hunt)-** by leave- read a third time. {: .page-start } page 3012 {:#debate-39} ### COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 1980 {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by **Mr John** McLeay: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect -As every member of this House is aware, the existing provisions relating to electoral expenditure are totally inadequate and impose quite unrealistic limitations upon the expenditure by candidates. On the other hand, there is no existing provision in the Commonwealth Electoral Act which limits electoral expenditure by political parties although one can argue about that point. The problem is fairly clear to all of us in this Parliament. I have been aware of the problem when I became a member of parliament in about November 1969. Looking through my files I noticed that I put a question on notice back in 1970. The question appears on page 1573 of *Hansard* of 1970. 1 asked the then Minister for the Interior: >Which members of the present Ministry in the House of Representatives completed Form G under section 1 5 1 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act following the Federal elections held in October 1969. **Mr Nixon,** who was then the Minister for the Interior, gave a list of members of the Federal Cabinet who had completed form G as all of us are obliged to do under the Act. It was interesting to note that a large number of Ministers had not signed that form. The Ministers were as follows: The Honourable Alan Shallcross Hulme, **Senator Anderson,** the Honourable Billy Snedden, Nigel Hubert Bowen, Charles Barnes, Dame Annabelle Rankin, William Charles Wentworth, **Senator Reginald** Wright, **Senator Cotton, Senator Drake-Brockman,** the Honourable Tom Hughes, **Mr Peacock** and **Mr Killen.** {: .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- Which year was that? {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -That was returns lodged in 1970, for the 1969 election. The interesting thing is that the people who did not return the form G included all the barristers in the then Cabinetpeople such as Tom Hughes, Peacock and Killen, **Senator Wright, Mr Bowen,** Snedden, et cetera. It was quite clear that the people in that Ministry who had some knowledge of the law realised the problem and decided not to lodge a return. It is interesting to note that amongst the people who did complete the form were the Honourable John Malcolm Fraser and the Honourable D. L. Chipp, who now tells us that he would prosecute people who do not complete the form and try to stop them from taking their seats in this House. I would be very interested to hear a defence of **Mr John** Malcolm Fraser stating that he spent less than $500 in an election, even in 1969. {: .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr Young: -- He would not spend his own. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -- I know that he would not spend his own money. I must admit that I have never completed that form. When I became a member of the parliament and received the form for the first time I made some inquiries. I was told not to complete it; that there was no penalty attached if I did not do so. I did not search the Act- I was not that interested- but I did think that no penalty would apply under section 1 5 1 of the Act. If honourable members look at the Act in more detail they will find that under section 161 (c) and section 162 there is in fact a penalty for what is called in the Act: >Any contravention by a candidate of the provisions of Part XVI of this Act relating to the limitation of electoral expenses: That includes the non-filling in of the form. It states that any contravention is considered to be an illegal practice. Any illegal practice shall be punishable as stated under section 162. The section states: any other illegal practice That is one of them- by a penalty not exceeding One hundred pounds, or by imprisonment not exceeding six months. I do not know what I would have done had I previously been aware of the fact that I had broken the law and was liable to a penalty of six months imprisonment. The Opposition believes that there should be a limit on the amount of money spent and that there should be disclosure of sources of the money. Whilst we realise that following from the episodes in Tasmania there is a great problem involved for all of us in this House which must be overcome before the next Federal election takes place, we do not think that the present method of going about it- abolishing all the limits for practical purposes and eliminating the whole of section 162- is the appropriate way of dealing with it. Therefore, I move: We are talking about large sums of money. It is very difficult to work out the exact amounts, but if we look at the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for 1977-78 we will see the total expenditure. I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard* a table which I have drawn up on this question. Leave granted. *The table read as follows-* {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -- I thank the House. The table shows that the expenditure on radio for political advertising was $481,602 and on television $1,697,738, which is a total of nearly $2.2m. That is a huge amount of money whichever way one looks at it. The amount of money which is paid to commercial radio and television stations is only one aspect of the matter. All political advertisements have to be prepared. Those of us who have been involved in election campaigns know that the preparation, for example, of a television advertisement, costs a large amount of money- $5,000 or more. Many of them are then scrapped because by the time the advertisement is finished it is not the most appropriate issue to be shown on television. We are probably talking about an amount of $3m just for radio and television advertising. On top of that, of course, huge amounts are necessary for newspaper advertising, leaflets and any sort of literature such as how-to-vote tickets and so on. Money is required to be spent on - {: .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, does it? {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -The point I am putting to the House is that in the long run it does cost the taxpayer a lot of money. I would like to put my view on the record again. I do not necessarily argue that my view should be adopted by any committee which may be set up. A long time ago, in my first term in this Parliament in May 1970, as recorded at page 2566 of *Hansard,* I said: >I suggest that we might consider in this country a 20c surcharge every year on every one of Australia's 5 million taxpayers. This would raise $ 1 m per year for political purposes. We should provide for the right to contract out. In other words, people are entitled to say: 'I do not want that 20c surcharge to go towards the political democratic process'. I believe the idea could be sold to people on the basis that it is important to have money available for the political process. I stated further: >But I feel that few Australians would begrudge 20c per year to make democracy more effective. The obvious point there is that most of that $lm raised would finally finish up with the owners of the mass media for advertising and they would be likely to give us a reasonably good run on that sort of proposition. That is what I said in 1970. Basically I still hold to that point of view. What I am arguing for today is that a committee be set up to investigate this matter to provide some intelligent suggestions. Let us examine the sort of money that is required for election campaigns. I think it is probably true to say that about $4m, if not more, is needed for a Federal election campaign in Australia. To get that sort of money parties must sell their souls. Do not let us kid ourselves. The Liberal Party has argued repeatedly that if the Australian Labor Party is given, say, $20,000 from the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union then it is under some obligation to that union. But what happens when the Liberal Party and the National Country Party accept amounts of well over $100,000 from the Utah company and other mining companies? It is my view that the removal of the coal levy- I think most people in Australia who think about it would agree with this- returned much more money to Utah than it spent to get this Government elected. But it cost the taxpayers many millions of dollars-much more than any potential subsidy for the political process. The changes in the coal levy could be justified only on the basis that there was an obligation to a group of contributors on the part of the Government. Similarly, this situation applies to oil companies, life assurance offices, banks and so on. These particular arguments will be put by my colleague, the honourable member for Port Adelaide **(Mr Young).** I should like to refer to the *Australian* of 1 August 1978 which reported on the hearing of fraud and conspiracy charges against two former executives of the fallen Gollin empire. **Mr Keith** Compton Gale was one of the persons charged. He faced 14 counts of fraud and two conspiracy charges involving more than $lm. One of the people who gave evidence on the day before this report was published was a Japanese witness, **Mr Hirao** Yamamoto. The *Australian* of that date stated: > **Mr Yamamoto,** a citizen of Japan and an employee of Toyomenka ( a trading partner of Gollin 's ) for 20 years-plus, was stationed in Sydney for Toyomenka during the period February 1972-August 1975. > >He told the court that at one time when he was asked to call at **Mr Gale** 's office, **Mr Gale** - **Mr Gale** was one of the people charged; he was the managing director of Gollins- told him he **(Mr Gale)** wished to make a donation of $25,000 to a political party. He said **Mr Gale** asked him to exchange cheques with him as 'it would be better to have a cheque from a foreigner'. I repeat that evidence: >He said **Mr Gale** asked him to exchange cheques with him as 'it would be better to have a cheque from a foreigner'. {: .speaker-L1V} ##### Mr Yates: -- That is not evidence. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -This is evidence given in court. It is not difficult to say whom **Mr Gale** provided the $25,000 for because we know- it is common knowledge- and it has been admitted by the present Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** that **Mr Gale** provided help for **Mr Fraser** when he was shadow Minister for labour and industrial relations. The Gollin company provided the services of a man to draft the labour and industrial relations policy of the present Liberal-National Country Party government. If we examine the problem facing us- I hope that honourable members will look at it in a fairly non-partisan way- we will find that it is a question of either combining a limit on expenditure with free radio and television time or public funding via taxation. I think that we can reduce the amount of money that is required if- I repeat, if- there is some sort of limit on expenditure because free radio and television advertising time will be provided for political broadcasts. Anthony Lewis who, late in 1970 was a *New York Times* correspondent in Europe, wrote: >From the vantage point of Europe . . . American permissiveness on money and politics seems almost Roman in its decadence. The thought of allowing politicians to sell themselves in spot advertisements on television would be revolting in Britain or anywhere in the established European democracies- I hope that the honourable member for Holt **(Mr Yates),** who has previously served in the House of Commons, agrees with that attitude. Surely all honourable members who are concerned about the political process would agree that it is not in the interests of democracy to have many of the advertisements which are used in political advertising during election campaigns as methods of persuading people either to vote for us or against the opposition party, whatever party that may be. I do not think it helps the political process or gives people any confidence in the political process if 20-second or 30-second spot advertisements are used. They do not allow people to have an intelligent appreciation of what is going on. I do not think that democracy should be supported, run and so on in Australia by that method. European and other modern democratic nations have had to wrestle with the same problems of escalating political campaign costs and the degradation of the democratic dialogue that we have experienced here. In general, they have been much more successful than we have in controlling costs and upholding the level of campaigns. Some have statutes pertaining to elections which are much more stringent than our own. Others have practically no regulations, but they do have methods of financing campaigns which take the onus of extraordinary spending off the individual candidates. The financial, political and campaign practices in the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, West Germany, Japan, the United States and Canada shed light on problems which are somewhat common to modern democracies. They also throw light on possible means of attacking these problems. Not all of the laws in those nations work well. Some contain major loopholes but others have proved very successful. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by acknowledging the past and present experiences of other countries and governments in the struggle against rising campaign costs and political promiscuity. Let us examine what happens in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom individual candidates' expenses are reduced because some advertising is free. Each parliamentary candidate is permitted one free mailing of election material to every elector in his constituency. Campaign broadcasts are free. The political parties are given a certain number of broadcasts of varying length during the campaign period. It is illegal for a candidate to buy television time. An Act of Parliament which set up the Independent Television Authority prohibits the acceptance of any political advertising. I think that is the sensible way in which we ought to look at the propositions in the long term, or at least in the medium term, concerning the political process in Australia. The trend in popular attitude towards political finance seems to be relatively universal. Money in politics is becoming a subject of increasing concern and is generally regarded, at best, as a necessary evil. What concerns us all is the problem of finding ways to eliminate or to restrict the more obnoxious campaign practices while at the same time discovering alternative methods of political finance which recognise the growing cost of campaigning and the need to re-establish public faith in the basic honesty of our democratic political system. It is a pity that this Bill is being rushed through. I know the reasons for it. I suppose one of the reasons is that it keeps open the options of this Government to have an election before we return in August. {: .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- We are having an inquiry. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -- Yes, we are having an inquiry, but it will take a long time to complete. It is very difficult to get governments to bring in amending legislation to Acts. In bringing in amending legislation to an important piece of legislation, such as the Electoral Act, it would have been worth while for the Government to bring in amendments in addition to the ones which deal with finance. Surely further amendments are necessary to this legislation. The electoral laws amendment Bills of 1974 finally were not passed by the Senate but there was agreement on both sides of the House on a number of points. I cannot remember which one we agreed on, but I think it is reasonable to say that, even if at that time the then Opposition did not support some of them, some of the States have in fact accepted some of those propositions. I will refer to some of them: Optional preferential voting which certainly has been supported by the present Liberal-Country Party Opposition in New South Wales; the earlier closing of polls; drawing for positions on ballot papers; party affiliations on ballot papers, the possibility of increased deposits, especially in the case of Senate elections; and so on. I am not arguing that all of these proposals should be brought in, but surely some of them deserve support and implementation. We ought to be discussing those matters in addition to these amendments. I think public funding has become of more immediate interest in Australia recently because in March 1979 the New South Wales Premier, the Honourable Neville Wran, announced plans for a State parliamentary inquiry into election financing. {: .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- He is committed to it. All members of the Labor Party are. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -- All I am asking for is a parliamentary inquiry involving members from both sides of the House. There are alternative points of view and a large number of alternatives available. I am not necessarily arguing for a particular one. The Premier of New South Wales argued that the steady escalation in campaign expenditure both in Australia and overseas was an open invitation to corruption. The all-party committee of inquiry was formed in November 1979 with a duty to investigate whether public moneys should be used to help finance State election campaigns, and the Premier hoped that the final report of the committee would be tabled before the next State election which must be held by October 1981. This New South Wales initiative of an allparty inquiry received the support of the Premiers of Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia. At least the Victorian Premier at that stage, **Mr Hamer,** was a Liberal. If I remember rightly, even the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales supported the general proposition. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony, has instructed the Queensland National Party to undertake a study of public funding in Canada and the United States. There are also reports of a joint coalition committee of inquiry chaired by the federal secretary of the Liberal Party and of another Liberal Party inquiry chaired by the federal treasurer of the party. All of this activity is in accord with the assessment of the *Australian* newspaper of the importance of electoral financing laws. Commenting upon the New South Wales parliamentary inquiry, the *Australian* said: . . . there is little doubt that this initiative will inspire action in other States and in the federal sphere ... it is necessary that the proposal be thoroughly debated on the national level . . . Some people argue for four or five year terms on a cost-saving basis, so that less cost is involved in the political process, and others argue that people hate frequent elections. My own view is that people probably do not hate frequent elections. I know that the blame in South Australia for the defeat of the Corcoran Government has been put on the proposition that it called an early election. I find it difficult to believe that that is the true cause of that defeat. Politicians may object to frequent elections as they are not terribly keen on them, but the electors should like them; it gives them a chance to control governments. Surely in the long run, if one believes in democratic government, one should also be prepared to justify one's propositions to the electorate. Thousands of millions of people all over the world envy us our elections. They live in countries where there are no democratic elections every three, five or ten years. They do not have democratic elections. I appeal to the Government to look at this issue as an important one on which to get some bipartisan political agreement. I fear that Australian democracy is in trouble. Democracy is always fairly fragile. It always has been and I think it is particularly so at present. I hope I will not be criticised by people on my side of politics for making this admission but, as I see it, some people on our side of politics- I do not mean politicians but rank and file supporters of the Labor Party- resent this Government to such an extent that they oppose it on principle. There are now relatively large numbers of people who support major issues such as Afghanistan, Iran or the Olympic Games boycott. They are taking what to me is a fairly silly pro-USSR or proAyatollah attitude because they support all who oppose Fraser. I find this depressing, but it is true. The opposite is also true. Let us face it; there are people who are so completely opposed to the Labor Party that they do not see that democracy depends on a certain amount of consensus in the community. There has to be a basic belief that whilst one prefers one's own party to be in government in the end, if the other party wins one has to co-operate and one's aim has to be to beat the party in government at the next election. There has to be a basic consensus in a democracy. If that consensus does not exist, I do not believe a democracy can exist. Similarly, I draw the attention of honourable members to a letter- I have not been able to find it; I looked for it very quickly before I came into the House- which appeared in one of the major newspapers during the last week or so. A person- I think it was a woman- attacked Justice Staples and Justice Gaudron and said that they were unfit to be judges because they were appointed by the Whitlam Government. That is a ridiculous proposition. These are ridiculous polarisations in our community which we should try to avoid. Those honourable members who know me know that I am a fairly pessimistic sort of a bloke. I fear that within a relatively short time Australia will be threatened from the outside. I do not mean there is a threat by any specific country but by what is vaguely referred to as the Third World developing countries, in the sense that they will see us as a very rich country and one which is not prepared to do many things which they see as being their right. We have to be aware of" this possibility. Those of us who participate in the political process ought to be doing everything possible to adopt bipartisan policies on a significant number of issues. I come back to the Bill. Unless we can clearly show, firstly, that politics and politicians are not corrupt and, secondly, that the political process is fair- I emphasise the word 'fair'- democracy in Australia will be in real trouble. That is the reason I appeal to the Government to set up a committee which we hope, will come up with a bipartisan solution which is helpful not only to parties and politicians but also, most importantly, to the democratic process. I know it is difficult to consider such matters while we are obviously pushing these amendments through at the present time. We hope the Government will agree with our amendment but, as I did not come to this House yesterday, I know that it will be rejected. I hope there are sufficient members in this House, especially on the Government side- that is the important part- and in the Senate who realise that basically we have to come to some sort of bipartisan solution on this issue so as to keep the democratic process in Australia clean. It is not possible for people to say that all parties are corrupt and in the pay of communist trade unions or multinationals or whatever labels people like to put on their oppositions. Basically, we should try to make the democratic political process work and the only way in which it will work in this country or any other country is for people with different points of view on particular issues to have the ability to get that point of view before the public. I am not one of those who believe that elections are won during election campaigns. But I think it is important, because there are lots of people who believe that the election is the most important part; that elections be seen to be fair; that it be seen that everybody with political views which hold some sort of acceptance in the community have access to radio, to television and to newspapers, et cetera. I strongly urge the Government to look at the proposition because after all we issue licences to radio and television stations to make lots and lots of money. We should insist that once every three years they provide free time to the political parties for the purpose of helping the political process- the democratic process- on which they depend, just as much as we do, to exist in this country. {: #subdebate-39-0-s1 .speaker-DRW} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA -Is the amendment seconded? {: #subdebate-39-0-s2 .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide **-Mr Deputy Speaker,** I second the amendment. Surely, we must be the only parliament of any democracy that has taken such a major step backwards in relation to electoral reform. It is quite unbelievable that, because of the threat of the Australian Democrats to take members of the Parliament to court if it is found that they did not fill out their electoral forms in relation to the Act as it already exists, this Government should bring into the House a Bill which not only abolishes altogether any ceilings- whether they are ignored or not- but in its place sets up an inquiry into nothing, absolutely nothing. It is an enormous step backwards and one which the Government ought to be ashamed of and on which it should be exposed. Under the provisions of the inquiry, what are we asked to look at? We are asked to look at how much a person should spend and perhaps whether there should be any disclosure of who spends it. The crux of the matter is not who spends the money; the crux is who gives the money. The Minister for Administrative Services **(Mr John McLeay)** who is at the table has made great play in previous debates, as have some of his colleagues, of the fact that over the years occasionally there has appeared in the newspapers a photograph of a trade union secretary passing over a cheque which is a donation to the Australian Labor Party. They say: 'Look at that; there is a trade union prepared to have its secretary 's photo taken with the Leader or a member or a representative of the Labor Party, passing over a cheque. That must mean that the Labor Party has certain responsibilities to that very major donor'. Of course, usually the photograph is taken of someone from the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union. What we on this side of the House would like to see are the photographs of the donors to the Liberal Party and the National Country Party appearing in the national newspapers. We would like to see the people who control the great resources of this country with their photographs in the paper as they hand over cheques to the Liberal Party and the National Country Party. As my colleague the honourable member for Prospect **(Dr Klugman)** has said we have passed the raffling of a chook stage in the raising of funds for political campaigns. When one talks about total expenditure on elections in Australia now, one is talking about $ 100,000 an electorate. That does not mean that each of the candidates in every electorate is spending $100,000. Obviously, in the safe electorates they are not. When one visits the various electorates which may be looked upon as marginal or semi-marginal there is talk of candidates spending $60,000, $70,000, or $80,000, and that is without the expenditure by their parties on radio and television. That is just the amount being spent by the candidate. No candidate can raise that amount of money. What is happening of course is, as proved to be the case in the inquiry in the United Kingdom, that the major conservative parties- this applies here as well- are now at the behest of the major companies that operate in this country. As I said before, the essence of the debate is not who spends the money. What is the use of the major companies of this country buying the soul of the Liberal Party if all we can find out is that Tony Eggleton spent $ 10m? That does not tell us a thing. The Liberal Party does not take much notice of him. But it does take notice of the people who supply the millions of dollars that are now required in expenditure on campaigns. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- It could come from drugs. {: .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr YOUNG: -- It could come from anybody. My colleague the honourable member for Chifley mentioned people who are mixed up in drug running. That could be so. In answer to a question asked in this Parliament some time ago the Deputy Prime Minister **(Mr Anthony)** told the Parliament that he could not be sure that the Central Intelligence Agency had not put money into political parties in Australia. He could not give the Parliament an undertaking that the CIA had not put money into political parties in Australia. That is the crux of the argument which my colleague the honourable member for Prospect has asked honourable members to take into account when we are talking about revising the Electoral Act. What this Bill does is absolutely nothing at all. The real problem that has been attacked in other democracies, including the United Kingdom, has concerned donations, ceilings on expenditure and the media laws. As everybody in this House knows, because we have said it on many occasions, money is not supplied to political parties in a lot of those Western European countries not only for campaigning but also for educational purposes and for the running of their newspapers; and it is just not supplied to the social democratic parties but to all the political parties which receive over a certain percentage of votes. That is what we ought to be doing in this Parliament. The main reason why this Government has not given the Parliament the responsibility of setting up a committee to look into these questions, and why the Executive has not expanded the terms of reference to take in the question of public disclosure of donors is that every time a parliament, anywhere in the Western world has set up a committee to look at these questions, it has inevitably come down with the same type of recommendations. It has brought down the recommendation that anybody making donations should be put on a public register. If not, there should be State aid for political parties. Of course, we all know that and inevitably it will happen here. But how should it happen? Should it happen on the basis that it is the common sense of the Parliament which initiates the reform or do we wait for someone like Richard Nixon to appear in the Australian Parliament? Do we have to wait until some Minister in this Parliament is exposed as in the Lockheed scandal in Japan and other scandals which have appeared all round the other Western democracies? Should it be like in Western Australia where **Mr Hancock** said that he would buy the National Country Party for a certain amount of money; or should we let happen what happened with the Liberal Party in the United Kingdom? These things will inevitably happen in Australia unless we bring about reform. We are in a very lucky position because we are not trail-blazing. We will not be the first to do it. The exercise is well mailed overseas and every country which has looked at the question has found it necessary to bring in the reform that we are now talking about. Look how ludicrous the present situation is. The honourable member for Prospect referred to an article in the *Mercury* of 7 February 1 978 concerning the electoral return filled in by the Minister for Housing and Construction **(Mr Groom).** How much do honourable members think it cost him to be re-elected in 1977? He filled out his return and he said that it did not cost him anything. He did not spend any money on the election and nobody spent any money on his behalf either. He spent absolutely nil. That is the type of situation we are in. That is why we tried to reform the law during the period 1972-75. But things have moved so quickly that we cannot even cling to what we considered were the appropriate steps between 1972 and 1975. 1 am told that the costs of television and radio time between 1977 and early 1980 have jumped by 30 per cent. If one spent $ 1 m in 1 977 one will need at least $ 1 .4m in 1980. So we are not talking about now spending 5c per elector; we are talking about a total reform of the media laws and the electoral laws to cope with this very pressing problem. We must avoid at all costs bringing the institution of Parliament into disrepute, as has happened to other parliaments overseas, because ultimately someone or a policy has been bought. Plenty of fingers could be pointed at this Government. Two days before we last debated this subject the Press reported that the representative of the Uranium Producers Forum had visited the headquarters of the Liberal Party. He would hardly have been talking about policy there. If he had wanted to talk about policy and the exploitation of uranium mines in Australia he would have come to this Parliament and have seen the Minister. We all have a suspicion, because the community is so deeply divided on the question of uranium mining. One party is opposed to it and, on the other side, the two Government parties support it. In those circumstances, where will the uranium companies make their donations, and to what extent? It would be possible, with the uranium wealth that they have to exploit, to underwrite completely the campaigns of the Liberal and National Country parties. A donation of $5m would be absolutely nothing to them. They could underwrite such a campaign completely. Many major companies will do very well out of the Government's import parity pricing for oil. The Opposition is very critical of that policy and of the way in which it brings windfall profits to these major companies. In what way will those companies make their donations to the political parties at the end of this year? Many of them are not at all interested in ensuring that every party has an opportunity to present its policies. They are interested only in keeping in power the parties that will do them the most good. Everybody in the community believes- whether honourable members do or not- the unions have a major influence on the Australian Labor Party because of their donations, and the major companies of Australia run the Liberal and National Country parties. They are wrong in the case of the Labor Party because the majority of its donations no longer come from trade unions, and have not for 10 years; but they are right about the Liberal and National Country parties. Overwhelmingly, the money that flows to the coffers of those parties comes from the major companies of this country. The Bill is an absolute farce. The reason is that this Government always runs away from giving responsibility for looking at some of these key questions to the Parliament. It keeps them out of the hands of the parliamentarians. Who would be better equipped to undertake such a task than a committee of parliamentarians, who have actually had to cost campaigns, to consider the problems involved? I refer especially to those honourable members who represent the larger electorates, with many provincial newspapers and a group of country radio and television stations. Who would know better the enormous problems to be confronted? Who would be better equipped than a parliamentary committee to look at these questions? The Government does not want the Parliament to look at them. Similarly, when the Opposition has asked the Government to allow the Parliament to examine the question of unemployment, it has always refused. The Government of the United Kingdom did allow the Parliament to study the matter. What was the result? The decision was not unanimous, but overwhelmingly the Houghton committee recommended the type of reform that we are suggesting. As the honourable member for Prospect **(Dr Klugman)** has told the Parliament, in the United Kingdom the media problems that we encounter are not present. We have allowed to develop in the media the maddest possible scheme, one whereby we allow ourselves to be told by the advertising houses of Australia: 'The way to get the best image for your political party is to buy as many 30-second spots as you can'. So one spends an hour and a half in the dressing room while they put make-up on, spray one's hair and make one look really pretty. Then they throw one out in front of the camera and say: 'Do not say anything; just look nice. If we can present this enough times over the next month we will win the election'. We are treating the public, the voting community of Australia, as absolute dummies. We have allowed that situation to develop. It is also the most costly method of doing anything. When one says that to Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch- about three families own all the television and radio stations in metropolitan Australia- they say: 'We want to keep this system going. In Sydney, 30 seconds costs $1,000. We do not want you to buy 5-minute spots because if we have a politician speaking for five minutes our consumers will turn off *Love Boat* and will not turn it back on tomorrow night'. So one is allowed not five minutes but 30 seconds only. The public sees this idiot representing a political party coming on like a cornflakes advertisement or an advertisement for Kiwi boot polish and saying: 'Vote for me; vote for me. Don 't I look nice?' That is the system that this Government is trying to consolidate. It wants to retain not only its favourable position in regard to filling its coffers with the donations of the major companies in Australia and of the multinational companies from overseas which pay in but also it does not want public debate on political issues. It has both going for it and refuses to face all the reform that has taken place throughout Australia. The Australian people are concerned about the influence that donors have over the respective political parties. When a questionnaire was sent around the United Kingdom people said, almost without exception: 'Yes, we believe that major donors to political parties have an influence on the policy formulation of that party'. A thorough examination of that allegation has not been made in Australia. We have not been able to examine it to the extent that we should be able, but people outside make such allegations. Do not run away with the idea that they do not believe a lot of the Government's policies are aimed at getting the maximum donation from some of its friends before the 1980 election. The Government parties have to raise $3m or $4m and they will not run Warrnambool raffling chooks in order to get it. We must look at the question sensibly. The idea of the Parliament itself accepting the responsibility is one that we have put forward on no fewer than three occasions. We do so again tonight. If there must be an immediate measure to deal with the 1980 elections, we can do that also. We are not worried about the past. We are vitally concerned about the future. The charge may be made that the Labor Party is only screaming because it cannot raise as much money as can the LiberalNational Country parties. We cannot do so and would not be prepared to accept some of the money that those parties accept because they do so under very dubious circumstances. That is one of the major reasons why the Government refuses to adopt the standards that have been adopted overseas. Is it possible that the United States, Canada, Sweden, West Germany, Austria, Holland, the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy are all wrong? Is Australia the only nation that is right? Should we be telling them to revert to our system because it is better? The Minister and others before him, including the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser),** have said that taxpayers ' money should not be used to subsidise political parties. President Carter said, when he introduced the latest set of measures to reform the electoral system of his country, that the American people believed it was a better system. The American people lived through a very bitter experience. Honourable members opposite may laugh, but I wish to read the names of some of the companies that were found guilty of breaching the electoral laws of the United States. They include responsible, respected, household names. All pleaded guilty, when the matter reached the court, of breaching the law by the way in which they made donations, or by the size of those donations, or by trying to avoid placing their names on the register as having made them. These cases all occurred after 1973. The companies are: The American Ship Building Co.; Ashland Petroleum Gabon Incorporated; Associated Milk Producers Incorporated; Braniff Airways; the Carnation Company; Diamond International Corporation; Ray Dubrowin. the Vice-President of the Greyhound Corporation; the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company; the LBC and W architectural firm; National Bi-Products Incorporated; and the Northrop Corporation. A long list of companies participated in that sort of thing. If it went on in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Germany and in Sweden, why is it not happening here? Honourable members know that of course it is. We will not let this issue rest. We have told the Parliament over the past 10 years that it cannot rest. There must be reform in this area, but it must be serious reform, not the nonsense which has been introduced into the Parliament by the Government on this occasion. I suspect that when we get the names of those who will serve on the inquiry we will find that they are all financial members of the Liberal and National Country Parties. They will all be well briefed in the philosophy of how well off the Government parties are, receiving donations from multinational corporations and why the Government does not want to change the system. But, as I have said, if we do not change the system through common sense, it will be changed because some corrupt act will be exposed that will bring this institution and parliamentarians into disrepute and force reform upon us. Some sensible honourable members opposite have spoken to me privately and said that they see the need for reform. We will not be able to effect a reform before the 1980 election, but at least we should be putting a ceiling on expenditure. After the 1980 election this Parliament will have a responsibility to start to look seriously at this question. Some of the members of the National Country Party who may not be in favour with their head office, who may not be getting as much out of the head office as they would like in order to run their campaigns, know the difficulties. My colleague the honourable member for Grey, **Mr Laurie** Wallis, has to travel from the New South Wales border to the Western Australian border and up to the Northern Territory border. His movements are covered by a multiplicity of provincial newspapers, radio stations and television stations and in addition he has to meet the cost of all the travelling that has to be done. How can honourable members opposite say in those circumstances that we should not be looking seriously at the ways in which to assist all the people who campaign in such electorates? What I am saying about the honourable member for Grey can also be said about some members of the Country Party and the Liberal Party. There is some movement amongst Government back benchers. We will insist that Parliament look at this question seriously after the next election. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr** MillarOrder! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-39-0-s3 .speaker-KKT} ##### Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare -The purpose of this Bill is very simply to remove those sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which are largely contained within Part XVI, that relate to the disclosure of a candidate's electoral expenditure in the course of an election. The Minister for Administrative Services **(Mr John McLeay)** had made it quite clear that the Government has a commitment in principle to the disclosure of electoral expenses incurred during an election. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- You never voted for it in 1 975. {: .speaker-KKT} ##### Mr MacKENZIE: -- It was 1974 actually, if the honourable member would bear to be corrected. The Government has made it clear that such public disclosure should be examined by an independent committee of inquiry. The first term of reference for the inquiry states: electoral expenditure by, on behalf of, or in the interests of a candidate; The second term of reference is: electoral expenditure by, on behalf of, or in the interests of a political party; The third term of reference is: other electoral expenditure; The fourth term of reference is: information relating to the publication of electoral matter in newspapers or by broadcasting or television including the cost thereof. A very substantial proportion of electoral expenditure is disclosed at present under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Indeed, between 80 per cent and 85 per cent of total expenditure incurred by candidates or on behalf of candidates occurs through advertising in the print and electronic media. That provision will remain for this year. We are not amending the Broadcasting and Television Act. Indeed, that provision will remain, I would imagine, after the results of this inquiry comes to hand. Further, the Government had made it quite clear that without limiting the generality of those provisions that I have just mentioned the committee of inquiry should report on and make recommendations on the form and content of the type of disclosure that should be required, how this should be undertaken and the persons or bodies that should be responsible for this, and that it should be done in such a way that there is complete clarity and lack of ambiguity as to what the responsibilities of both parties and candidates might be. Basically, this legislation has been brought forward because of the confusion, the ambiguity and the difficulty in implementing the legislation as it stands at the moment and so that there can be effective and meaningful disclosure. At the same time the Government has made no specific recommendation that the inquiry should not apply itself to the question of whether limits on electoral expenditure should be retained. The Opposition's amendment, which was moved by the honourable member for Prospect **(Dr Klugman),** refers to 'reasonable limits on electoral expenditure '. {: .speaker-L1V} ##### Mr Yates: -- What does it mean? {: .speaker-KKT} ##### Mr MacKENZIE: -- What does that mean, indeed? What does 'reasonable' mean? At least the Australian Democrats have attempted to apply some figure, but what is the interpretation of 'reasonable limits'? Does it refer to expenditure or in kind assistance to candidates or on behalf of candidates by parties? What expenditure limits would the Opposition suggest that we apply? I find the amendment rather hypocritical in that the Opposition has taken the opportunity, on a Bill that basically relates to removal of limits and to disclosure of expenditure, to introduce by implication at least, a concept of public funding of the democratic process. I confirm that that certainly is part of the Australian Labor Party's policy and platform. Section 32 of the platform refers to the payment of proportionate subsidies by governments to political parties and candidates. Indeed, section 33 of the ALP platform as laid down in 1 979 states: >The disclosure of donations or other assistance to political parties and candidates. The platform, interestingly, makes no reference at all to limits. Yet we find that in this amendment the first reference is to limits. At the same time this amendment makes no reference to disclosure. I would have thought that if the Opposition wished the methods of funding of the democratic process to be included in an examination, it certainly would have referred to disclosure in its amendment. There appear to be some major anomalies in that the amendment makes no reference to disclosure and the platform makes no reference to limits. I invite the Opposition to give the House some further information as to what it means by disclosure of sources of funding. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- Go back to Fred Daly's Bill introduced at the end of 1974 and passed by this Parliament in 1975. {: .speaker-KKT} ##### Mr MacKENZIE: -Perhaps the honourable member for Chifley can enlighten us in a few minutes. I question whether most people in Australia would like to be in a situation in which they make a donation to a political party, albeit indirectly, through union dues which are compulsorily acquired and in which they have no opportunity to determine, to have their say, as to where those funds should go. Indeed, it would seem, to me at least, to be a situation in which donations to political parties are tax deductible. We know that unions dues and subscriptions are legitimate tax deductions; yet the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party will very readily admit, as the honourable member for Port Adelaide **(Mr Young)** has admitted already, that a portion of those union dues and subscriptions is donated to political parties. I believe that it is a travesty of justice, a denial of the rights of an individual and certainly a denial of the normal procedures of a democratic society if people are compelled to pay their union dues and subscriptions- and, indeed, cannot even hold down their jobs unless they do so- and those moneys are applied to the purposes and the political requirements of a political party. The Australian Council of Trade Unions policy clearly states that in time it would like to achieve a situation in which one per cent of average weekly earnings would be a contribution to union dues. We know that a significant proportion of that percentage would go directly to the Australian Labor Party. We are not talking about raffling chooks in pubs. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. No wonder the ALP is interested in obtaining public funding for political parties. That would be on top of the contributions it is getting from every unionist, every rank and file member of a union in this country. It is getting it by stealth, it is getting it by compulsion and it is getting it by intimidation because people in this country unfortunately cannot be guaranteed that they will hold their jobs unless they are members of a union and so contribute to the Australian Labor Party. The issue of public funding has been raised in this amendment. I do not believe it is valid or legitimate to raise this matter but since it has been raised I believe some comments should be applied to that proposition. Public funding as a proposition has been clearly rejected by the Australian people in every opinion poll that has been taken. Indeed, serious concern has been expressed throughout the community as a result of the establishment by the New South Wales Government of the committee of inquiry into the desirability of public funding of political parties. I ask members of the Opposition: If they propose public funding of political parties, can they suggest from where this public funding should come? Should it come from cuts in the large expenditure areas of welfare, housing, health, education and payments to the States or would they propose that taxes be increased in order to provide the money required to fund political parties? Indeed, do they believe that the average working Australian will be happy to know that part of his taxes are being used to support parties that he may be totally- both philosophically and in principle- opposed to? These may be parties of the Right as well as the Left. How would my honourable friend from Hume **(Mr Lusher)** react to the proposition that part of his taxes have to be used to subsidise the Australian Communist Party, the League of Rights, the Australian Marihuana Party or the Right to Life organisation? What right would a taxpayer have to declare where his taxes should be applied if public funding were made available to political parties? How would such public funding be established? Would it be established on the Australian Labor Party's policy according to the results of the last election? Would not that be grossly unfair to any new political party or group that attempted to establish itself within Australia? On what basis should it be? Should it be on the total proportion of votes or should it be on the proportion of seats won? Parliamentary democracy under the Westminster system requires that one has to win a certain number of seats to hold government. {: .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: -- That is the gerrymander you rigged. What is wrong with basing it on the number of votes? {: .speaker-KKT} ##### Mr MacKENZIE: -- I think the claim of gerrymander could equally apply to the Opposition. Compare the number of seats won in proportion to the totality of votes gained in certain sections of metropolitan areas. I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard* an article which I believe shows the disadvantages of and highlights some of the major issues concerned with the public funding of political parties. Leave granted. *The document read as follows-* >Public funding of elections is not needed > >The recent Labor Party conference in Adelaide accepted the principle of public funding of political parties for election purposes. > >The basis of Labor's argument is that all parties and individuals should be assured of sufficient funds to mount an election campaign without having to rely on voluntary donations. > >The coalition parties' attitude is that in the Australian context, public funding of political campaigns is unnecessary and undesirable because the cost would have to be financed by yet another tax or, alternatively, by reduced spending elsewhere. > >Labor spokesmen claim that the coalition parties enjoy heavy financial backing from a variety of sources, but they fail to mention their own vast reserves, often based on compulsory donations. > >They also overlook the fundamental issue at any election, that it is the most popular party of the day that attracts the most support, either through the ballot-box or in cash. It is easy to understand that business houses are hardly likely to contribute to a business-bashing political party where profit is a dirty word. > >Even if the argument for public funding were acceptable to taxpayers, the Labor Party is vague on the cost. It could be $10 million or it could be $30 million based on the Swedish formula which is favored by Labor. > >Based on the lower figure of $10 million, the Communist Party of Australia would receive $18,000 and I personally would resent a law which forced some of my taxes to be used to subsidise that party. > >Other parties would be reimbursed under the Labor plan as follows: Others............. 57,000 This is Labor's $ 10 million scheme. The Swedish proposal would cost the taxpayer five times as much! The Labor Party has been careful not to discuss its own sources of income. Under a subscription policy proposed by the ACTU, 1 per cent of earnings extracted by trade unions from their members would produce about $290 million every year. This is the independent estimate by the Victorian Employers' Federation and it gives some idea of the enormous sums available for Labor election campaigns. Heavy donations are already made to the Labor Party by trade unions, additional to the levies imposed by a number of unions on their members to finance the A.L.P., even though they may not be supporters. It must be very difficult for a worker to refuse to pay such a levy when faced with the intimidatory tactics employed by some union bosses. The coalition parties are opposed to the introduction of yet another tax burden and we are not attracted to the alternative of taking money from defence, education, family allowances, widows pensions, age pensions or some other area of social security. {: .speaker-KKT} ##### Mr MacKENZIE: -- The writer of that article points out that if there were to be a disbursement of public funds- say $ 10m- on the basis of the proportion of the vote gained at the previous election, the Communist Party of Australia would receive $18,000. 1 believe that Australian people would be at least concerned that part of their taxes, albeit $18,000- to my mind that is $18,000 too much- would be going to such a source. I do not wish to disclose the source of the article but it was written by a most authoritative correspondent and observer of the political scene in Australia. I would also like to raise the reaction that has been generated by this Bill among the Australian Democrats, and in particular the reaction of the Acting Leader of the Australian Democrats who claimed that this Bill constituted the most massive electoral fraud in Australia's history and meant the demise of the democratic process in Australia. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy of that statement. It is interesting to me that suddenly a large amount of concern has been generated by this Bill regarding the requirement for disclosure of expenditure. Yet we find in New South Wales, where a Labor Government has been in office for some years, there has never been any requirement for disclosure of campaign expenditure either by or on behalf of a candidate. I would have thought that if the New South Wales Government was interested in conducting an inquiry into public funding of political parties it could perhaps have broadened the inquiry's terms of reference to take into account part of the platform of its federal colleagues. It could have included within the terms of reference of the inquiry the requirements for disclosure of contributions to political parties, the disclosure of expenditure and the imposition of campaign limits. Let us look at the situation in South Australia where in 1969 the statutory provisions relating to the control of electoral expenditure at State elections was repealed by a Labor government. At the time there was not one murmur of complaint or dissent against such a move by the Democrats. A quotation that I believe is interesting has been attributed to **Mr Justice** Kay who, when examining the provisions relating to the repeal of the Western Australian restrictions, observed that the provisions for the limitation of electoral expenditure provide no real useful purpose. They are difficult to supervise and most candidates cannot, with due responsibility, abide by the provisions of the legislation. So I think we need to look at the Opposition's amendment and to determine whether in fact that amendment can achieve what it is not already possible to achieve in the Bill as proposed by the Government. I do not believe that the amendment should raise the issue of public funding of political parties. I do not see that as an integral part of the Bill as it has been presented. As I have mentioned before, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents the committee of inquiry from making some recommendations on the imposition of limits as well as the means by which disclosure of campaign expenditure can be effected. I do not agree that this should be the sole province of a parliamentary inquiry. I imagine that the Opposition would have preferred a non-parliamentary inquiry, an independent inquiry, perhaps conducted by people who have professional competence and expertise in this area, which would include people from the Commonwealth Electoral Office. I would again remind honourable members - {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: -- Who has more professional expertise than we have on this issue? {: .speaker-KKT} ##### Mr MacKENZIE: -- I would disagree with my honourable friend from Prospect who asked: 'Who would have more professional competence and expertise in this matter than parliamentarians?' With some degree of modesty I believe there are people within the community, perhaps within academic establishments of this land, and perhaps within the Commonwealth Electoral Office, who could provide some independent assessment and inquiry. I personally believe the Government is on the right track in taking this matter outside the province of parliamentarians who obviously have a totally vested interest in this matter. The public interest has to be served. I reiterate that the public interest is being served to a very large degree with regard to the disclosure of campaign expenditure by or on behalf of candidates in that under the present legislation there is a requirement for expenditure in the electronic media, broadcasting and television, to be disclosed; and in the section which will remain in the Commonwealth Electoral Act there is a provision which requires disclosure of expenditure in the printed media. Those funds generally account for some 85 per cent of total expenditure. In closing I would like to react to the claim by the honourable member for Port Adelaide that campaign expenditure is raised almost totally from large multinational and wealthy corporations. That is certainly not the case in my experience. I can confirm for the honourable member for Port Adelaide that the raffling of chooks in pubs is still very much an essential part of my process of raising funds. In my experience, more than 80 per cent of funds required for an election campaign comes from the so-called little people, even the pensioners who come along with their $ 1 and $2 to try to back up their judgment. On the other hand, I believe we will find that the Australian trade union movement provides a very ready source of funds for the Labor Party. I cannot really and sincerely believe that the Labor Party would stand by its commitment to introduce public disclosure of donations because it would be enormously embarrassing to it for the public to realise where its money comes from. {: #subdebate-39-0-s4 .speaker-CI4} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar: Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-39-0-s5 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley -By lifting the limit on electoral expenses - Motion (by **Mr Hodges)** proposed: >That the question be now put. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I take a point of order. **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I ask you to utilise your discretion to allow this very momentous item of legislation to be discussed properly in this Parliament without the gag being moved. {: #subdebate-39-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! There is no point of order. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- Because the Government Deputy Whip is well aware that I am about to lift the lid on the Government's Watergate-type acitivities {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- This is an absolute disgrace and a cover up. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Chifley will remain silent. {: .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVeigh: -- On a point of order, I ask: For how much longer do we on this side of the Parliament have to put up with that sanctimonious pain in a suitably metaphorical part of his anatomy? {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I raise a point of order. That is a remark which I take personal objection to. It is contrary to the Standing Orders and I ask you, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** to make sure that he withdraws it immediately without qualification. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honourable member for Chifley has made his point. {: .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: -- On a point of order, I ask: How does he know that he was referring to him? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The Chair is considering the point of order. In the confusion prevailing in the House the Chair must allow for the possibility that the honourable member for Darling Downs was reflecting on a member of this House who elected to identify himself. On that basis I require the honourable member for Darling Downs to withdraw. {: .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVeigh: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I withdraw. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I take a point of order. As I mentioned in the point of order that I took a few moments ago, and, of course, I was about to make some rather dramatic exposures about the Government's activities - {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member will quickly come to bis point of order. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I asked you, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** whether you would use your discretion not to receive the motion that the question be put which will gag one of the most important Bills to come before the Parliament this session. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Honourable members: *Honourable members interjecting-* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! There is no point of order. Honourable members will assist by remaining silent. The honourable member for Chifley is aware that the Chair does not have the capacity to act in that fashion. The question is: 'That the question be now put'. *A division having been called for and the bells being rungMr* Armitage-Jockstrap Neil, sensitive to the slightest swing. {: .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** the honourable member for Port Adelaide made a remark about me which I could not ascertain, but I have been advised by the honourable member for Bendigo that it was an offensive remark. Because of the nature of this type of debate and in case the remark has gone on the record, I ask that it be withdrawn. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The Chanis not aware of the remark having been made. The Chair is not inclined to call for a withdrawal when a statement is based on hearsay. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) AYES: 69 NOES: 30 Majority....... 39 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put- That the words proposed to be omitted **(Dr Klugman's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) AYES: 68 NOES: 30 Majority....... 38 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-39-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr John** McLeay) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 3026 {:#debate-40} ### ADJOURNMENT {: #debate-40-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! It being 1 0.30 p.m. I propose the question: >That the House do now adjourn. {: .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 3026 {:#debate-41} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-41-0} #### PUBLIC DUTY AND PRIVATE INTEREST Report and Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 22 November 1979, on the following paper presented by **Mr Anthony:** >Public Duty and Private Interest- Report of Committee of Inquiry- Ministerial Statement, 22 November 1979. and on motion by **Mr John** McLeay: > >That the House take note of the paper. Upon which **Mr Lionel** Bowen had moved by way of amendment: >That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the Government be condemned for not making it obligatory for all Members of Parliament to disclose their pecuniary interest and that of thenimmediate families in a register available to the public'. Amendment- by leave- withdrawn. {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · Stirling · LP Establishment of the Committee of Inquiry Honourable members will recall the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest was established by the Government in February 1978 to consider whether principles and measures could be drawn up to promote the avoidance and, if necessary, the resolution of conflict of interest situations in regard to those who hold public office in the Commonwealth sphere. The members of the Committee were the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, **Sir Nigel** Bowen, **Sir Cecil** Looker and **Sir Edward** Cain, all persons of widely recognised experience and ability. The terms of reference were drawn up broadly to allow maximum scope for the Committee to explore this difficult subject. The Committee produced a comprehensive and commendable report which was tabled in this House on 21 November 1979, by the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony, M.P. Tabling of Committee's Report In presenting the report the Deputy Prime Minister indicated the Government's broad acceptance of the report's recommendations, when he said that the Government had accepted virtually the whole of the Committee's recommendations in regard to Ministers, Public Servants and other officials. He said other recommendations concerning Parliament, its procedures and its members, would be debated in the Parliament before final decisions were taken but that the Government accepted, as the report proposed, that every effort should be made to secure the widest possible familiarity with and observance of the code of conduct. When speaking of the Committee's recommendations on machinery for dealing with conflict of interest cases the Deputy Prime Minister drew the Parliament's attention to the general approach taken by the Committee that implementation of enforcement of the proposed new rules should be built into the existing framework of procedures relevant to the various classes of officeholders. He went on to say, however, that the Government would give further consideration, following parliamentary debate, to the establishment of ethics committees in the Parliament and the establishment of a public integrity commission. Register of Interests As honourable members will know there has been considerable debate both in Australia and overseas about the need for, and value of, a formal scheme for the registration of interests. In 1975 the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of members of Parliament recommended that there should be such a register- and the Opposition is of the view that all members of Parliament should disclose their pecuniary interests and those of their immediate family in a register available to the public. But the Bowen Committee, after careful consideration, recommended against such a move. It was concerned to minimise invasion of privacy. It also pointed out that a general register is directed to the contingency that an interest might affect an officeholder's actions; it concluded that the proper practice should be aimed at revealing an interest when it does so, that is, by declaration of an interest when a possible conflict arises. The Committee expressed grave doubts about whether it would be possible to devise a register so as to eliminate lawful avoidance. It concluded that to introduce a register which could easily be avoided would fail to achieve any useful objective; it would be little more than political window dressing. The Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Government found the arguments against a general register compelling and that it did not propose to adopt that approach. Since that time the Government has had no reason to change this view. The Government emphasis will be on disclosure of interests. Disclosure is really all that a register is about. Disclosure serves a purpose when the relevance of a particular interest becomes apparent by alerting others to the existence of a possible conflict. The Government supports the Committee's belief that relevant interests should be declared and all officeholders should be required to disclose relevant interests- for example, when a Minister takes part in Cabinet considerations; when any official deals with, or attempts to influence another officeholder; or when a member of Parliament speaks in debate. Action Taken by Government Since tabling the report, the Government has proceeded with implementation of the proposals relating to Ministers, public servants and other officials. It fully accepted the recommendations in respect of Ministers. Quite properly it acted first in this regard. All Ministers have accepted the Bowen Committee recommendations relating to them and have responded to request of the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** for a written statement of any relevant pecuniary interest they may have. These declarations of interests are kept, on a confidential basis, by the Secretary to Cabinet. On 14 March 1980, the Public Service Board1 issued PSB circular 1980/6, which sets out the guidelines concerning the recommendations of the Bowen Committee relating to public servants. The Circular brings to the attention of public servants the code of conduct, and the revised arrangements for disclosure of relevant private interests, acceptance of gifts, travel and hospitality, and for post-separation employment. The Minister for Defence **(Mr Killen)** has in train action implementing the recommendations of the report that apply to Defence Force personnel. The Committee's recommendations require the Defence Force personnel to observe requirements regulating conflict of interest similar to those proposed for public servants. In relation to statutory office-holders and their staff, the Committee made detailed recommendations which were adopted by the Government. All appropriate Ministers are setting in train arrangements to ensure that these recommendations adopted by the Government are implemented. The Presiding Officers have arranged for the implementation of the report's recommendations as they apply to parliamentary departments. The revised arrangements that apply to public servants have been adopted for the staff of the parliamentary departments. All Ministers have been advised by the Minister for Administrative Services **(Mr John McLeay)** of the revised arrangements to apply to ministerial staff. Statements of the pecuniary interests of ministerial staff will be held on a strictly confidential basis by the Secretary to the Department of Administrative Services. To summarise, the Prime Minister and the Government have acted quickly in areas within their authority to implement the Bowen Committee's recommendations in respect of Ministers, public servants and statutory office-holders. They are required to observe the code of conduct, to disclose interests that conflict with their public duty and, in the case of officials to abide by procedures relating to post-separation employment. Outstanding Matters for Decision The only major matters now outstanding on which decision and action are required relate to: The application of the code of conduct to parliamentarians and establishment of procedures relating to their duties and responsibilities; and establishment of machinery for dealing with conflict of interest cases namely the establishment of parliamentary ethics committees and the public integrity commission. There has been considerable discussion of the issues surrounding implementation of these remaining recommendations within the Government parties and I am aware that there have also been discussions on these important matters within the Opposition ranks. In the same spirit as the Government has acted to implement recommendations relating to Ministers, public servants and other officials it intends to initiate the necessary measures to give effect to the Committee's proposals in respect of parliamentarians and machinery for dealing with serious breaches of conflict of interest. Parliamentarians I should, perhaps, remind honourable members that the Committee's recommendations in regard to the code of conduct and members of Parliament were broadly as follows: That each House be invited to adopt the code in its Standing Orders or by resolution; that this House be invited to consider the desirability, in considering the recommendations about declarations by members, of strengthening Standing Order 196 which presently provides that a member shall not vote on certain matters in which he has a pecuniary interest; that both Houses be invited to consider adopting requirements for disclosure of interests in debate along the lines of a House of Commons resolution; that both Houses be invited to consider including provisions about the time when declarations should be made and the recording of declarations when made; and that the House and Senate be invited to consider their relevant Standing Orders to see whether any amendment is required to avoid conflicts of interest in respect of Committee members. Bearing in mind that the Bowen Committee left open for final determination some questions of detail and approach, the Government proposes to support action by both Houses to give effect to the Committee's central recommendations. In particular, the Government will support action to clarify or strengthen the obligation upon members to declare pecuniary interests that are relevant to matters upon which they speak in debate. We will need to explore the most practical and effective means of achieving the Committee's aims. The methods and the procedures finally adopted will be matters of considerable importance to all members of parliament. It will take time to settle the final details. Machinery I turn now to the machinery for dealing with breaches of conflict of interest. The Bowen Committee 's report recognises that the established machinery for dealing with misconduct or misbehaviour on the part of office-holders may be inadequate or inappropriate in exceptional cases where a high degree of public concern is evident. The Committee saw a need in particular for strengthening the present arrangements for the investigation of allegations of conflicts between public duty and private interest concerning members and Ministers. The Committee concluded that special machinery should be established to deal with a very limited number of matters. Ethics Committee The Committee has recommended in the first place the strengthening and formalising of the existing parliamentary machinery for dealing with allegations of conflict of interest concerning members. It has recommended that each House be invited to do this by establishing a standing ethics committee empowered to report to the House from time to time on changes in the code of conduct and to receive, investigate and report upon complaints of departures by members from the code. The Government is of the view that new committee arrangements are called for in this regard and it will support action to set up committees of the kind proposed. The procedures for the operation of new committees and the extent of their powers will, as the report recognises, be matters for consideration by each House in due course. Public Integrity Commission Secondly, the Committee has recommended the establishment of special machinery- a public integrity commission- to investigate cases where the ordinary machinery for dealing with misconduct or misbehaviour may be inappropriate or inadequate. The commission would be a standing statutory body with the powers of a royal commission. Its members would be part time and appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The commission would not act on its own initiative but would investigate and report on matters referred by the Prime Minister concerning Ministers, by a House concerning a Minister or member, by the Public Service Board concerning a public servant or by a Minister concerning a statutory office-holder. The commission would be required to report its findings on the facts to the person or body by whom the matter was referred. Any consequential disciplinary action would be the responsibility of that person or body, not the commission. The commission would be an investigatory and fact-finding body only. As the Deputy Prime Minister emphasised, the commission as proposed would deal with exceptional cases only. In the ordinary course, allegations of breaches of the code would be dealt with by the relevant House, the Prime Minister, a Minister or the Public Service Board, as appropriate. The Government recognises that there are from time to time cases that call for investigation and cannot satisfactorily be dealt with by presently available procedures. The Government believes that a commission of the kind proposed would be of value in those exceptional cases. The Government proposes to bring forward in due time proposals to establish such a body. Conclusion In conclusion, the matters dealt with by the Committee are of importance to the maintenance of proper standards by those holding public office and to the integrity of public administration. The Government's appreciation of the Committee's fine report is already on the record. The Government has indicated the code of conduct should apply to all office-holders. The necessary steps have been taken to implement the recommendations in respect of Ministers, public servants and other officials. The Government now intends to undertake work to implement the central features of the recommendations relating to parliamentarians, the establishment of ethics committees and the public integrity commission. The ways and means of achieving these measures will be worked out in consultation and on the basis of debate in the Parliament. The Government has a sound record of achievement in establishing the inquiry concerning public duty and private interest and in acting on those recommendations relating to Ministers and their staff, to public servants and other officials. Its actions will maintain public confidence in the processes of government and of parliamentarians. Public confidence in the Parliament must be maintained. I therefore commend to the House support for the Government's intention to see that such public confidence is sustained on the basis of the Bowen Committee 's recommendations. {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley -- This matter goes to the very essence of probity in public life in this institution. It establishes, in many important respects the credibility with which this institution is perceived and the confidence that the public is prepared to extend to it and the members who work within it. It is a great shame, therefore, that the Government has been less than enthusiastic in responding to crucial proposals, not just in the Bowen report, but also in the earlier report of 1975 from the committee which was chaired by the Honourable J. M. Riordan, M.P., a report which enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support. Those are the matters I want to speak about tonight, but first I wish to move an amendment. I move: The so-called Bowen report on Public Duty and Private Interest touches on many matters. Obviously there is not enough time in the 15 minutes available to me tonight to deal with all of them. I regret that. There are two crucial matters that deserve attention because of their importance above all of the other important matters. There is a need for a public register in which the pecuniary interests of members of this Parliament and their immediate families are disclosed and, I would propose, the need for the Bowen Committee of Inquiry to be reconvened to inquire into and report on whether the Parliament should legislate to prescribe standards of behaviour of the Australian judiciary. That is a matter that must be removed beyond any doubt. It is essential that it be done with the minimum delay, otherwise confidence in the processes of the judicial system in this country will be at stake. Let me talk about the Bowen report. It has some strengths. For instance, it proposes a code of conduct, a standing ethics committee and a public integrity commission. There are some virtues in those proposals. It is disappointing to note that the standing ethics committee and the public integrity commission are deferred to due processes at some time in the distant future. That is the pith of what the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs **(Mr Viner)** said tonight. In other words, even these rather moderate propositions coming from a very cautious and conservative committee of inquiry are being approached with a clear display of something less than enthusiasm by the Government. There are some strengths in the report, but there are also glaring weaknesses. The most obvious is the faint-hearted response of the Committee to the full-blooded problem of the need for the registration of pecuniary interests of members of this Parliament and of their immediate family members. That, coincidentally, is a matter that is associated very directly with an earlier debate in this House tonight, namely, the need to disclose the source and amount of funds going to political parties. These two things together are indisputably the most important ingredients which must be unveiled to the Australian public if there is to be a restoration of community confidence in the people of this institution. It is a matter of dismal record for me to have to confess that the stature of members of parliament has diminished enormously since 1975, very largely because of the unrelieved succession of scandals which have arisen in the ranks of the Government. If it is suspected that government in some way is infected and influenced through that infection by forces which are undisclosed, whether they be the forces of pecuniary support for a political party or the forces which arise from self-interest because of pecuniary interests which a member has, and if those suspicions abound, the credibility and the status of this institution and the people who serve in it are sullied. That is why these matters must be divulged. The problems are compounded by the Government's attitude and that attitude is best summed up this way. The Bowen report was introduced in the last day of last year's last session. Consideration is resumed six months later on the last day but one of the last week of this session- a filler because the Government wants the business to keep going until tomorrow. Such is the element of priority and urgency in the Government's accounting of this matter. The Treasurer **(Mr Howard)** explained it all on 7 November last year. When referring to ministerial responsibility he said that he was not interested in 'high falutin' explanations of ministerial responsibility. That is a most unfortunate observation because it has all of the elements of the slippery principles of a political rogue. I regret that because I must say for the record that the Treasurer is not a political rogue. But it is an unfortunate comment. However, one cannot say that about all people who have given evidence on this matter. For instance, on 13 February this evidence was given to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Pecuniary Interests: >There is no prescription for honour and in a hasty search to prescribe for it you might in fact be denying those who would be valuable members of parliament an opportunity to so serve. Further on, it was stated: anyone who has some wealth tends to be more suspect that a person who has not and I believe that in our Parliament we have demonstrated that over the years there has been no cause for concern for people having failed to disclose their assets. It was stated further: >If there is a suspicion that the individuals lack that integrity I do not believe they are competent to hold ministerial or prime ministerial office. They are very fine sentiments of the highest order- a standard of virtue to which we should all aspire. They are the sentiments of the former Minister for Primary Industry, now the back bench member for New England **(Mr Sinclair),** who awaits the determination of a jury before he receives the conclusive determination of the people. It is a little like Cesare Borgia meditating on the virtuous life- much in its recommendation, but for others. The Government grasped this issue with the firmness of a palsied hand. Even the proposals as soft, as they are, to establish a standing ethics committee and the public integrity commission, have been deferred until the never never. Some conclusion will be made in due course. A matter as important as this has been deferred in a cavalier way. The trouble with the whole situation is that the Committee tried to hammer in a rivet with a feather duster and then ultimately it was discovered that the Government had even taken away the feather duster. Only the Fraser Government and the Queensland Governmentthey stand alone- are not proposing disclosure and registration of pecuniary interests of members of parliament. I suppose one should not be surprised. After all, they have had the searing experiences of the Lynch land scandals, the Sinclair family companies, the Beggs family's advantages in raising public loan money, the IBM Facom imbroglio and the Barwick disputation in recent times in this Parliament. All of these searing experiences add to the natural lack of enthusiasm of this conservative Government for openers in the administration of the affairs of the country. The essential nub of what the Minister said tonight was his recommending of some form of self-regulation. I submit that selfregulation is a delusion- a self-delusion. It does not work effectively and it will not give the conviction to the public that is needed to restore credibility for this Parliament and confidence publicly in its operation. I quote exactly from page 2 1 of the Bowen report so that there can be no disputing this point: >Self-regulation may be abused to the point that there is no regulation at all. Undoubtedly one of the factors encouraging the move for imposition of statutory obligations enforced by the court on Members of Congress in the United States was a belief that in the past Congress was not prepared to discipline its own members. That to me demolishes the argument of selfregulation. One should note for the record that it is deceptive of the Minister to suggest, as the Deputy Prime Minister **(Mr Anthony)** suggested in November last year when he introduced debate on this topic, that the Bowen Committee came down fairly against a register of pecuniary interests of members of this Parliament. At best one can only say they were equivocal in apprehending as they did, as reasonably fair but somewhat conservative men, that other reasonably fair but progressive men would resent this and want to resort to the introduction of such a register. The Bowen Committee of Inquiry outlined in considerable detail the processes and the requirements for such a register. Victoria has taken steps in this respect as has New South Wales. All other States except Queensland have considered it in some respect. The United States, under the United States Ethics and Government Act of 1978 imposed stringent requirements in this respect. So does the Canadian Government. The fact is that politicians are not trusted in the public view. We must restore that public respect for this institution and for the people who work in it otherwise we cannot discharge our duties to the satisfaction of ourselves or the public. It is a matter of melancholy regret that one has to confess this. At page 44 of the Bowen report it is stated: >As a group, 'politicans' are regarded with a considerable degree of cynicism and distrust. That is, we have been reduced to the level of the medical profession. I ask all self-respecting members of parliament to try to extract themselves from that situation. What we are talking about is an exercise designed to promote public confidence- public confidence through the clear display of a code of conduct, a commission of integrity, a committee of ethics and the disclosure publicly through a register of the pecuniary interests of members of this Parliament. A system should be established by which it will be beyond any doubt that a member may be responding to self-interest in the way in which he presents and promotes a case in this Parliament. I acknowledge that this sort of system will not make honest those dedicated to be dishonest. That is not what we are talking about; we are talking about laying down clear guidelines so that there can be no quibbling about what should or should not have been done later. More importantly, we are talking about enshrining public confidence in this institution. That perhaps is best summed up in the Riordan report which, at page 46, states: >The arguments relating to difficulties of definition, ease of evasion, administrative complexity and the assumption of integrity impugned lost much of their force if the register was considered not as a means of detecting fraud amongst Members of Parliament, but as a means of enabling the public to form an opinion as to the weight it should attach to the views or decisions of its elected representatives in the light of the interests which those representatives held. I should like to raise many other matters but I must move on to the other issue that has to be raised. I refer to the declaration of interests of the judiciary. In that respect I remind honourable members of the Bowen report which unequivocally stated: >It is now accepted that judges should not engage in business or in any way be associated with business institutions, for example as director, trustee or advisor. I put it to the House that through the results of recent disclosures in this Parliament it is clear that the present Chief Justice has occupied two positions in some form. It is clear that in the absence of any disclosure on his part in situations it could be conceived, rightly or wrongly- I prefer to believe wrongly- that there could have been a conflict of interest in his judgments in the High Court. I return to the point. That is quite improper and there is a need for a clear definition of what should or should not be followed in these sorts of situations. The questions that have yet to be resolved concern the fact that the Chief Justices 's spouse had shareholdings in a family company, Mundroola Pty Ltd and that there were pecuniary interests such as a rent-free house enjoyed by the Chief Justice since the 1960s. That is other than a propriety interest but one which is not absolved by the requirements of disclosure on the part of a justice. In the banks nationalisation case Justice Starke and Justice Latham each disclosed pecuniary interest. There is absolutely no reason why the Chief Justice presently occupying that position should not have done so on at least six occasions when he was required to participate in decisions affecting Ampol Petroleum Ltd, CSR Ltd and Brambles Holdings Ltd- companies with which he had some sort of association through the family company Mundroola Pty Ltd. This contrasts dramatically with the requirements of the late **Sir Robert** Menzies. I seek leave to have two letters incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The letters read as follows-* Dear Judge, **Mr E.** J. Ward, M.P., this week asked me a question about your acceptance of a directorship of the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company. I said that I knew nothing of it and would be surprised to learn that it was true. Subsequently, **Mr Ward** handed me a copy of the notice issued by the Company on June 13, 1958, in which you are referred to as a retiring Director who, being eligible, offers himself for re-election. I have discussed this matter with my senior colleagues and with the Leaders of the Opposition. We are all agreed that a Judge of the International Court of Justice should not accept places of profit outside his judicial work. It was, in fact, to enable close attention to the duties of the Court, financial independence, and detachment from other employments, that the salaries of the Court were fixed at so high a figure and the conditions made so favourable. I should make it quite clear that your action, if it comes to be openly challenged in the House, will, so far as I can judge, be condemned on both sides of it. I esteem it my duty to convey these observations to you, adding for myself that I still find it very difficult to believe the facts laid before me. Yours sincerely (R.G. MENZIES) The Honourable **Sir Percy** Spender. KCVO KBE Judge of the International Court of Justice. Dear Prime Minister, I have your letter of yesterday. I should say at the outset that I hold no place of profit of any kind whatsoever outside my judicial work. My sole source of remuneration is the salary I receive as a Judge of the Court. It is correct that I am- at least until today- a Director of Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. I am however neither entitled to receive nor do I receive any remuneration of any kind. My name was submitted as a Director of the Company only after I had carefully perused the Statute of the Court, and had been in touch with a person of authority and long knowledge of the Court, and had satisfied myself that it was in no way inconsistent with any of its terms or my duties as a Judge of the Court. It was my view that such an association with people who had been my friends over many years would have provided me with an interest here whenever long recesses of the Court allowed me to return to Australia and that such an association could in no way give rise to any likely conflict of duty. However, with the wish that as a Judge of the Court my position should be beyond all controversy, I have this day resigned as a Director of the Company. I thank you for writing to me, Sincerely, PERCY SPENDER {: #subdebate-41-0-s2 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN: -- It will be seen in one of those letters that, when a question was raised in the Parliament in relation to the pecuniary interests of **Sir Percy** Spender then on the International Court, **Sir Robert** Menzies said: >I should make it quite clear that your action, if it comes to be openly challenged in the House, will, so far as I can be judged, be condemned on both sides of it. That was a clear and irrefutable assertion of principle. It is a principle which, unfortunately, was hallowed only in those days; it has been lost sight of completely. It is because of that that we must establish a proper standard of conduct not just for members of parliament, the Public Service and semi-statutory authorities but also for the judiciary. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr** MillarOrder! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? {: #subdebate-41-0-s3 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford -- I second the amendment. I do so in the terms of what the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Hayden)** has clearly indicated to the House, namely that the Opposition is not at all satisfied with the Government's approach to this matter. Perhaps the Government might take some refuge in the fact that the Committee that it has set up - {: .speaker-L1V} ##### Mr Yates: -- I rise on a point of order, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** Is the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith seconding the amendment? {: #subdebate-41-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is seconding the amendment. {: .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN: -I think the honourable member for Holt knew that- his point of order was just a ploy to cause an interruptionotherwise I would not be on my feet. I make the point that we are anxious to debate this matter in an impartial way because the propriety of the public duty and private interests has got to be acceptable to the people of this nation. It is not a matter of being acceptable to a government or an opposition, or both; it is a question of what the people of the nation expect of us. I had a chance to make a few comments on this report when it was introduced, as the Leader of the Opposition said, on the last day of the session last year. We are debating it again virtually on the last day of the session this year. Not every honourable member got a chance to talk on it last time, but on that occasion I was able to indicate that the opposition was not satisfied because the report did not grapple with the problems we felt it could solve easily. We made it very clear that as a government we would introduce an obligation to disclose all shareholdings, all interests, all gifts, all liabilities, not only of ourselves but also of our spouses and dependent children. We said also that it was important for this to be done immediately. We said that there should be a public declaration by members of parliament of their interests, including their incomes and liabilities. That is a clear statement. That information should be available to the public. This will not happen under the recommendations that have been made by what is called the Bowen inquiry. The other more significant point to which I want to address my remarks relates to the fact that if we leave the procedure as it is at the present time, we will not even be keeping pace with the rest of the world. We will not even be keeping pace with other States in Australia in what they regard as being an obligation of members of parliament to disclose their pecuniary interests. Even in local government, as you would know, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** an alderman is obliged to announce immediately to the council meeting whether he has a pecuniary interest in a matter. That means that if one is a legal officer in a firm which has some interest in a building application simply because the firm has a client, nevertheless one is deemed to have in interest. The legal profession naturally seems to have more obligations of onus in this regard because it has to act for people. Once a person in the legal profession acts for people, he comes to the point of getting a fee. So there could be a pecuniary interest. Therefore, the matter dealt with in the second part of our amendment is something that really has not been grappled with at the present time. The inquiry was established in December 1977 by the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser).** He made a Press statement, and that is very significant because we had what was then known as the Lynch problem or the Lynch scandal. That matter involved a quick capital gain being made out of a land sale option under which a Minister of the Crown achieved a remarkable increase in capital. This caused a public outcry and the Minister was obliged to step down. Following the election the Prime Minister said: 'I think something has to be done about the situation.' He went on to say: 'There must be a procedure whereby obviously a high standard is maintained by those people in public office '. It follows from what has been said already that everybody thinks that the only people in public office who have to maintain a high standard are politicians. Even the report of the inquiry downgrades us on the basis that most people hold politicians in some sort of derision or cynicism. We are usually the butt of some cartoon figure or somebody who suggests we need a higher intelligence quotient. When it comes to a politician making money, he is deemed to be rogue and a thief. We can be all those things. We face one test, and that is that the public ought to be informed about our behaviour, our assets and those of our spouses and our children. In other words, we are subject to this test. We are also subject to the test of having to be re-elected every two or three years, and that is important. {: .speaker-XD4} ##### Mr Goodluck: {: .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN: -The reason is that honourable members are in a position of trust which they can exploit and, therefore, they are in a position of making gains. The Lynch situation clearly indicated that there had been a rezoning of land which might well have created an impression in the public mind that somebody had special knowledge or some special reason to get it rezoned. That was the clear indication. It was the reason that the Prime Minister had to set up this inquiry. Let me deal with the other aspects about which we ought to talk in relation to this amendment; that is, that there ought to be the establishment of an inquiry to draft some legislation which prescribes standards of behaviour for the Australian judiciary. That has not been done. I am not here just to criticise the judiciary, but the gaps are enormous. The committee adverts to that fact in paragraphs 11.6 and 11.7 of its report. In paragraph 1 1.6 it said: >It is now accepted that judges should not engage in business or in any way be associated with business insititutions, for example as director, trustee or adviser. The law disqualifies a judge who has a pecuniary interest in one of the parties before the court . . . That is very clear. However, in paragraph 11.7 the committee concluded: . . . that there was no discernible need for such extension of the existing rules, which, in the Committee 's opinion, render extremely unlikely the possibility that a conflict of interest involving a member of the federal judiciary might develop . . . The Opposition makes it clear that that is not the situation. We think, and we believe the public would think, that such a conflict of interest certainly has been brought to light. This was not done by the Opposition as a political group agreeing to bring the matter before the Senate. It was done by **Senator Evans** when talking about the Chief Justice. The Opposition did not know anything about it. Having been brought to light, the Prime Minister indicated in this House that there was no problem because he had a letter from the distinguished Chief Justice clearly indicating that there was no infringement of the provisions. We are not here to argue the merits of just that case. It goes without saying that we should talk about the standard of judicial tests and what should be done when there is a conflict of interest. The most significant statement made is that made by **Sir Winston** Churchill. Referring to judges, he said: >Far more freedom is granted by the convention of our way of life to Members of Parliament, to Ministers or to Privy Councillors. The Judges have to maintain a far more rigorous standard than is required from any other class that I know of in the realm. That is important because judges are appointed on a permanent basis. They are not subject to public review; they are subject to parliamentary review. There has to be fairly substantive evidence as to what a judge might have done wrong before a Parliament- that is both Houses- can remove him from such an appointment. There should be a public disclosure of the judicial interests which might exist and which could well affect the justice of the situation. A very good test was given by no less a person than the Chief Justice in collaboration with Justices Gibbs, Stephen and Mason in what was known as ex parte Watson. The test in that case is admirable. The joint judgment states: >The view that a judge should not sit to hear a case if, in all the circumstances, the parties or the public might reasonably suspect that he was not unprejudiced and impartial and that if a judge does sit in those circumstances, prohibition will lie is not only supported by the balance of authority as it now stands, but is correct in principle. That is the test we want to see brought into a statutory situation here because it has not applied in the High Court in regard to the matters that were raised in the Senate. It is no good arguing; it just has not applied because there was no public declaration of pecuniary interest. If we start talking about pecuniary interest, we have to talk about the assets of a company and we have to talk about whether one enjoys the benefits of those assets. If one does, as was pretty clear one would have an interest. It is no good the Minister for Home Affairs **(Mr Ellicott)** coming into the House and saying by way of explanation:' Well, of course in the bank nationalisation case there were also judges who had financial interests.' The great distinction there was that the judges in the bank nationalisation case declared their interests in advance. It is not fair or-compatible to say: Well, of course the same situation arose in the matters that were debated in the Senate'. It did not. There was no declaration of public interest. There is a lot of disquiet at present in this nation because of a number of incidents that have occurred since November 1975. Not only did they affect the appointments of people to judicial office because of opinions then given without being asked for, but they certainly affected the nation. The question of the Sankey case comes right into that thrust. Four Ministers of the Labor Government were prosecuted. The question arises: What was the interest of a government in that prosecution? Who financed it? The whole thrust of public disclosure - {: .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner: -- The Government financed the defence. {: .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN: -The Government financed the defence! I am delighted that the Minister acknowledges that. I know that. But we had a lot of trouble getting the point - {: .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner: -- How can you then imply that the Government financed the prosecution? {: .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN: -The point I want to make is that - {: .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner: -- That is a false implication. {: .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN: -It is not palpably false. If the Minister looks at *Hansard* of July 1975 he will see that one of his Ministers suggested that there ought to be a prosecution for conspiracy. That is the point. Does the Minister think that it is a coincidence that the four Labor Ministers were charged to appear in a Queanbeyan court on a return date which was the same date as **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** had convened the Parliament of Queensland for one special purpose on that day? This is your challenge, **Mr** Minister. The Government has been asked before to hold an inquiry into who financed this prosecution. There is a beneficial interest to a government if it can malign members of the Opposition. The test of what we are about, though, is that there must be judicial impeccability. I make the point that when one sees enormous sums of money, which the Minister has admitted were spent in the Sankey case, being expended by an impecunious solicitor and when one sees the two senior counsel in the Sankey case getting the Government brief in the Greek conspiracy case, one is talking about thousands of dollars. {: .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I take a point of order. I made no such admission as asserted by the honourable gentleman concerning the extent of the costs incurred by prosecution. I made no such admission. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr** MillarOrder! There is no point or order. {: .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN: -The Minister admitted that the defendants were given legal aid. It has cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars. The point I am making is that there is a public disquiet at the fact that the learned counsel prosecuting for Sankey then got Government briefs which are costing thousands of dollars to prosecute in the Greek conspiracy case. The real issue is the fact that if any judicial appointments were made from this Government's Ministry or from that learned counsel group, there would be a lot of public disquiet because the Government has failed to answer the charge whether it was involved. The point, though, comes down to this question. The Prime Minister comes into this House and says that the test whether there has been any judicial impropriety is a matter of personal opinion by the judge himself. That is not the test and all Government members admit that. The question is the test that was given by His Honour **Mr Justice** Connor recently in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. When talking about a particular magistrate, His Honour said: >I have every confidence that he is perfectly free of bias in this matter. But His Honour said that that was not the complete test. He said: >That however is not the test. The question to be asked is whether reasonable people would suspect that he might be biased . . . If I ask myself the question which I think is the correct question whether reasonable people looking at this matter might suspect that the learned magistrate is biased, I can only give an affirmative answer to that question. The problem is the question of the public interest and the question whether there is some impropriety. Let me also deal with the matter mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. It related to **Sir Percy** Spender. A question was asked in this House whether **Sir Percy** Spender was entitled to be a member of the International Court when he was a director of the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. Government members ought to be impressed with what the then **Mr Menzies** said in a letter which was tabled in this Parliament. He said: >I have discussed this matter with my senior colleagues and with the Leaders of the Opposition . . . > >I should make it quite clear that your action, if it comes to be openly challenged in the House, will, so far as I can judge, be condemned on both sides of it. That is a pretty clear indication. In fairness to **Sir Percy** Spender, I should point out that he wrote back: 'I am a director. I did not get any money, but I resign forthwith'. That was the test and it ought to put on the record. It is a shame the Prime Minister did not advert to that situation because it is not a test whether the judge himself thinks there has been some question of impropriety. The test is what public opinion thinks of the situation. So we come to the necessity of now asking again, to overcome the problems of recent weeks and the stigma that attaches to the whole sorry episode of 1975 onwards, that there be a reconvening of this Committee. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr** MillarOrder! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-41-0-s5 .speaker-L1V} ##### Mr YATES:
Holt -- I feel that those who come to read our parliamentary debate on this very important issue concerning the assets of private members will be somewhat surprised to read the somewhat uncharitable and vicious speech of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Hayden).** Indeed, it was a great disappointment to me because I had hoped that we would get a debate tonight which would be constructive, and which would concern the conduct of honourable members in trying to make quite certain that the standard of their dealings and the standard of their public conduct was that which would receive the approbation of the nation. The last few moments of the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** were spent on the Sankey case which had no relevance to what we were asked to discuss tonight. It is very sad that as a result of Khemlani, Iraqi dollars and personal attacks on members' private lives, their families, their children and themselves, we have reduced the standing of honourable members. It is entirely our own fault for having so done. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that, by custom both in the House of Commons and in the United States Congress, whenever a member is about to speak on any matter in which he has an interest, he automatically informs the Chair either directly or indirectly- and in the House of Commons, one must do so directly- that he has an interest. The country expects members of parliament to be honourable members and if we go on in this way we will only do ourselves a great disservice. Standing Order 196 provides that, if a member has an interest in a matter before the House, he cannot vote on the matter. I do not dispute that there might be some code of ethics for the House. But the House is supposed to have its own code of ethics in the way in which it behaves, in the way in which it conducts its business and in the way in which one honourable member deals with another. If each member of this Parliament wants to propose a code of ethics for himself, which he does not have, it is entirely up to each honourable member to propose it. A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest. Why? It is because the Opposition insists that members register their holdings, as if that will automatically solve the problem. Hey presto, register them, let the public look at them and everything will be all right. What an extraordinary idea: That just by registering your wife's holdingsfour ducks, three chickens, nine beehives, shares in a couple of racehorses or whatever it may be- the general public will be happier. I have never heard of such a proposition being made to this Parliament. It could be workable. Apparently it is also suggested that a sanction should be imposed on any honourable member who forgot to register something. Honourable members ought to know that their lives are as honourable members of this House; that their conduct should be such that there is no need for any register of that sort at all. If the House feels that the general public is so suspicious of our standing, of our dealings one with another, and of our dealings with members of the public, we might consider giving to **Mr Speaker** a register of our assets. In that way, if a member of the general public wanted to know what assets a member held, for one reason or another, he or she could do so. I would not see anything wrong with that. I am disappointed that the Opposition has taken the view that it has. I would have thought that by now what the Government had proposed was not in itself a bad proposal. I am sorry about the judiciary aspect. I do not understand it. The Committee actually said that it saw no need for such a code for the judiciary; that there had been no need for a new code of judicial conduct in the United States. The Committee examined that aspect for some time and concluded that there was no discernible need for such an extension of the rules which now govern the judiciary. Surely we will have further debate on this matter. Before the Opposition becomes wild and vicious about the actions of 1975 concerning the Governor-General, the Chief Justice, Iraqi dollars, Khemlani or whatever happened at that time, I would hope that we would have another debate; that we could persuade its members, especially the honourable member for Lalor **(Mr Barry Jones),** to approach the matter in a more open, friendly, Christian and charitable way. I hope that the Leader of the House **(Mr Viner)** would discuss with the Cabinet during the coming recess the fact that whereas the code of ethics is something on which we should work, we could perhaps consider having a further debate upon it at a better time of the day, when honourable members are in a better frame of mind to discuss a matter which the country believes to be exceptionally important. It would be quite wrong and uncharitable for someone who went before the Bowen committee and discussed the matters that have been raised here not to say that that Committee endeavoured to do this House and the Parliament a great service. If honourable members opposite do not like, or disapprove of, the Bowen Committee's report, let us have a further debate so that we can explore these matters as a House and as honourable members, in order that our standing in the nation will remain high. That responsibility rests upon us. Question put: >That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr Hayden's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) AYES: 71 NOES: 29 Majority....... 42 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 3036 {:#debate-42} ### ADJOURNMENT Textile, Clothing and Footwear IndustryAboriginal Affairs- Middle East Motion ( by **Mr Viner)** proposed: >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-42-s0 .speaker-4I4} ##### Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The textile, clothing and footwear industries in Australia directly employ 120,000 people. Another 300,000 people are indirectly reliant for their jobs on these workers. Most of these people are in regional centres, most are unskilled or semi-skilled workers and most are migrant and female. Following the disastrous policies of the current Government over the last few years, over 200,000 manufacturing workers have lost their jobs. The employment required, the massive social and economic consequences of technological change, the energy crisis and the disintegrating international monetary system have caused the demise of a number of these industries. Now more than ever before we must hold the line on our existing jobs. Yet this Government has moved in recent years to advocate a free trade position- a position which will cost many Australians their jobs. The benefit Australians can expect to receive from this position is to be denigrated by the Government for being unemployed. The free trade argument is that if Australian industry is fully exposed to import competition, magical market forces will ensure the elimination of supposedly inefficient industries and the establishment of supposedly efficient, but not job-creating, export-orientated industries. My party rejects the simplistic terms of these arguments. The arguments ignore the implications of the current economic trends in Asian countries. The new wave of free trade zones, in Sri Lanka particularly, are beginning to cut into the growth potential of the current industries- garment manufacturing and textiles- in Asian countries. The lead has been taken in Singapore- {: .speaker-JTM} ##### Mr Burns: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I raise a point of order. I believe that honourable members should speak in English in this House. I cannot understand the honourable member. Could he please speak in English? {: .speaker-4I4} ##### Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -We would have a lot of difficulty, of course, in listening to the rubbish of the honourable member for Isaacs. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr** MillarOrder! There is no point of order. {: .speaker-4I4} ##### Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- We have seen the cut into these industries- garment manufacturing and textiles in particular- in Asian countries. The lead has been taken in Singapore through Lee Kuan Yew's second industrial revolution. The theoretical arguments of the so-called economic rationalists such as the honourable member for Isaacs **(Mr Burns)** rely on the assumption of full employment- a condition that does not exist now and will not exist in the 1980s. The economic free traders cannot answer for the fact that we have high unemployment in Australia and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. If one suspects that the rest of the economy will pick up the workers who have been put out of work by these free trade operators, one is in respectable company. There are clearly only two alternatives arising from a tariff cut. Either real wages will fall or some jobs will go. In the clothing, textile and footwear industries, for instance, there has been a great decline in employment in Victoria. That is a fact of which the honourable member for Isaacs, who represents a Victorian electorate, should be well aware. The present Government keeps emphasising the high protection nature of industries such as the textile industry but does nothing but cause harm and damage to our relations with the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations countries. It does not accord with the facts in these areas. It should be noted that the Asian countries supply only 5 to 7 per cent of textile and clothing imports into Australia. Most of these imports come from the United States of America. A reduction in trade barriers in this industry would, in all probability, benefit the United States, which would be able to take advantage of scale economies and which already possesses a sophisticated fashion market which is akin to Australia's fashion market. We should remember that the ASEAN countries have significant non-tariff barriers. For instance, knitted shirts from those countries are prohibited in Australia. Yet the current Government, by its actions and statements, seeks to condemn the people who would attempt to protect Australian industry. The textile and clothing industry in Australia in recent times has begun restructuring and rationalising. Productivity increases have been higher than in any other sector of manufacturing industry and the manufacturing index of prices has risen by less than almost any other sector. The Australian Labor Party does not want to see Australia make the same mistakes as other countries have. We believe in the clothing and textile industry. We believe in those workers' rights to a job and we will seek to ensure the continued viability of this nationally and socially important industry. I believe that any attempt to reduce the amount of protection available to the Australian manufacturing industry and in particular the clothing and footwear industry will be very retrograde for Australian employees. {: #debate-42-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-42-s2 .speaker-K9O} ##### Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP -- During 1980 long-term policy decisions for the major manufacturing groups of textiles, clothing and footwear will be under consideration by the Australian Government. It is critical that these decisions be approached in a manner that fully recognises the social and economic importance of these industries to the Australian community. I have long been a supporter of maintaining an industry base in Australia that reflects the diverse employment needs of the Australian workforce, and ensures that the opportunities for the application of Australia's human energy resources are not wasted. It has become fashionable recently in some quarters to attack strategies taken by Government towards manufacturing in Australia. These critics point towards mechanostyle theories to develop fanciful solutions that bear no relevance to the real world in Australia or other developed economies. In approaching the question of industry policy for Australia it is essential that the realities of both labour and product markets be recognised. In terms of labour market considerations, the free trade pundits conveniently overlook the very nature of the labour resources to which their policy advice relates. One rarely hears the manufacturing critics acknowledging the transitory nature of labour services. The recent Flinders University *Bulletin of Labour* highlighted the importance of this fact for policy consideration and noted: >Whereas a tonne of coal will still be there tomorrow if not mined today, a man-hour will not be. The man might still be there but his unused labour is forever lost. Similarly, the realities of product markets are frequently ignored with the theorists assuming various patterns of behaviour in trade and commerce that bear little relationship to the real world. The forthcoming decision on textiles and clothing has seen the re-emergence of many of those old misunderstandings compounded by the selective arguments of special antimanufacturing interest groups. One can only hope that the ill-informed arguments being advanced by the theorists against the textile, clothing and footwear industries are exposed for what they are worth before irreparable damage is done to these industries and other manufacturing industries through inappropriate long-term policy decisions in the near future. By way of example I refer to a number of common misconceptions distorting the theorists' viewpoint as to policy considerations desirable for Australia's textile, clothing and footwear industries. Firstly, these industries are not open to their painless withdrawal from the Australian manufacturing sector. They are extremely important providers of job opportunities, providing direct employment for 120,000 Australians, and indirectly, through linkages to other industries in the economy, an estimated 200,000 additional jobs. With 10 per cent of manufacturing employment in total and 25 per cent of all female positions in Australian manufacturing, the industry is vital to continuing employment opportunities. Make no mistake, the nature of the job skills, education, sex and age characteristics of these persons mean that other alternative job opportunities are virtually non-existent The tightness of the current job market makes their plight even more difficult and the potential for wasted human energy a greater threat. Enthusiasm of the free trade theorists for scaling down our textile, clothing and footwear industries would lead one to believe that Australia is out of step with other countries in terms of their attitude towards these industries. However, the facts are that major developing countries such as the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Germany protect their industries to a far greater extent than the protection that is provided to the Australian textile, clothing and footwear industries. Under the special conditions written into world trading arrangements for the textile and clothing trade, quotas are applied through the multi-fibre arrangement to ensure that growth in these industries in the major developed countries continues to occur. Australia has one of the highest per capita import levels of textile and apparel products of all developed countries and in fact on a per capita basis it imports twice the European Economic Community level, three times the United States level and six times the level of imports of Japan. I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard* an article written by Peter Costigan on an interview with the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** which appeared in the Melbourne Herald of 13 May 1980. Leave granted. *The document read as follows-* >GOVERNMENT HAS TO STRIKE A BALANCE > >From Peter Costigan > >Canberra.- The Prime Minister, **Mr Fraser,** has hinted strongly that the Federal Government will not reduce current levels of protection for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. > >In an interview, he strongly defended the existing levels of protection for the three industries which he claims are more efficient than many people accuse them of being. 'I know of textile firms which have tried to export textiles to low wage-cost countries. They have been told they can't because it is totally reserved for the domestic market, even though they were competitive, ' the Prime Minister said. 'I have known firms which have wanted to get distributors in certain countries and have not been able to do so. That is, in fact a protective device. 'These countries have wage subsidies and export subsidies of a kind we have never practised and I hope never will practise in Australia. 'There is other evidence in the quantity of sensitive goods- textiles apparel and footwear- that we do in fact buy from developing countries. 'We buy more on a per capita basis than Japan, North America and Europe, and that is a measure, in a very real sense, of the openness of our market. 'So, in this kind of world, there is no way Australia can open markets and say, "Everyone else can come in here and sell whatever they can, without any restraints". 'That would devastate industries and be quite unfair. So what we do has to be balanced through the Industries Assistance Commission's advice, but that is all that it is. 'Governments have to make the decision. We try to take a balanced approach.' Government departments are now studying the final IAC report on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and cabinet is expected to make a decision soon on whether or not to continue the currently high tariffs and tight quotas applying to all three. In addition to his strong defence of the current levels of protection for the three industries, **Mr Fraser** defended Australian protection levels generally and maintained that there had already been major restructuring of Australian industry in line with the Crawford report. 'When you take the totality of protection, I think Australia is one of the lowest protected countries in the world, simply because we have stuck with tariffs and quotas and that is about it, ' he said. 'On top of tariffs and quotas, a lot of other countries have embargoes, levies, levelling devices, quarantine arrangements that aren't quarantine arrangements and voluntary restraint agreements that aren't voluntary because if you don't sign it you won't be allowed to trade at all. ' We j lust haven 't operated in those ways. ' If you are able to put countries on a proper protection ladder and estimate how protected each country is, giving a proper weight to all these devices, I think we would find our markets among the most open in the world. ' Asked about the Crawford report, **Mr Fraser** said a large portion had already been implemented. 'When people talk about restructuring, they often forget the enormous restructuring that is taking place all the time, ' he said. 'Take what's happened in the dairy industry a few years ago- 12 or 15 years ago- there were nearly 80,000 dairy farmers. Today there are about 30,000. That has involved a massive restructuring. 'And the same sort of thing has happened in many Australian manufacturing industries, especially, again in the sensitive textiles, apparel and footwear industries. So the market forces cause a restructuring. 'Governments get into difficulties when they create policies which prevent those market forces from working. Then your economy gets rigid and you get attached to certain industries which are uneconomic and are not competitive. 'So you get capital labour and government locked into industries through various support mechanisms. That is what has happened in Europe where today they probably have the best part of $25,000 million a year in wage subsidies or export subsidies. 'We have not embarked on those sorts of policies and I don 't think we should. ' **Mr Fraser** said there had been 'confusion' over recommendations by the Paris-based OECD and the Crawford Report that governments should adopt positive adjustment policies. He said: 'In Australia those terms have been used to suggest that governments should have policies which say industry should invest, or that people should invest in this industry rather than that, with governments taking a much more interventionist role and the market place having a much less important part to play. 'In fact, when the OECD talks of positive adjustment policies, they are in very simple terms saying that governments should keep out- that governments should stop interfering, that governments should allow the market process to work. 'When they talk of positive adjustment policies they are saying governments should stop their wage subsidies, governments should stop their special intervention, governments should stop their special cheap money for industries which aren't competitive, governments should end all the special programs designed to prop up the uneconomic- in other words, let the market forces work. ' {: .speaker-K9O} ##### Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP -I thank the House. The textile, clothing and footwear industries are also accused of being inefficient and of giving rise to substantial price increases at the expense of the consumer. Yet productivity improvements within these industries have been substantial with the textile industry recording the highest rate of increase in measured productivity of any industry group in the manufacturing sector. {: #debate-42-s3 .speaker-CI4} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar: Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-42-s4 .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr WEST:
Cunningham -The other night when speaking during the adjournment debate I referred to the appalling health problems the Aboriginal people suffer as a result of Federal and State government racist and discriminatory administration and expenditure cuts in the key area of Aboriginal health. An article in the Melbourne *Herald of! My* 1979 stated: >An entire Australian community is living in 19th century conditions, in squalor and ill health, dying of 19th century diseases and facing 19th century life expectancy ... yet there is no national outcry, no scandal, no uproar in the Parliament. For the people are Aboriginals. They live mainly in the remotest areas . . . and nobody seems to care very much. One of the most vital factors to good health is adequate housing. Since 1975 Aboriginal housing funds have been cut by 24 per cent. By Department of Aboriginal Affairs conservative estimates, the need is for 10,000 houses or dwellings. Over the next 10 years there will be a need to build at least 14,000 dwellings. There are 7,000 substandard Aboriginal dwellings in Australia at present. At Wilcannia, 20 families live in 10 small houses with an average of 12 people per house. At Walgett, 158 people live in 12 threebedroom houses with an average of 13 people per house. The Western Australian Department of Public Health identified a need to provide housing for 2,700 Aboriginal families. At current funding it will take at least 30 years to overcome the present backlog without taking into account any new demands. Total housing expenditure in Queensland from both Commonwealth and State grants has fallen from $ 12.7m five years ago to $5m this year. There are disturbing reports about the way in which some States, particularly New South Wales, have applied strict eligibility ciriteria to the $20m earmarked for additional Aboriginal housing from welfare housing allocations. Allegations are that the New South Wales commission applied 'normal' criteria, meaning that the commission looked at applicants' need, income and suitability as future tenants. The commission was considering how clean and tidy people might be, completely overlooking the fact that many of those in need lived in tin sheds, shanties and car bodies. So the most needy, those in the most squalid environment, were excluded. And this was in the supposedly most enlightened State! Aggravating the housing problem is the lack of sanitation and water supply suffered by Aboriginal communities. Nationally, 15 per cent of Aboriginal communities have no water supply, 30 per cent have no electricity supply and 29 per cent have no sewerage services. {: .speaker-JTM} ##### Mr Burns: -- Which State? {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr WEST: -- I am referring mainly to Western Australia and Queensland. Of the communities that do have these services, only half operate with any degree of efficiency. It is now possible for Aboriginal housing associations to construct dwellings as cheaply as do the States through their housing commission structures with the added advantage of involving-Aboriginal communities in designing and constructing the types of houses they require to suit local conditions. There is a case for holding grants to the States steady and restoring Fraser 's housing cuts through grants-in-aid direct to Aboriginal housing associations and to expand federal - {: .speaker-CI4} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar: Order! The honourable member for Cunningham will refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title. {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr WEST: -- There is a case for holding grants to the States steady and restoring the Prime Minister's housing cuts through grants-in-aid direct to Aboriginal housing associations and to expand federal advisory and support services to these associations. A continuing scandal is the refusal of some State departments, particularly the Queensland department, to implement court decisions to pay award wages to Aborigines. The Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement pays $ 1 20 to $ 1 40 gross a fortnight to its services employees on Queensland Aboriginal reserves. It labels Aborigines with the slow learners tag to justify this action. In Australia, persecution by this Government of Aborigines is condemned by the United Nations, by the international community at large, by all clearthinking white Australians and, most of all, by the Australian Aboriginal people. When will this Federal Government face its obligation with regard to the Aboriginal people. **Mr** DEPUTY SPEAKER **(Mr MillarOrder!** The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-42-s5 .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip -- I draw the attention of the House to a debate that occurred in this Chamber on 29 April last in connection with the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill. A Labor shadow Minister, the honourable member for Cunningham **(Mr West),** deploring the policies of Australian administrations over the last several hundred years, said: >I turn now to the policies of various Australian administrations over the last several hundred years. Certainly the attitudes of Australian governments have been similar to attitudes of settler states towards indigenous inhabitants throughout the whole period of European . colonisation. Essentially it is the same as the treatment that the United States colonists handed out to American Indians - {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr West: -- That is true. {: .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr BIRNEY: -- I ask the honourable member to keep listening. He continued: that the Europeans handed out to the African races; and, more recently, I ask the honourable member to listen to this statement. I hope that tonight he still considers it to be true. He said: and more recently, that the Israelis handed out to the Palestinians. {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr West: -- That is true, too. {: .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr BIRNEY: -Thank you. I am pleased that the honourable member has reaffirmed the statement. He went on: >Basically, it has been the attitude of colonists taking over a settler state and dispossessing the indigenous inhabitants of their land. Until the 1880s, treatment has ranged from sheer genocide, repression and exploitation. This is clearly a condemnation of Israel and an assertion that Israel and her people by force dispossessed the Palestinians and have been guilty of genocide. This is false and totally ignores the creation of Israel in 1948 by an overwhelming vote of the United Nations. The sinister and significant element of this allegation missed by the Australian people is that a member of the Opposition's front bench, uncontradicted by any Labor member, has allied himself with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The world would do well to remember in an age of violence- {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr West: -- I raise a point of order. In the speech on the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill I spoke about Aborigines and- {: .speaker-CI4} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar: Order! There is no point of order. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr West: -Yes, I do. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honourable member may seek the indulgence of the Chair at a later stage to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr BIRNEY: -The world would do well to remember in an age of violence that the PLO is the pacesetter of that violence. Australia would do well to consider that those pacesetters in violence have active aid from an alternative government. One lesson the world has learnt is that strategic violence is the enemy of us all. The authors of that page in terror should be condemned, not supported, by any section of the Australian community. Israel should and must be supported. The creation of that proud and gallant nation dug from the sands of the desert is the end result of hundreds of years of blood, sweat and toil- a toil so righteous and relentless so full of purpose, so full of pathos, so mixed with joy and sorrow; a toil that has won the admiration of all those who believe in the democratic way of life. The PLO is unremitting in its war of extermination against the Israeli people and remorseless and unrelenting in its bloody onslaught to tear asunder the state of Israel. The real intention of the Labor Party towards Israel has at last been exposed. It has been uttered by a member of the front bench of the parliamentary Labor Party and uncontradicted by any of its members. It stands as a salutary warning and as an example of the excesses that the Labor Party would go to if ever the people of Australia had the misfortune to see it in office. The PLO gets cold comfort from the policies of this Government but a warm and friendly approach from the Opposition. If the Opposition were in power it would, without question, grant diplomatic status to the PLO. The existing deal between the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Hayden)** and the socialist Left, dominated by the dark influence of Bill Hartley, would open the way for a Labor government to allow the bloodthirsty organisation diplomatic offices throughout Australia. This would be official endorsement of an age of terror. **Mr WEST** (Cunningham) **-Mr Deputy Speaker,** I wish to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr WEST: -- That is true; most certainly. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honourable member may proceed. {: .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr Bourchier: -- I take a point of order. Can a personal explanation be made while the adjournment debate is in progress? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The request is in order. {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr WEST: -I will be quite brief. Quite frankly, I was surprised that you, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** did not wait to hear my point of order because the honourable member continued with his speech and continued to thrust misrepresentations across the chamber. In my speechMr Burns- **Mr Deputy Speaker,** a point of order- {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr WEST: -- Why don't you sit down? You have never said anything constructive since you came into this place. {: .speaker-JTM} ##### Mr Burns: -- Don't you tell me to sit down, you half-baked- **Mr DEPUTY** SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Isaacs will resume his seat. The honourable member for Cunningham will cease to provoke him. I request both honourable members to observe the direction from the Chair. The honourable member for Isaacs seeks to take a point of order. He will do so in due form and await the call of the Chair. I call the honourable member for Isaacs on a point of order. {: .speaker-JTM} ##### Mr Burns: -- The honourable member for Cunningham had the opportunity to raise a point of order while the honourable member for Phillip was speaking. He did not seek to do so. He waited until the honourable member had finished. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -There is no point or order. {: .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I take a serious point of order. My understanding of the procedures that the House has adopted in relation to personal explanations is that they are raised at the first available opportunity after the debate which is taking place has concluded. The debate which is taking place at the moment is an adjournment debate. My understanding has always been that the first available opportunity to make a personal explanation about matters raised in the adjournment debate is the following day. It is my submission that the debate should not be interrupted at this time by personal explanations. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The Chair ruled on advice. I will briefly consult with the Clerk to confirm the position. The Chair is assured that there is no substance to the point of order. It is in order for a personal explanation to be taken at this stage. I remind the House that in actual fact no limit is set at this stage for the duration of the adjournment debate. {: .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: -- I appreciate that. I welcome the ruling because it may help me during Question Time. {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr WEST: -I will be quite brief. I said in my speech during the debate on the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill that the action of a white settler state, Australia, against the Australian Aboriginal people was quite similar to the treatment received by American Indians from United States settlers and to the treatment received by the Palestinians from the Israeli settler state. I do not retract that. The misrepresentation by the honourable member for Phillip pertained to the use of the words 'Palestine Liberation Organisation'. I did not mention the PLO. I referred to Israelis and Palestinians. The honourable member for Phillip seems to be labouring under the delusion that all Palestinians are members of the PLO. That is the only logical conclusion one can draw. As we are having this matter out here and now, I ask for a withdrawal. **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I seek your protection from this obvious misrepresentation. {: .speaker-CI4} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar: -Does the honourable member for Cunningham seek a withdrawal on the basis that the expression was offensive to him? {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr WEST: -- It was a misrepresentation. I did not say that in my speech. I hereby request that the expression be withdrawn. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! We will save time if the House conducts itself in an orderly fashion. The Chair understands the request of the honourable member for Cunningham for a withdrawal to be based on the premise that the misrepresentation was also offensive in character. On that basis, the Chair invites the honourable member for Phillip to withdraw any offensive intent. {: .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I take a point of order. The Standing Orders clearly refer to offensive words being used. None of the words used by the honourable member for Phillip were unparliamentary. If the honourable member is offended by the content of the speech, his only recourse is a personal explanation, which he has made. The words used were quite parliamentary. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The Chair's action does not rest upon the parliamentary terminology but upon the implication of the statement, not intended necessarily so far as the honourable member for Cunningham may have considered it. If the statement made by the honourable member for Phillip was true, it was intended to reflect on the character of the honourable member for Cunningham. On that basis I invite the honourable member for Phillip to withdraw. {: .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr Birney: -- I regard that as being completely unfair. The whole argument surrounds a statement and the interpretation placed on it by the honourable member for Cunningham. He says that he takes offence from it. {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr West: -- I take a point of order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Cunningham will resume his seat. {: .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr Birney: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** you will recall that in the course of my speech I quoted exactly the *Hansard* record of what the honourable member for Cunningham said. He referred to the treatment that had been handed out by Europeans and Americans to the Indians. He equated that with the treatment the Israelis had handed out to the Palestinians. I put that to him two or three times, and he said from the table 'That is true '. I recall his saying that. I then enlarged my argument on the statement attributed to the honourable member for Cunningham. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order!** The honourable member for Phillip will resume his seat. I suggest to him and to the honourable member for Cunningham that there is room for a genuine difference of opinion on this matter. The House would be well served if the matter were allowed to lapse. {: .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr West: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I take a point of order. I asked for the term be withdrawn. The honourable member for Phillip simply said that I had put forward an argument and used words which I did not use. I did not refer to the PLO, and as such I have been misrepresented. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Consistent with the forms of the House, the honourable member for Cunningham was accorded the opportunity, quite promptly, to correct the misrepresentation. The record will demonstrate that the statement of the honourable member for Phillip was challenged in the proper form. The Chair is not prepared to hear the matter further. {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Thursday, 22 May 1980 {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN:
Robertson Quite frankly, this is not the first time that we have seen the honourable member for Phillip **(Mr Birney)** and certain other members on the Government side of the House using the Israeli question and the question of the Jewish people for their own political purposes. {: .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr Birney: -- Scandalous! That is a miserable statement to make. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -We on this side of the House do not believe that there is any consistent and genuine belief in and support for the state of Israel and if there is it is only insofar as the honourable member for Phillip has the biggest Jewish population in Australia in his electorate. I would like to know just how many honourable members opposite would take any interest in Israel if they did not have any Jews in their electorates. The Australian Labor Party has one of the proudest records in support of the state of Israel since Israel's establishment in 1949. {: .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I raise a point of order. The remarks made by the honourable member for Robertson, which were a reflection on members of this House, ought to be retracted. To suggest that a honourable member would use people of a particular race for a miserable political purpose, which were the words used by the honourable member for Robertson, I regard as- {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- That is not a point of order. He is breaking into my speech. {: #subdebate-42-0-s1 .speaker-CI4} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar: Order! The Chair cannot uphold the point of order. I call the honourable member for Robertson. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- If members on the other side want to get up and attack this Party's record on Israel, they are asking for everything they get. We have the proudest record in this Parliament on the question of Israel right from the time when **Dr Evatt** supported the formation of the state of Israel. There are honourable members in this Parliament who have not a Jewish vote in their electorate. They supported Israel through thick and thin. {: .speaker-LE4} ##### Mr Baume: -- Who else supported it? {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- I only have to mention **Dr Evatt** as one. Bob Hawke and **Senator Wheeldon** are others who have supported it. There are people in the Labor Party who are also concerned, I might add, about the fate of the Palestinians. I am one of them. I have no objection to the support for the state of Israel but there are human beings on the other side- the Palestinians. To be total and unequivocal in support of the survival of the State of Israel does not mean to say that we should ignore the plight of the Palestinians. It does not simply apply to- {: .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr Bourchier: -- You ought to be ashamed of yourself. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- The honourable member ought to do a little bit of study about what is going on in the Middle East. {: .speaker-BV4} ##### Mr Hodgman: -- It is disgusting; a two bob each way bet. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- I can take you to Israel and introduce you to hundreds or even thousands of Israelis who are concerned about the Palestinian question. Anybody who knows the slightest thing about the Middle East knows damn well that there will be no solution to the problem of the Middle East- {: .speaker-JTM} ##### Mr Burns: -- Shame on you. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -Don't you bloody well say shame on me. I have been interested in Israel for the whole of my bloody life. I do not need a snotty nosed twit like you to tell me what my position is. {: .speaker-JTM} ##### Mr Burns: -- Point of order, **Mr Deputy** Speaker! {: #subdebate-42-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: {: .speaker-JTM} ##### Mr Burns: -- Point of order, **Mr Deputy** Speaker! {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- I know this better than anyone else in this bloody House. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable members for Isaacs and Robertson will resume their seats. Order! The House will come to order. I suggest that this is a lamentable way in which to commence a new day. I ask honourable members to observe the decorum of the House and exercise some self-restraint. I call the honourable member for Robertson and ask him to contain himself. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I am sorry for my loss of control, but I will not have someone like the honourable member for Isaacs coming in here and telling me what my position is. Thirty years of my life have been devoted to the support of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I am not human enough to understand the problems of the Palestinians. Perhaps the honourable member for Cunningham **(Mr West)** did place a slightly stronger emphasis on the question, but he did not mention the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Not once did he mention it hi his speech. {: .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr Bourchier: -- He has not denied it either. {: .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- He has denied it. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- He has denied it. This Party has a proud record in support of the state of Israel. Anyone who is a serious student of the Middle East knows, as do people like Begin and Sadat, that there is only one solution. Final peace in the Middle East will come when a way has been found to handle the problem of the Palestinians. We can sit and argue about that for hours and hours. But if people like the honourable member for Phillip get up and attack the Labor Party which has a proud record of support for the state of Israel and pretend that there are feelings of anti-semitism and anti-Israel on this side I will get up and have my piece to say. Members of the Labor Party over a long period, have been consistently and persistently in support of the state of Israel. I will not have anyone like the honourable member for Phillip, just because he has a big Jewish population in his electorate, getting up and making these statements and attacking this Party on this subject. {: #subdebate-42-0-s3 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas -The honourable member for Cunningham **(Mr West)** tonight made an address on Aboriginal people. I wish to make some short remarks about the comments that he made in his speech. He indicated from a quote that he had from the Melbourne *Herald* that there is no interest in this Parliament in the health and welfare of Aboriginal people. The fact of the matter is that as a result of a significant speech made by the former member for Fremantle, **Mr Beazley,** an inquiry was instituted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs into the health of Aboriginal people. That resulted in a very significant report being prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and tabled in the Parliament. It is a very significant document, one that I would encourage the honourable member to read, and one upon which I believe the Government will act. Following the honourable member's comments on the question of health, when clearly the quote that he mentioned really was not involved with the interest of the Parliament as a whole in the health of Aboriginal people, he made some very enlightening comments about housing. I must say that I was not aware before of all of the allegations that he made. They were numerous and quite detailed. It was fascinating to listen to the comments of the honourable member on the problems confronting Aboriginals in the area of housing. I was particularly interested in the comments that he made in relation to the position in New South Wales, where he alleged that there were funds made available by the Commonwealth that were not being made available on an unconditional basis for Aboriginal housing. They were comments of a great deal of concern to me. I hope that his comments tonight will lead to the course that was adopted following the significant speech of the former honourable member for Fremantle on a previous occasion. Those comments led to a reference from the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the then Minister for Health to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to investigate housing. Having regard to the comments of the honourable member tonight, certainly I hope that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney)** will instigate a reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs so that these important allegations can be adequately investigated. Motion (by **Mr Bourchier)** agreed to: >That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.7 a.m. NOTICES The following notices were given: **Mr Hunt** to present a Bill for an Act providing for the registration of ships in Australia, and for related purposes. **Mr Hunt** to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Flags Act 1953. **Mr John** McLeay to present a Bill for an Act to give preference, in the procurement of goods for Commonwealth authorities, to goods of Australian origin or having an Australian content. **Mr Ellicott** to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australia Council Act 1975. **Mr Staley** to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. **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 report to Parliament: Rehabilitation of Radio Australia Facilities, Cox Peninsula, Northern Territory.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800521_reps_31_hor118/>.