31st Parliament · 1st Session
Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1
– It is with deep regret that I inform the House of the death on 13 July 1980 of the President of Botswana, Sir Seretse Khama. I move:
That this House records its sincere regret at the death of Sir Seretse Khama, President of Botswana, and expresses its deepest sympathy to his family and to the people of Botswana.
The House will wish to be advised formally that the Government extended its deep sympathy to the Government and people of Botswana and that the Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Mr MacKellar) represented Australia at Sir Seretse Khama’s memorial service. Sir Seretse Khama was a great statesman. It is not often that the leader of a relatively small country has a large influence in the world. Sir Seretse did. He was very widely respected, initially for the way he led his country to independence in 1966, then for the way he guided his country with wisdom and judgment through many difficulties and not least for his actions and counsels over such large international matters as South Africa and Rhodesia. good humour. Honourable members will probably not be aware that during the latter years of his life he had a continuing struggle with ill health. Africa and Commonwealth councils, as well as his own country, were advantaged by his leadership. He was a fine man and a good man. He was a staunch friend. His death was a great loss not only to Botswana but also to Africa, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the international community. .
– I second the motion on behalf of my party and support the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Sir Seretse Khama was revered in his own country and respected far beyond it. Through the British Empire and later the Commonwealth association, Sir Seretse became known to millions around the world. His life was colourful and unusual by any standard. The son of a traditional chief, he was banished in a dispute over that chieftancy but finally achieved the leadership of his country through the democratic process. Botswana, and Bechuanaland before it, is not one of the priorities of Australian foreign policy. That, of course, is obvious. It makes it all the more remarkable that so many people in this country should share such admiration for the man who led Botswana through her preparation for independence and into nationhood.
Sir Seretse’s was always a voice for common sense and moderation. He was a person of great
As a senior Commonwealth statesman, Sir Seretse Khama made a significant contribution beyond the borders of his own country. The most recent, of course, was his contribution to a democratic and peaceful settlement in Zimbabwe. As the leader of one of the so-called front line states, Sir Seretse helped to keep alive the spirit of moderation at times when the odds were heavily against its survival. He was a genuine democrat throughout his political career and the democratic representative government he leaves behind in Botswana is a fitting tribute to his work.
Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.
page 2
– It is with deep regret that I inform the House of the death on 12 June 1980 of the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Ohira. I move:
That this House records its sincere regret at the death of Mr Masayoshi Ohira, Prime Minister of Japan, and expresses its deepest sympathy to his family and to the people of Japan.
The House will wish to be advised formally that the Government extended its deep sympathy to the Government and people of Japan and that I represented Australia at Mr Ohira’s memorial service. Mr Ohira led the Japanese Government at a time when changing international circumstances presented the Japanese nation with considerable uncertainties. A wisdom born of wide experience, coupled with a deep personal commitment to the shaping of a better world for future generations, earned Mr Ohira great international esteem. His wise advice and considered counsel gained him the respect of leaders around the world.
Mr Ohira recognised the important role which Japan had to play in international affairs and as a member of the Western alliance. He was concerned to enhance Japan’s political and economic contribution to world peace and security. His understanding of the changing circumstances in Asia and the Pacific led him to play an active part in seeking closer ties between the countries of the region and of the Pacific. His promotion of the concept of the Pacific Community is an example of this. In January of this year Mr Ohira visited Australia. He was welcomed both as a representative of one of the countries most important to us and as a national leader who strove to increase understanding and personal contact between the peoples of different countries. I believe that his visit made a lasting contribution to the strengthening of relations between Japan and Australia. We all mourn his death.
– I am pleased to support the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and to associate the Australian Labor
Party in this Parliament with the motion. Mr Ohira did more than any other Japanese leader of the post-war era to move his country towards a political role in world affairs commensurate with her vast economic strength. He did it not only as Prime Minister but also in a variety of important posts in a political career spanning nearly 30 years. His period as Prime Minister was a suitable and deserved pinnacle in that career. But possibly his most important contribution to Japan, and the world, has yet to be grasped fully by many people in the West. He was responsible for the normalisation of relations between Japan and South Korea nearly two decades ago and later with North Korea and China - a remarkable feat in the latter case since he also managed to preserve Japan’s relationship with Taiwan.
Mr Ohira also played a critically important role in the preservation of Japan’s close and often difficult relationship with the United States of America. Similarly, he was a most significant influence in the development of the AustraliaJapan relationship. He was a good friend of Australia, with a genuine and obvious liking for this country and its people which was demonstrated as recently as his visit at the beginning of this year. I believe he should also have the greatest share of the credit for transforming the outlook of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan in the 1960s - a change of profound importance to the Japanese people and the world. It was a change from a tradition of power for its own sake to an appreciation of human and social values in the business of government. The full consequences of that transformation have yet to be worked out within Japan, but if the process had been much delayed Japanese politics today might have been far more turbulent, far less stable and far more isolationist. For all these reasons, and indeed more, Mr Ohira was one of the chief architects of the political miracle that has followed Japan’s far more publicised economic miracle. The entire world can be grateful for his work in that role.
– I would like to support the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in respect of Mr Ohira, the late Prime Minister of Japan. I would like to express my deep personal sympathy and the sympathy of my party to the Government and people of Japan. Australia and Japan have enjoyed close relations for many years. Our links in the field of trade have been especially important and are of vital interest to both our nations. During my time as Minister for Trade and Resources and over the past nine years I met Mr Ohira on several occasions. He visited Australia as
Foreign Minister in 1972 and again this year as Prime Minister. In the course of both visits he made clear his interest in developing the links between Australia and Japan. I deeply respected him as a leader of long and wide experience, with vision, understanding and a concern for strengthening international relations, especially amongst the nations of the Pacific.
– Mr Speaker, I wish to support the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The death of Prime Minister Ohira was a sad occasion not only for the Japanese nation but also for those of us who knew him and respected his commitment to promoting peace and understanding among countries, particularly in the Pacific region.
Mr Ohira recognised clearly that the growing economic interdependence in the international community would not result in greater harmony between nations unless it were accompanied by positive efforts to improve mutual understanding and co-operation.
He sought to apply this principle through active diplomacy, notably in promoting the concept of a Pacific Community which he envisaged as providing a framework for the development of cooperation among the countries in the region.
Mr Ohira attached importance to strengthening Japan’s relations with Australia. He was concerned to strengthen exchanges in all fields and to provide greater opportunities for direct contact between Australians and Japanese - in effect, to lay the foundations for what he aptly described as a creative partnership’ between our countries.
These objectives corresponded closely to Australian views and it is a matter for deep sadness that Mr Ohira will not see the flowering in the new decade of the partnership to which he made such a substantial contribution.
Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.
page 3
– Mr Speaker, I inform the House of the deaths since the House last met of Mr Ron Davies, Mr Arthur Greenup, Mr Ted Peters and Mr Len Reynolds, former Australian Labor Party members of this House, and a former Labor senator, Senator Bill Morrow. I move:
That this House expresses its deepest regret at the deaths of Ronald Davies, a member of this House for the electoral division of Braddon from 1 958 to 1 975;. Arthur Edward Greenup, a member of this House for the electoral division of Dalley from 1953 to 19S5; Edward William Peters, a member of this
House for the electoral division of Burke from 1949 to 1955 and the electoral division of Scullin from 1955 to 1969; Leonard James Reynolds, a member of this House for the electoral division of Barton from 1958 to 1966 and from 1969 to 1975; and William Morrow, a senator for the State of Tasmania from 1947 to 1953; places on record its appreciation of their long and meritorious public service; and tenders its sympathy to their families in their bereavement.
I extend my sincere sympathy to the families of these former colleagues of mine and other members of this House. Many people pass through this Parliament and we are now remembering a number of them who served in the Parliament many years ago. Very few current members of the Parliament would have been here through the span of service of all four members. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) might have been and I think I was here during the time of all but one of the honourable niembers who have now died. It is easy to forget the service of people who have been members of the House of Representatives or the Senate in earlier years. At this point it is fitting that we should remember members who have served their parties and their country with distinction according to their own lights and principles. I commend to the House the motion that I have just moved in respect of the former members of this Parliament.
– It is a particularly sad day that sees us noting the passing of no fewer than five former members of this Parliament. It happens that all five were members of the Australian Labor Party, with service to the Parliament dating back to 1947. That was the year Bill Morrow took his seat as a senator for Tasmania, a seat he was to hold for nine years. Bill had been a railwayman, and for ten years was the State Secretary and industrial advocate of the Australian Railways Union in Tasmania. He was a staunch Labor man of the old school. Indeed, he was born nearly a decade before the turn of the century. As a unionist and as a parliamentarian, Bill was dedicated to the service of his fellow workers.
Ted Peters entered this House in 1949 - a year not otherwise auspicious for the Labor Party. He represented the Victorian electorate of Burke in three parliaments and then the electorate of Scullin in five more parliaments until his retirement in 1969. Ted had an unusual grounding in the ways of parliaments in that he served as Secretary to the Victorian Parliament’s Works Committee for more than 10 years before his debut in this place. He gave sterling service to this Parliament and to the nation.
Arthur Greenup became a member of this House in 1953 at a by-election in the electorate of Dalley following the death of former Speaker Sol
Rosevear. Previously he had been a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and had had a long record of service in local government. He was a tireless worker for the Labor cause and a member of the Party from the age of fourteen, when he began work.
Len Reynolds and Ron Davies both served more recently and will be remembered by many current members of this House. Both entered the Parliament in 1958 and both served until 1975 - in Len’s case, with one break dictated by the electors of Barton. Len was a quiet but dedicated member of Parliament, and was well liked and respected on all sides. He took a special interest in education matters, reflecting his background as a lecturer in education at Sydney Teachers College. Len had a toughness that belied his gentle character. He was a diligent and effective parliamentarian. Ron Davies was also a teacher before he entered this Parliament, representing the Tasmanian electorate of Braddon. That electorate is one of enormous variety, as its present incumbent no doubt will attest. Ron Davies’s success in seven general elections demonstrates how hard he worked on behalf of his constituents. He represented this Parliament overseas on many occasions and served it well. I knew both men well; they were good personal friends, as they were of many members on both sides of the Parliament. It was a moment of great sadness when I learned of their passing. I offer to the families of all five former members the deep sympathy of the Opposition, and of their former colleagues of the Labor Party and of the Parliament.
– I should like the National Country Party to be associated with the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and with the sympathy expressed by him and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) concerning the deaths of five former colleagues. As the Prime Minister said, often we tend to forget the tremendous service that has been given by former members. Many members of this chamber would not have known any of these former members. I had the good fortune to be associated with three of them - Ted Peters, Len Reynolds and Ron Davies - and I remember those three well as being vigorous parliamentary debaters who were always prepared to make a contribution to the operations of this Parliament. They were dedicated to their party and were never backward in coming forward with contributions. It is always a sad occasion when former colleagues die, but especially sad when one has known them personally. Therefore, I would like to convey my sympathy and that of my party to the members of their families.
– I am gratified that we have this opportunity to pay our tribute to former members of this Parliament. I knew three of them very well, as did the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), and had more than an acquaintance with two of them, although I did not know them so well. In particular I pay a tribute to Ted Peters, a member of this Parliament from 1949 to 1969. 1 draw the attention of the House to the great length of experience he had in the very heart of Australian politics. He became a member of the Victorian Executive of the Labor Party in 1927 when he was 30 years of age. He stayed active in politics until 1969 - a span of four decades or more - during some of the most tumultuous and troublous times, and in a way some of the most creative times, for the Australian Labor Party and Australian politics.
Those of us with some knowledge of the political history of the period will recall, for instance, the 1930s and the problems of the Premiers’ Plan and the great conflicts that occurred throughout Australia in all political parties and which caused a split in the Labor Party. As has been pointed out, during that period Ted Peters was a public servant as well. He was Secretary to the Public Works Committee of the Victorian Parliament for 10 years. He was also a member of the first board of the Victorian Teachers Tribunal which was set up by the Labor Government in Victoria in 1947. He was a government representative when it began to establish the actual basis for the employment of teachers within the Victorian education system.
Ted Peters was a part of the old guard of the Victorian Labor Party before 1955. Those of us who took a part in the tumults of that time could only gather more and more respect for Ted Peters as time went on. I recall that at the Victorian special conference in 1955 he was the only one of the old Executive who chose to stay with the Victorian branch of the Labor Party and to stay with the Federal Party. I recall the rancour of that conference. Ted Peters always showed exceptional personal and moral courage and political strength in standing his ground. He was a person who over the years became more radical than he had been in his youth. He was one of the first people in this place to point out the dangers of overseas investment; he was one of the first people to print a booklet about it. I have just been looking at one of his later speeches, of 1968, in which he referred to the matter. I pay tribute to him for the work that he did.
Len Reynolds was another person for whose parliamentary work, perhaps, there was not enough recognition. I was secretary to the parliamentary party’s education committee at its inception in 1957 or 1958. When Len came here he became an active member of it and for a long period was its deputy chairman and its acting chairman. He was one of the more creative members of that committee during the period in which the Labor Party created the policies which it brought into action in 1972. I think it ought to be placed on record that the community as a whole and this Parliament in particular owe a great debt to him for that.
Ron Davies was an assiduous, hard-working member of this Parliament and a particularly effective electoral member. He won the seat of Braddon in 1958 when nobody gave him a chance to do so. He held it against the odds even in 1966. He was taken, of course, by the flood in 1975. Len Reynolds and Ron Davies were younger than a good number of present members of the House. In their communities, in the Services and in Parliament they both served the country well. I deeply regret their passing.
I knew Bill Morrow. He stood his ground against everybody and everything that came or went in the Party or out of it. Arthur Greenup I knew only as an acquaintance in Parliament. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Government for the opportunity to speak about our former members on an occasion such as this.
– Mr Speaker, I support the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and pay tribute to Ron Davies for the dedicated service he gave to my electorate of Braddon in that long period between 1958 and 1975. He gave 17 years of service to this Parliament and to the electorate. Ron was my opponent in two elections - in 1974 and 1975. I came to know his qualities well. I admired him. In fact, we became very good friends. He was respected throughout the electorate as a hardworking and decent person whose main concern was not his own self-interest but the interest of those people he represented. I know that he will be sadly missed by his former colleagues in this House and by his many friends throughout Tasmania. I extend my sympathy to his son Glen, who is now the Speaker of the House of Assembly in Tasmania, to his daughter Anne and to other members of his family.
– I join other members in speaking to the motion of condolence on the deaths of members of my party. I had a soft spot for all of them, but I want to say a few words about Bill Morrow. He lived a long life. He was nearly 90 years of age when he died and was very active up to a year or two before his death. He served in this Parliament for only six years- from 1947 to 1953. He was a controversial character. In the early 1950s he felt the strength of conservatism not only within government ranks but also within the ranks of his party. Bill Morrow was too advanced in his thinking for those days and suffered a great deal for the views he expressed. He was one who really thought that it was in the interests of the Australian people to build friendship with the people and Government of the People’s Republic of China. He was one of their early friends and he made lifelong friendships there. I have no doubt that the present people and Government of China know a lot more about Bill Morrow than the people of Australia.
He was one of the people who involved themselves in the peace movement and, of course, incurred the odium of the establishment of the day for that. As I said earlier, Bill Morrow was a controversial person but he was a good Australian. I knew him well for over a quarter of a century and I respected him greatly. I know that the years he spent in the Australian Parliament were in Australia’s interest. He continued to serve this country even after he was defeated as a senator.
– I also take this opportunity to support this condolence motion. I rise as a relatively new member of the House who did not have personal contact with many of the former members who unfortunately passed away during the winter recess. I wish to speak particularly of the loss of the former honourable member for Barton, Mr Len Reynolds. Even though Len and I came from different political parties, there was always a firm bond of friendship between us, a bond which I highly respected and which I am sure he also respected. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has stated, in 1958 Len Reynolds followed the late Dr Evatt in the seat of Barton. I think that the most outstanding thing about Len was his humbleness. He was humble in his style of living and promoted humbleness amongst the people to whom he spoke. Out of that humbleness came a great dedication to the ordinary people of the electorate of Barton. He was also a man who based his actions on firm Christian principles.
In 1975, through ill health; he decided to retire from parliament and lead a humble life with his wife, Sylvia. Sylvia unexpectedly passed away before Len and that made the last two years of Len’s life very sad for him. I know that he missed his wife deeply. As has been said, Len’s contribution to the Parliament was particularly great in the education field. He was a former teacher and I know that his contribution to his party in that field was greatly appreciated. His contribution was greater in the manner in which he served the people of Barton. I know that the people of that electorate will miss Len very much. He is survived by three sons. My deep sympathy goes out to those three sons whom I know personally. They are fine examples of Len. They have certainly benefited from the fine upbringing which they received from Len and his wife. On behalf of the people of Barton I feel that I should express this sympathy. I support the motion.
– Each of the deceased has made a significant contribution to parliamentary and public affairs. The late Ron Davies of course was very well known for his championing of the timber industry of Tasmania. The late Arthur Greenup was a colourful character and a cheerful man whom I last talked to at the June conference of the Australian Labor Party which was held in Sydney. One matter that distinguished Arthur Greenup was that he was redistributed out of a State seat and came to the Federal Parliament as the honourable member for Dalley, and he then suffered the same fate in that a redistribution eliminated his electorate. Then of course we recall very fondly Ted Peters who will be remembered as a pioneer of the widespread concern that is evident today about excessive overseas investment in Australia. He made many speeches about that very important matter. The late Senator Morrow was in the vanguard of many great freedom fighting efforts, especially in respect of banning atomic bombs. He was a leader of the peace movement and was always seen at the head of the procession in the homburg hat and striped suit which he wore in his days of great fame as a distinguished senator of this country.
Len Reynolds is the man about whom I mainly rose to speak today. He represented a neighbouring electorate of mine. The electorate of Barton was well served by Len Reynolds for 14 years from 1958. He won six elections. I know that our departed friend and colleague, the late Leslie Haylen, affectionately referred to Len Reynolds as ‘Lennie the bell ringer’. That was indicative of the fact that he was a great educationalist. He went to Sydney University and gained a Diploma of Education and a Bachelor of Arts degree. He went on to work at the Sydney Teachers College as a lecturer. He came here and participated in the great education debates of the late 1950s and 1960s with Dr Evatt and Sir Robert Menzies. This was the time when education was being put on the Federal parliamentary map. It was the time when we moved that the Estimates be reduced by £. 1 because of the failure of the Government to do anything significant about education. Len Reynolds was the founder of the Parliamentary Labor Party’s education committee. He distinguished himself in that respect.
I suppose, as the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) has mentioned today, the thing that was most outstanding about Len Reynolds was his humility. Great men have passed through the corridors of power here; but none has earned the warm respect, love and affection of the Parliament and constituents more than Len Reynolds, because he exhibited that quality in such an impressive and outstanding way. He was a very humble man. He devoted much of his effort to making speeches on behalf of and in respect of the welfare of ex-servicemen and pensioners. He actually stood out on the streets Saturday after Saturday with a white apron on, selling the lucky number tickets to raise money for the senior citizen centres in Barton. He did that as the Federal member for Barton. I think all honourable members will agree that that was indeed a very great demonstration in humility. I take this opportunity of saying that at the funeral in St Finbar’s Church at San Souci an enormous crowd paid tribute to him. I believe that this must be of very great solace to his surviving sons, Gary, Brian and Neal, to whom we all convey our sympathy and condolences today.
– I wish to say a few words about Arthur Greenup, a man whom I never knew as a parliamentarian but whom I knew as a trade union official. I think it is very important that when one talks about Arthur Greenup one remembers that he always began any biography of himself by saying that he was a shop assistant. At the age of 14 Arthur began his working life as a shop assistant and at the age of 78 - at the beginning of this month - he finished his life as an official of the shop assistants union. Arthur had seen many facets of the Labor movement and many facets of public life. He had been an alderman and mayor of Newtown, the member for Newtown-Annandale between 1950 and 1952 in the State Parliament of New South Wales and the Federal member for Dalley between 1953 and 1955.
As the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) has just pointed out to the Parliament, Arthur did not retire from politics when he retired from the Parliament in 1955. Indeed, as late as 1980 he was representing his union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, at the Australian Labor Party conference in June this year. I have seen him over many years, as has the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon), at the Labor Party conferences and Labor Council meetings in New South Wales. Arthur never missed a Thursday night meeting of the New South Wales Labor Council and he represented his union at those meetings for about SO years. That is a record that not many people would have in both the industrial and political movements.
I suppose if there was a way to sum up Arthur Greenup it would be to say that he was a gentleman. In the years that I have been in the Labor movement I have not met a man who was more of a gentleman. He took his enemies and his friends at face value. He served his country, his union and his party particularly well. I am very pleased today to say a few words about Arthur Greenup. He was a man who most of us might aspire to be like. He never said ill about anyone. He took adversity in his stride and he never gave up. To die at 78 years of age while still being very active in politics and in a union, and to give one’s life to the things in which one has believed, is a very fine thing. I am very pleased to say that I knew Arthur Greenup in the years after he had served in Parliament and held public office. Even then, people held him in great respect. It could always be said that he stood up for the things in which he believed. As I said earlier, he could only be classified as a gentleman.
Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.
page 7
– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
THAT there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed, the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index, by this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:
Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Aldred, Mr Anthony, Mr Baillieu, Mr Bourchier, Mr John Brown, Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Bryant, Mr Burns, Mr Donald Cameron, Dr Cass, Mr Dobie, Mr Falconer, Mr Fife, Mr Fisher, Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Hodgman, Mr Holding, Mr Howard, Mr Howe, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Barry Jones, Mr Kerin, Mr Leo McLeay, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Macphee, Mr Millar, Mr Morris, Mr Nixon, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Ruddock, Mr Simon, Mr Street, Mr Thomson and Mr Willis.
Petitions received.
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 tham.
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 Aldred, Mr Baume, Mr Bourchier, Mr Bryant, Mr Burns, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Howe, Dr Jenkins, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Katter, Mr Lusher, Sir William McMahon, Mr Mackenzie, Mr Macphee, Mr Martyr, Mr Moore, Mr Nixon, Mr Peacock, Mr Scholes, Mr Staley and Mr Yates.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will
Reform income tax laws to allow the joint income of husband and wife to be equally divided between them for taxation purposes.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Bourchier, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr John Brown, Mr N. A. Brown, Dr Edwards, Mr Fife, Mr Giles, Mr Howard, Mr Hunt, Mr Peter Johnson, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Lloyd, Mr McLean, Mr McVeigh, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Porter, Mr Ruddock, Mr Street, Mr Wallis and Mr Wilson.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:
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 Baume, Mr Calder, Dr Cass, Mr Ellicott, Mr Fisher, Mr Fry, Mr Garland, Mr Gillard, Mr Haslem, Mr Holding, Mr McLean, Mr Les McMahon, Sir William McMahon, Mr Morris, Mr Thomson and Mr West.
Petitions received.
To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth -
Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund.
Your petitioners humbly pray that:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Ellicott, Mr Fife, Mr Hodgman, Mr Howard, Mr MacKellar, Sir William McMahon, Mr Martyr, Mr Moore, Mr Newman, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Eric Robinson and Mr Simon.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:
Whereas a fully-accredited degree course in chiropractic has been established at Preston Institute of Technology, and
Whereas three hundred students who pay their own fees are in all five years of the program, and
Whereas students and the profession can no longer carry the financial burden amounting to over $1,000,000 per year, and
Whereas a debt of $240,000 is being incurred in 1 980, and Whereas if funding is not approved by August the course will close and students’ careers placed in grave jeopardy,
Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure that funding of the Preston Institute of Technology Chiropractic Program by the Tertiary Education Commission be no longer delayed, and your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Dr Blewett, Mr Burns, Mr Fisher, Mr Giles, Mr Hodges, Mr Jacobi, Mr Les Johnson, Mr McVeigh, Mr Ruddock, Mr Scholes and Mr Shipton.
Petitions received.
Anti-discrimination Legislation
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:
That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, is a fundamental human right; and
That it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy.
Your petitioners therefore humbly prayThat appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and
That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton, Mr Ellicott, Mr Holding and Sir William McMahon.
Petitions received.
Anti-discrimination Legislation
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth-
That currently discrimination in the provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference; and
That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individual - in particular, against married women.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray;
That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and _ That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Dobie, Mr Fry and Mr Graham.
Petitions received.
To the Right Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:
That local authorities throughout Australia are appalled at the recently announced Commonwealth Government allocation of a mere $628m for roads in 1 980-8 1 . There is extreme disappointment at both the level of total Commonwealth funding for all road categories and at the specific allocation for the local roads category.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Gillard, Mr Hodges, Mr Katter and Mr Thomson.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Calder, Mr Millar and Mr Thomson. ^Petitions received.
To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the prospect of the proposed Plant Breeder’s Rights Legislation. The reasons are as follows:
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take positive action as soon as possible to arrest the implementation of such legislation.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray, etc. by Mr Anthony. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:
Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr John Brown, Dr Edwards and Mr Roger Johnston.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the Federal Government has the power conferred on it by the 1967 Referendum to intervene on behalf of Aboriginal people in any conflict with any State or Territory Government.
Your petitioners therefore pray:
That the Federal Government will assume its full responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs, and use the powers conferred on it by the people of Australia in the 1967 Referendum to intervene on behalf of Aboriginals in any conflict with any State or Territory Government;
That the Government respond to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional legal affairs on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders on Queensland reserves which sets out precisely the Commonwealth Constitutional and legal position under Section SI;
That in addition the Government fulfil its stated policy of self-determination and self-management for Aboriginal people, by funding all housing, health, education, legal, employment strategy and welfare matters concerning Aboriginal people directly through Aboriginal Community based Community controlled organisations.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Falconer, Mr Ruddock and Mr Scholes.
Petitions received.
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:
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 Lionel Bowen, Mr Kevin Cairns, Dr Klugman and Mr Martin.
Petitions received.
To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by 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:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Dobie, Mr Hayden and Mr Hyde.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned with the inadequacy of Overseas Aid tax deductibility for citizens in this country.
Foster Parents Plan of Australia is contributing $3,000,000 in Asia, Africa, Central and South America to give relief in terms of Medical, Health, Clean Water, Education, Community Development, and new hope to help people to help themselves.
More than 11,000 families are being supported by Australians, and we therefore, respectfully request that the Commonwealth Government provide some incentive to encourage the people in our country, in making contributions to Foster Parents Plan for tax concessions for overseas funds, as are already provided for charities working within this country of Australia.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Hunt, Mr Porter and Mr Viner. Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:
That the anti-social activities of certain organisations, in the main purporting to be religious and under foreign control, are causing increasing mental, physical and/or social distress to citizens throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.
Such adverse affects include drastic personality changes, alienation and severance from persons’ families and normal society, dispossession under undue influence of persons’ worldly assets, abandonment of socially useful occupations or career education, mental disorientation, and a common requirement to surrender their labour with little or no pay, working unduly long hours fund-raising for the exclusive benefit of the organisations’ leaderships.
Furthermore, a disturbing number of our country’s youth have died prematurely in unsatisfactorily explained circumstances or have become so mentally or physically debilitated as to require hospitalisation or treatment following their involvement with the subject organisations commonly, but erroneously, described as ‘religious cults’.
All evidence points to the fact that the subject organisations are commercial enterprises which, for the purpose of evading tax and other business obligations, have falsely assumed the status of ‘religions’ in order to take advantage of the blanket protection provided by Section 116 of the Australian Constitution.
It is your petitioners’ sincere belief that proliferation of such organisations unchecked with their personality- disorientating and family-divisive practices and effects, represents a serious threat to the health, welfare, and peace of the whole community.
Notwithstanding the decision of the combined Australian Attorneys-General at their October 1979 meeting, that no special action should be taken by Government /s to curb undesirable activities of religious cults and that these should be dealt with under existing laws, such laws as would provide protection against the aforementioned malpractices do not appear to exist.
For this reason the Government should proceed with all haste to investigate the widely-alleged malpractices of the subject organisations which include Hare Krishnas, the Unification Church (Moonies) and such other groups as are subject of complaints, preparatory to introducing appropriate legislations to curtail the said malpractices to ensure citizens’ continuing enjoyment of peace and harmony.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Morris, Mr Sainsbury and Mr Willis. Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is abhorrent and barbaric.
That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission’s terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of Cosmetic Companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredients have been used, or for which animals were subjected to research.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will: Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Humphreys and Mr Roger Johnston. Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the Queensland Ballet Co. respectfully showeth:
That continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is abhorrent and barbaric.
That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission’s terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of Cosmetic Companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredients have been used, or for which animals were subjected to research.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will: Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Humphreys. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia resepctfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography CALL UPON THE GOVERNMENT to introduce immediate legislation:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Fife. Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
We, the undersigned are disturbed by the Copyright Tribunal report tabled in Parliament last week. We do not want the Australian consumer to have to pay more for records. Nor do we want anyone connected with the Australian record industry to suffer by loss of jobs caused by drop in production, created by decreased sales, due to increased sale costs. If production is down then material purchases will also drop and many supporting industries to the record industry will also suffer. We rely on you to ensure that the Government rejects this report.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Les Johnson and Mr Roger Johnston. Petitions received.
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 Les McMahon and Mr West. Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
Rosemount Repatriation Hospital (Queensland) has been of inestimable value to eligible repatriation beneficiaries for many years, and the closure and dispersal of the facilities available at the hospital would be a retrograde step.
The proposed decision to close Rosemount Repatriation Hospital follows a sustained campaign by the Minister and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to run-down operations at the hospital through active discouragement by Departmental administrative officers of any further referrals by medical officers of patients for medically prescribed occupational therapy.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reverse its announced decision to close the Rosemount Repatriation Hospital.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Kevin Cairns. Petition received.
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 Amendments to the Electoral Act passed in 1979 by the West Australian Government make it more difficult for many people to enrol to vote - particularly Aborigines and itinerants, but also migrants and youth.
Your petitioners note that because Western Australia has a dual roll system, some people may find themselves enrolled at a Federal level but not at a State level.
Your petitioners further note that the Federal Government committed itself to equal voting rights for Aborigines at State and Federal level following an urgency motion in Federal Parliament in 1979.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:
That the Federal Government will use the powers granted it by the 1967 referendum to ensure that Aboriginal voters are not disadvantaged in Western Australia.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Dawkins. Petition received.
Royal Commission on Human Relationships
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its recommendations-
Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial report and its recommendations.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:
That the Australian Parliament will:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Fife. Petition received.
To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
We, the undersigned, believe that Australian sportsmen and women should take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow this year.
The Olympic Games aims to promote friendly competition and understanding between the athletes and people of different nations. Participation in them does not signify support for particular policies or actions of the host country or any other country taking part.
In particular, we do not believe that Olympic athletes who have trained for years for their event should be pressured by governments to bear the sole burden of giving effect to their policies at a given time.
In fact, the Olympic Charter states that National Olympic Committees must be autonomous and must resist all pressures of any kind whatsoever whether of a political, religious or economic nature. (Section 111, Rule 24, Paragraph C.)
We call on all Maritime Workers to support Australian participation in the 1980 Olympic Games and to express that support financially.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Hayden. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth -
That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;
That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;
That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.
Your petitioners therefore pray:
That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;
That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;
That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;
That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Hodgman. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the procedures used to determine eligibility for unemployment benefit (Work Test) are considered inappropriate in times of high unemployment.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take note of the Norgard Review of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Myer Inquiry into the Administration of Unemployment Benefit and make the necessary legislative changes to repeal the amended ‘Work Test’ procedures.
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Holding. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That animal welfare organisations play a vital role in the community in caring for animals and lessening the burden on governments and government authorities charged with the task of dealing with neglected or unwanted animals.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that donations made to animal welfare charities be allowed as tax deductions to remove the unjust tax anomaly which discriminates against charitable animal welfare organisations.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Mr Les Johnson. Petition received.
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 Australian Government promotes carcass trade and that all future shipments of live animals overseas for slaughter be banned, and thereby stop a repetition of the shocking loss of life through burns or drowning as occurred with the incineration or drowning of 40,000 sheep on a ship to abattoirs in the Middle East, or the more recent cruelty to horses being exported for slaughter in Japan.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Roger Johnston. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled in the House of Representatives Canberra, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that through thorough investigation there is an increasing number of people in Australia living in extreme poverty.
We believe that there is a need for a Guaranteed Minimum Income Scheme throughout Australia.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament will implement a Guaranteed Minimum Income Scheme as soon as possible and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Roger Johnston.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:
That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Austarlia.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal House of Representatives will:
Effect changes to the present system of appointments to the National Women’s Advisory Council to allow more democratic selection of members and a wider representation of Australian women and their opinions on that council. by Mr Katter.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that despite repeated calls for taxation relief, charities which give expressly foreign aid are still not tax deductible, while donations to the National Party in Queensland through advertising in its magazine ‘Outlook’ are an allowable tax deduction.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this house will see fit to amend the income tax assessment act by extending the number of charities, donations to which are allowable tax deductions, to include World Vision, UNICEF, Save The Children, Austcare, Foster Parents Plan of Australia, and other foreign aid charities in order to achieve taxation justice for these charities and assist them in their fund raising campaigns.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Leo McLeay. Petition received.
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-
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Leo McLeay. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled.
The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:
That the proposed cutback and/or closure of our local community health centre will lead to a decline in the health status of our community. We appreciate their varied services, which include: baby health services, counselling, chiropody, physiotherapy, community nurses, preventative services etc.
We believe that the community health program will cut rising health costs by supporting people in their own homes. Therefore, we support the basic health care and prevention carried out by our health centre.
We request that adequate funding is provided for the continuation of and expansion of these valuable services to our community.
Your Petitioners there, humbly pray that your Honourable House consider this petition.
An your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Les McMahon. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled in the House of Representatives, Canberra the humble petition of the undersigned members or organisations listed below and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That current laws relating to sexual offences against women are discriminatory against all women, and in particular against married women; and that current laws relating to sexual offences are ineffective and inadequate to protect married and unmarried women; and that we believe that both married and unmarried women should be effectively and adequately protected by law against sexual abuse.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:
That laws relating to sexual offences against women must be redefined to include all forms of sexual abuse against married and unmarried women, including all forms of coercion - physical, psychological, exploitative, extortionary and authority-based, and including sexual harrassment in any form, particularly at work and in educational institutions.
That evidence laws applicable generally to assault crimes must be acknowledged as applicable to sexual offences and the rules relating to corroboration in assault crimes must be made applicable to sexual offences.
That laws must be reformed so that accused persons are not entitled to abuse the criminal justice system; and furthermore laws must be revised to give greater protection to the victim and to minimise her distress.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Les McMahon. Petition received.
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 sheweth:
That the products of nuclear fission create risks unlike those of any other single technology and, furthermore, it is uncertain whether or not nuclear fission technology, taking all inputs into account, is a net producer of energy.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition that: by reason of the hazards associated with the use of uranium in nuclear power plants, mining of uranium in Australia be restricted to that needed for physical and biomedical research and medical diagnosis.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Ruddock. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that lone parents receiving Social Security benefits ate being further disadvantaged by the fact that their benefits are only partially adjusted to the Consumer Price Index.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the necessary legislation be enacted to raise the dependents allowance for pensioners and the level of permissible income for pensioners and that both these factors be indexed in future.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Scholes.
Petition received.
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:
A Czech citizen, Mr Jiri Lederer, a well-known journalist, was sentenced to three years jail in January 1977 under Article 98 of the Czech Penal Code.
Mr Lederer was convicted in closed court of trying to subvert the socialist system by attempting to publish in Western Europe works by Czech writers which were not allowed to be published at home. By preventing the publishing of those literary works at home and by prosecuting him for sending them abroad, the Czech authorities have broken doubly the Helsinki Human Rights Declaration, which Czechoslovakia signed in 197S.
Because of this and in view of Mr Lederer’s rapidly deteriorating health your petitioners humbly request that the Government exert diplomatic pressure on the Czechoslovakian Government to secure Mr Lederer’s release from detention.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Shipton.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.
That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.
As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.
It should be possible for Australia to: establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.
The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia’s standing within the region.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Shipton.
Petition received.
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 Heaitn 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 Thomson.
Petition received.
To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned petrol retailers, as the people most concerned, strongly urge the Federal Government to enact into legislation the Fife Package of proposals in the Spring 1 980 session of Parliament.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray, by Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Lloyd and Mr Simon.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that the Federal Government did not make increased funding available for government school programs such as:
Your petitioners therefore humble pray that your honourable House will restore and increase substantially, in real terms, the allocation of funds for Government school programs.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Graham, Mr Howard and Mr MacKenzie.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
We the undersigned being electors in the State of Victoria, and Commonwealth of Australia, and members and associates of the Baptist Union of Churches of Victoria, do hereby petition The Honourable Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, to send immediate and continuing food and medical supplies to the people of Kampuchea, sufficient to alleviate their present and terrible plight.
We acknowledge that some action has already been taken, but urge that The Australian Government’s Aid be increased until it is commensurate with the enormity of this people’s need.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Bryant. Petition received.
Television Reception in the Ovens Valley .
To (he Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Indi, in the State of Victoria, respectfully showeth:
That the Honourable the Minister for Post and Telecommunications arrange for the provision and installation of television translators in the Ovens Valley section of the electorate of Indi, in order to provide proper television reception for the townships of Porepunkah, Bright, Wandiligong and Harrietville, n the said electorate.
Your petitioners .therefore humbly pray that the Honourable the Minister for Post and Telecommunications will act to provide and instal the required television translators, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron.
Petition received.
Public Telephone in Smith’s Lake Area
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of certain residents of Smith’s Lake, New South Wales, respectfully showeth:
That the Minister for Post and Telecommunications consider and act upon our urgent appeal for the erection of a public telephone call box in the Smith’s Lake area to service the needs of the public.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that steps be taken to ensure the erection of a public telephone box in Smith’s Lake, New South Wales. by Mr Lucock.
Petition received.
page 16
– I inform the House that at the meeting this morning of members of my party, my colleague Mr Nixon, who has been acting deputy leader of the party, moved that a telegram of resignation from the party’s deputy leadership received from my colleague Mr Sinclair be not accepted and that Mr Sinclair be requested to resume his position as deputy leader. This request was unanimously put to Mr Sinclair and I am pleased to tell the House that it was agreed to.
page 16
– I inform the House that His Excellency the Governor-General has accepted the resignation of the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott). I have particular pleasure in saying that the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has been appointed to that portfolio. The Minister for Special Trade Representations has been appointed Leader of the House. I hope the Opposition enjoys it.
page 16
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Australian Labor Party’s disastrous oil-pricing policies would inevitably lead to widespread rationing, a nationalised oil exploration industry and Australia being held hostage to foreign oil producing nations and organisations such as the PLO.
page 16
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That this House-
notes with pleasure the return of the right honourable member for New England as Leader of the House;
deplores the vindictive and unjustified attempt to destroy the high public standing of the right honourable member for New England by means of an inquiry conducted by a lawyer active at the highest levels of the New South Wales Labor Party, Mr Michael Finnane;
condemns the misuse in this matter of the office of Attorney-General of New South Wales for party political purposes by its present Labor Party incumbent, Mr Frank Walker; and
censures the Opposition in this Parliament for its misuse of the Parliament to denigrate a member whilst an inquiry was being conducted elsewhere and for its collusion with the New South Wales Attorney-General in forcing a debate on the Finnane report when this report was not available to members of this House nor to the right honourable member for New England.
page 16
– I give notice that ‘ on General Business Thursday No. 18 I shall move:
That this House notes the unwillingness of the New South Wales State Labor Government to accept responsibility for its own decisions, particularly in the sensitive areas of education, hospitals, roads and public transport, and rejects that Government’s hamfisted attempts to blame the Federal Government for its own shortcomings.
page 17
Mr Ruddock proceeding to give a notice of motion -
-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.
page 17
Mr Hodgman proceeding to give a notice of motion -
-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I am not prepared to accept a notice that is not in a proposition form.
page 17
– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: -That this House congratulates the Australian Olympic team for its magnificent performance in Moscow.
page 17
– I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 19, I shall move:
That this House is alarmed at the extravagant costed and uncosted programs announced by the Labor Party to date and its failure to explain adequately how it would raise the necessary funds to pay for such programs without resorting to significant increases in taxation.
page 17
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That this House expresses its grave concern that even though the date for the Federal election has not yet been officially announced, the Leader of the Opposition has made promises all around Australia relating to five Federal departments and involving a total additional cost to the taxpayers of Australia of $2,000m a year.
page 17
– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That this House, in acknowledging that Australia’s greatest energy need is to find adequate supplies of oil-
1 ) therefore asserts that proposals to form a national hydrocarbon corporation on the British, Norwegian, Canadian and Italian models will not succeed in the task, and will represent wasteful expenditure of between $A900m and S A 1 500m;
requests that further proposals be withdrawn immediately in the national interest.
page 17
page 17
– I refer the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to a series of questions asked of him between IS May and 22 May this year seeking information on what action the Minister took following a written complaint by Sir Reginald Ansett of alleged breaches of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Does the Minister recall saying in this House on 20 May that an answer to these questions was being prepared and nothing will be held back’? Having given this House an assurance that nothing would be held back, why did the Minister in his subsequent series of written answers on 22 May omit all reference to a departmental minute dated 13 December 1979 which advised him that News Ltd’s takeover of Ansett Transport Industries ‘was in clear breach of the ownership and control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act’?
– The simple situation is that nothing that should have been revealed was in any way concealed. I tabled in the House a letter to my Department from the Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which made it quite clear that the company concerned had acknowledged the contravention of the Act to the Broadcasting Tribunal. That is in the letter which I tabled in this House at that stage. It is also the case that it was a matter of public note in newspapers at the time that the trading in shares had led to contraventions of the Act which meant, of course, that certain broadcasters had to divest themselves of interests which were in excess of those allowed under the Act. For instance, the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 December, referring to market activity by both the Murdoch and Fairfax groups, stated:
Both the Murdoch and Fairfax groups have to divest themselves of shareholdings in other cities as a result of these acquisitions.
I point out also that the way in which I referred the matter to the Tribunal was entirely in accord with past practice. Indeed, on a quick look, the Broadcasting Tribunal has found 41 cases between 1967 and 1980–
– Not bad, seeing that it was formed in 1977. It was a board before that. Stop falsifying your evidence. There was no Tribunal before 1977.
– I did not say there was.
– It was a totally different procedure before 1977. Stop trying to falsify the evidence.
-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting while the Minister is answering a question put by a member of the Opposition.
– He should be accurate in his facts.
-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting, and especially to cease interjecting on me. I call the Minister.
- Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition simply does not know what he is talking about because the same section of the Act applied through all those years. As I said, I referred the matter to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for advice and it advised that between 1967 and 1980 there were 41 cases where apparent contraventions of the Act were remedied by voluntary agreement of the broadcasters concerned. Included among those cases were a number of cases which arose during Labor’s years in power. Moreover, the fact is that in 1973 a Minister of the Labor Government actually renewed a licence while a breach of the Act existed, on condition that the breach be remedied. I feel I need say little more, but for the information of honourable members I table a summary of apparent contraventions of the ownership and control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act provided by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
page 18
– I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to recent Press reports which state that some illegal immigrants coming forward to claim amnesty believe they will be deported at the expiry of their newly gained residence permits which have been given to legalise their status and allow them to work while their applications are being checked. Can the Minister assure the House that details of the Regularisation of Status Program are now being fully explained by officers of his Department to all such residents who are coming forward for interview? Can he advise the House how many illegal immigrants have come forward as a result of the ROSP policy, how many six-monthly temporary entry permits have been issued and, finally, how many applications for permanent residence have been approved and granted since the Minister’s policy statement about the Regularisation of Status Program?
– The Regularisation of Status Program has been well and truly explained through all ethnic media. Every few weeks I make a recording which is broadcast throughout Australia on all ethnic radio programs. It is translated into 42 or 43 languages. Not only are we getting coverage in the ethnic Press but also we are advertising to explain the program far and wide. The response has been excellent so far. As at 1 5 August, there were 1 3,244 inquiries. Pursuant to those inquiries, 9,324 applications have been given out and over 7,000 of those are currently being processed. In respect of the advice given to persons when they go for interview, they are assured that they will be allowed to stay beyond the period of that temporary permit. It is unfortunate that some people - I am not accusing anyone associated with the Opposition - have still sought to create some mischief and to sow some misapprehension in the minds of persons who can benefit from the program. I expressly not only exempt members of the Opposition from that statement but also I wish to thank members of the Opposition, in particular the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, for their cooperation and support in promoting this program. I hope that all members of this House and of this Parliament will encourage anyone who can benefit from the program to come forward and undergo interviews with departmental officers.
page 18
– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, follows upon the answer he has just given. The Minister will recall that in his answer he referred to the renewal of a licence in 1973-74 while a breach existed. Is is a fact that he was referring to the renewal of the licence of MTN Mumimbidgee? If so, are the facts associated with that matter that the two companies involved in that review were the National Mutual insurance company and Henry Jones Ltd? Is it a fact that National Mutual had its limit of prescribed interest and was coincidentally a shareholder in Henry Jones, which bought into MTN? Is it a fact, therefore, that National Mutual indirectly achieved excess prescribed interest? Is it a fact that, under section 92K of the Act, it was recognised that National Mutual was brought into this situation by circumstances beyond its control, that at that time the then existing Australian
Broadcasting Control Board operated as an advisory body, that the Minister had a discretionary power in this matter, and that in all the circumstances proper procedures and legal obligations were followed? Is it a fact that since 1977 the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has replaced the Board, the distinction between the Board and the Tribunal being that the Tribunal is quasi-judicial, with no discretionary authority available to the Minister? Finally, is it a fact that the circumstances related to the endeavour of News Ltd to acquire more than a prescribed interest were the product of a predetermined course of action, which was undertaken with determination and persistence and was designed to circumvent the effect of the Act?
– The fact is that in a number of the 41 cases contained in the list - is is not a complete list - from the Broadcasting Tribunal the matter was accidental and in other cases the matter was deliberate. There is no question but that in many cases it was the result of quite deliberate ownership changes by broadcasters. I could seek some more information from the Broadcasting Tribunal in response to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. However, let me again make it clear that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, in those days the Minister had the power to propose and dispose in the licence area, and in those terms. Today, I as Minister do not have that power.
– But you ignored your responsibilities.
– I did not ignore my responsibilities. I sent the matter to the Broadcasting Tribunal, which, according to the Opposition’s Senator Ryan, is the proper body to initiate these things. Senator Ryan was reported in the Australian of 16 August as saying that Labor’s view is that the Tribunal has the responsibility to initiate its own investigations over alleged breaches. She said she was confident that that would happen under the new chairman, Mr Jones. The fact is that the examination of those matters is for the Tribunal. In the long run, of course, as I pointed out quite clearly in the information I gave in the last session, if the Tribunal feels it necessary, if a breach is not remedied by agreement, then it can contact me and I can raise the matter with the Attorney-General, who ultimately has the responsibility for any prosecutions.
page 19
Mr Roger Johnston proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Employment and
-The honourable member for Adelaide is half right in that the question is out of order, but for a different reason. It is out of order because the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has no responsibility of an official nature for Lewis Kent.
page 19
– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and follows from his answer to my previous question. I ask whether the minute paper dated 1 3 December 1979 from Mr Payne, the Deputy Secretary of his Department, advised him inter aiia:
The Attorney-General’s Department says that ‘News Limited’ is in clear breach of the ownership and control provisions of the B&T Act, which carry a penalty of $2,000 per day for each day of breach.
I ask him to tell us also whether the minute went on to state:
I bring this to your notice as the Attorney may seek to raise the matter with you. There is also the question of your portfolio responsibility in respect of breaches of the B&T Act. This is not a matter for the Tribunal.
I repeat: The advising says that, on the basis of the Attorney-General’s Department’s advice: ‘This is not a matter for the Tribunal.’ On what basis did the Minister decide that in fact it was a matter for the Tribunal, in flagrant disregard of the advice of the legal office of the Government?
-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question and not add to it a tail that indicates his attitude to the matter. He is entitled to ask for information but not to make a comment of the kind with which he concluded.
– As I pointed out earlier to the House, News Ltd itself said that there was a breach. That information was contained in the documents I tabled at the end of the last session.
– Say it slowly.
– I will say it again for the simpler people in this place. News Ltd itself said that there was a breach. It was admitted. It was a matter of public note for anyone who knew anything about this matter.
– Father Christmas may have told him.
– The fact is that I acted on this matter. I raised it, as the Leader of the Opposition’s colleagues–
Opposition members interjecting -
-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I ask members of the Opposition to cease interjecting while the Minister is answering the question. I especially request the honourable member for Melbourne to cease interjecting. I call the Minister.
– The fact is that my advisers and the Broadcasting Tribunal have rightly said that any prosecution is not a matter for the Tribunal but for the Government. That has always been agreed. I acted in a proper fashion to establish the circumstances which could lead ultimately to a judgment by the Attorney-General as to whether grounds for prosecution existed. We acted in the normal and proper way. From the way the Leader of the Opposition is carrying on about this matter, I can only assume that he wants, for the grossest political reasons, to see Mr Murdoch prosecuted. I can only assume, having read the letter written by the Leader of the Opposition to the editor of the Australian, that he has been so hurt by Pickering’s cartoons that he wants Murdoch prosecuted.
page 20
– I direct my question to the Minister for Transport and draw his attention to an article that appeared in the Age on 16 August 1980 entitled ‘Government gets tough on air fares’. Can the Minister confirm whether summonses have been issued against Sydney travel agents for alleged breaches of the air navigation regulations? Can he inform the House whether his Department intends to take any further action against travel agents, individuals or airlines involved in the air fare malpractice?
– I am aware of the article referred to by the honourable member. On 14 August summonses were issued against two travel agencies and three individuals involved in the marketing or selling of overseas travel. I do not wish to comment any further on these cases because undoubtedly the prosecutions will be proceeded with in the normal manner. I made it clear in a statement in this place on 23 April that, in the interests of equity for air travellers and in order to avoid discrimination against those law abiding airlines and travel agencies, illegal discounting of air travel would not be tolerated by this Government. I issue a further warning: My Department is actively investigating other possible breaches of the air navigation regulations. If any further cases come to the notice of those undertaking the investigations, further proceedings will be taken. I make it very clear to this House that those who are engaging in illegal discounting of overseas fares should cease doing so because they are putting themselves and their agencies at risk.
page 20
– I refer the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the departmental minute of 13 December 1979 sent to the Minister by Mr Payne as the acting head of his Department. I ask the Minister whether he wrote on the minute these words:
It is my understanding that Mr Murdoch has assured the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that action is in hand to ensure compliance with the Act.
How did the Minister obtain this understanding? Did the Minister have any direct or indirect contact with Mr Murdoch regarding this matter in October, November or December last year?
– I have been reading the newspapers. I noticed that Mr Murdoch had said that he had been intending to do certain things and that certain other things followed. It was a matter, as I have already said, of public debate and public comment that Mr Murdoch would be seeking to divest himself of certain shareholdings in order to seek certain others.
– Did you speak to him? Mr STALEY- I did not speak to Mr Murdoch.
page 20
– I refer the Minister for Productivity to recent statements by two unknown doctors alleging that health risks were associated with employment at the Munition Filling Factory at St Marys. When will the committee of inquiry, which he so speedily appointed, be in a position to report to him? Is the identity of the two doctors who made statements known to the committee of inquiry? If so, have they yet been interviewed?
– I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question and for his very deep interest and concern in this matter. Other members, on the Opposition side, have also expressed an interest. The allegations of safety breaches and health problems at St Marys were brought to my notice, I think first, when a reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald contacted my office. More specific allegations were made on 6 August in the Sydney Morning Herald. After seeing those specific allegations and noting that they had been backed up with the honourable member’s concern, it became apparent that the matter should be investigated speedily.
On 7 August I appointed a committee of inquiry to look into these matters. The committee of inquiry is a good one. It is comprehensive. It consists of a senior officer of my Department - who is also chairman of the Department’s operational safety committee - two eminent members of the medical profession, the National President of the Federated Ironworkers Association and a representative from the factory. The committee met on 12 August and has already interviewed some present employees and former employees. It has also looked at areas of work in the factory.
The two doctors - I read in the news reports that they had in one way begun this inquiry by the Sydney Morning Herald - have in fact been interviewed by the committee and have given evidence. I am glad that they have. The committee will probably finish its inquiry in three to four weeks, but I have not set a date for completion. I think it is important that it has complete freedom, under the terms of reference which are very comprehensive, to do everything that has to be done in this matter to ensure that no stone is unturned and that the allegations are proven one way or the other. Once again, I thank the honourable member for his interest in the matter.
page 21
– I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls saying in this House in July 1975 the following:
Ten per cent or even SO per cent of the truth is as good a way of misleading this Parliament and the Australian people as a downright lie. The half-truth, the partial answer and the slipping over of the full facts are misleading of this Parliament.
If so, will the Prime Minister apply these standards to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and ask the Minister to resign?
-The honourable gentleman seems to fail to be able to grasp that over a large number of years this particular section, whether under the present Act or under the earlier Act with the old arrangements, has applied. He seems to fail to understand, as the Leader of the Opposition patently fails to understand, that it has been normal practice for the authorities under the older circumstances and under the present ones to give a company in breach time to get back within the law. The Minister has indicated this has happened in forty or more cases. The Minister has drawn attention to the fact that during the Labor years one particular licence was re-issued while a company was in breach.
One might have throught, if one wanted to be pedantic about it - the Opposition is now showing great concern about this provision- that at least the re-issuing of the licence would have been held up on a temporary basis pending the company getting back within the law. But the licence was re-issued. It was re-issued because it was normal practice for a licence to be issued and for companies to be given time to get back within the provisions of the Act.
– The circumstances are totally different and you know it. You are trying to protect a wealthy patron.
-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.
-The Leader of the Opposition chatters away, interjecting all the time, because he knows we are on the air.
– While you mislead this House.
-The House has been misled only by the Leader of the Opposition.
-Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Fremantle will withdraw.
– I withdraw.
-The only misleading of the House has come from the Opposition which has tried to pretend, for patently political purposes, that this one case in which the company concerned made it plain that it would get back within the law is different from the other dozens of cases of breach that have occurred. I would like to read part of a letter from Mr Connolly of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I think it explains the present philosophy and the previous philosophy in relation to how these affairs have been conducted. Mr Connolly says:
However, it has been the practice over the years for such contraventions to be corrected either through negotiation with the parties concerned or voluntarily by such parties as soon as they realised the situation in which they were placed. There is no record of any prosecutions having been launched in connection with contraventions which have occurred from time to time.
It is the opinion of the Tribunal that continuation of the previous attitude to contraventions is desirable where it is clear, as is the case in regard to the News Group purchase of the Ansett shares, that every attempt is being made to remedy the contravention as soon as possible. On the general question of the institution of court proceedings regarding contraventions, the Tribunal believes that the powers and functions conferred upon it by the Act do not impose any responsibility for it to initiate prosecutions in relation to contravention of the ownership and control provisions. However, the Tribunal accepts that where a contravention exists and the offending party refuses to take corrective action, the Tribunal should hold a public inquiry and, if appropriate, direct the divestment of the excess interests. If such a direction were to be ignored, the Tribunal would report the matter to the Minister with a view to the Commonwealth instituting legal proceedings.
That shows clearly the Tribunal’s understanding of the precedents that have been set over the years. It represents a fair and reasonable way of conducting the business in relation to contraventions of this Act. The Minister has applied those provisions and the Tribunal is seeking to apply those provisions. The only people trying to do something new, something out of order, in relation to this matter are members of the Australian Labor Party. They are doing so for the basic political reasons which have been indicated. They are still pursuing the old vendetta of 1975.
page 22
– The Minister for Primary Industry will recall that on 21 May this year he tabled the 1976-77 annual report of the Australian Wheat Board. There have been adverse reports on the Australian Wheat Board by both the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and the AuditorGeneral. As this issue is of concern to those involved in the Australian wheat industry, can the Minister inform the House of the steps being taken to deal with the matters raised in these reports?
– I am able to inform the honourable member that action is in progress for dealing with the matters highlighted by the reports of the Senate Committee and the Auditor-General concerning the Board’s accountability and responsibilities to Parliament and the deficiencies in the Board’s accounting operations. A commercial accounting organisation has been engaged to review the Board’s accounting system and procedures, taking account of the reports of the AuditorGeneral and the Senate Committee. The work of that organisation is being oversighted by a steering committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board and comprising representatives of the Departments of Finance and Primary Industry, with observers from the Auditor-General’s Office and the Public Service Board. The consultant’s engagement is scheduled for completion on 8 September. When the report of the consultant has been made to the Australian Wheat Board, the Board will consider it and advise me of the action intended to be taken to deal with the matters raised by the AuditorGeneral and the Senate Committee. After I have considered the Australian Wheat Board’s advice, I will be in a position to make a full statement to the Parliament on the Board.
page 22
-I direct my question to . the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it a fact that Australia has entered into a contract to supply uranium to Finland and that that uranium will be enriched in the Soviet Union? Is it also a fact that the Soviet installations at which the Australian uranium would be enriched are used for the production of highly enriched uranium for military purposes? What guarantee can the Minister or the Government give that Australia’s uranium will in no way be used to contribute to the production of Soviet nuclear weapons? How does the Government reconcile allowing Australia’s uranium to pass to the Soviet Union with the Prime Minister’s view that the Soviet Union’s actions in Afghanistan represent the greatest threat to world peace since the Second World War?
– It is true that a contract has been entered into with Finland for the supply of uranium. I believe that it is possible that it will be enriched in the Soviet Union. The concern of the Australian Government is to see that our uranium contracts conform with our international safeguard arrangements and that non-proliferation arrangements are entered into to ensure that the uranium is not used for other than peaceful purposes. If the uranium goes to the Soviet Union it will do so on an all-in all-out basis. I think that it has to be understood that the Soviet Union is a member of the non-proliferation treaty and is a depository state under the treaty. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also accepts the guidelines of the nuclear supplier groups on the export of nuclear material, equipment or technology.
I think it would be of interest to members of this House to know that information provided to me shows that approximately 50 per cent of the enriched uranium used in western Europe in 1980 will have been treated in the Soviet Union - 50 per cent for West Germany, 50 per cent for Spain, 40 per cent for Italy, 1 00 per cent for Finland and approximately 20 per cent for Belgium and the United Kingdom. It is also of interest to note that nuclear material of Canadian origin which has been contracted for sale to Finland over the past three or four years has also been enriched in the Soviet Union. We believe that, provided it conforms with the international safeguard arrangements and the non-proliferation features are honoured, it is in conformity with our international safeguard obligations.
page 22
– Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that he will no longer permit the use of VIP aircraft for some Ministers to travel to the trials of other Ministers, as we believe that this practice could send Australia bankrupt?
– My colleague’s use of the aircraft was a perfectly appropriate one because of all the circumstances in which he was placed. I do not think it would be wise for the honourable gentleman to encourage the Government to look at the use to which the Labor Government put VIP aircraft.
page 23
– I direct a question to the Minister for Transport. Does the Government propose to reimburse Trans-Australia Airlines for the massive losses it will incur as a result of the Government’s withholding of approval to obtain the three Airbus aircraft for which TAA has contracted? Why has similar action not been taken in respect of the two F28 jetliners being purchased by East West Airlines from the European Economic Community and the five Boeing 747 aircraft of Qantas Airways Ltd being equipped with EEC engines? Are TAA’s five million passengers and the Australian tourist industry to be denied the improved services of the Airbus so that the Government can give TAA’s competitor a substantial financial advantage?
– No final decision has been taken by the Government in respect of retaliatory measures by the Government against imports from the European Economic Community. Needless to say, the EEC agricultural protective arrangements, including the sheep meat regime, are so serious that the Government has been forced to consider a range of retaliatory measures. A considerable number of items is under review by the Government. The matter is still under active consideration. No decision has been taken by the Government; so I am afraid that the question is not relevant to fact.
page 23
– Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether it is feasible for the Federal Government to offer a subsidy to air travellers resident in particular States only? Has the Government looked at such a proposition?
– There are many remote parts of Australia. The honourable gentleman will know that we have established an air fares committee of inquiry. It will look, in particular, at air fares between Western Australia and the eastern States. It will also look at air fares between Tasmania and the mainland and give us a general report on the structure of air fares, the way the charging mechanisms have operated and the equity of that matter. But it does seem rather strange to offer a particular subsidy to a particular State and at the same time to ignore other areas. I understand that the proponent of that sort of policy was not particularly well received in north Queensland, where the people regard themselves as having to travel long distances, as do the people of the Northern Territory, of the Kimberleys in Western Australia and of Western Australia itself, which is somewhat remote from the eastern States. This leads to a degree of difficulty.
– Why do you hate Tasmanians?
– Of course, we know a little about Tasmania and we have done a great deal to assist Tasmania. I think this shows the ad hoc manner in which the Australian Labor Party is now going about policy-making. We have not only its $2,000m worth of expenditure over about five areas of government but also more than 100 other promises which would cost money. We have commitments which could not be met in any reasonable way without sending the taxpayers broke. Members of the Labor Party are now going around different parts of the country saying: What would they like here?. What would they like somewhere else?’ Various promises are being made, no matter what the cost might be. I think one could judge the Labor Party’s concern for Tasmania and indeed its knowledge of Tasmania by a recent report in one of the more notable Tasmanian journals, the Hobart Mercury.
– Why don’t you tell the truth?
-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will withdraw.
– I withdraw.
– That report stated:
At Peter Hudson’s Granada, for the ALP’s campaign launching, Mr Hayden was finding the Tasmanian scene confusing. He announced to the 4S0 dinner guests that Neil Batt would have the responsibility for reintroducing Medibank . . .
Well, Neil Batt is an endangered species and has gone overseas. So it shows what hope the Australian Labor Party has - absolutely none. The report continues that earlier, at a Journalists Club lunch, the Leader of the Opposition introduced our candidate for Denison’ as Lance Free.
page 23
-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer the right honourable gentleman to his request to the Governor-General for an early dissolution in 1977 when he used the words that an early dissolution was necessary to end election speculation and the resulting uncertainty. In view of the uncertainty and the speculation surrounding the date for the 1980 election, will the Prime Minister confirm that he has already chosen 25 October as the date for the election for the House of Representatives? Will he confirm or deny that this date was chosen at the request of the Queensland Premier? Finally, is he satisfied that the advice offered to the Governor of Queensland by the Queensland Government in relation to section 12 of the Constitution will be for an election of senators in Queensland on the same date as the election for the House of Representatives and will not be on the same date as the election for the Legislative Assembly of Queensland?
– There is a strange species of animal, the lemming, which at certain times of the year and in certain seasons follows the leader, rushes headlong over a cliff and commits suicide. If the honourable gentleman wants the Australian Labor Party to survive a little longer he should advise the Government to have the election as late as possible.
page 24
– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of some public concern about the question of plant variety rights in Australia? What action does he intend to take on this matter?
– The proposal for a plant variety rights scheme first came forward as a result of representations from the seed and plant breeders associations around Australia some years ago, and has been considered over the years by the Australian Agricultural Council. It was decided that legislation ought to be enacted. As a result of the differences of views between the seed industries I told them that they would have to come to a consensus on what form the legislation ought to take before I was prepared to move forward with the proposed legislation. In the event, they have since agreed but the time had passed for the introduction of legislation into the Parliament this session. I informed them then that I would be prepared to introduce the legislation in the autumn session of Parliament next year.
– You will not be able to.
– I have every confidence that I will be able to. In addition to that, at the Agricultural Council meeting in Brisbane a couple of weeks ago, I gave the State Ministers an opportunity to reconsider their previous advice to the former Minister for Primary Industry that they wanted such legislation. But I also told them that the proposed legislation which would be in the House could lie over the winter recess next year and would be debated during the following Budget session. This means that the legislation will be available for public comment and consideration for some months. I think that is a pretty fair way of dealing with a piece of prospectively contentious legislation about which a lot of wrong things have been said.
page 24
– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs will be aware of grave allegations made by undercover agents and other members of the New South Wales branch of the Customs Officers Association of Australia of corruption and deliberate incompetence at more senior levels of the Bureau of Customs, with the. life of one informant apparently being threatened since the allegations were made. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that these allegations include claims that heroin, which was worth as much as a billion dollars at street value, was smuggled into the country despite the foreknowledge of the Bureau of Customs? Is it also a fact that another claim is that senior Customs officials have instructed their juniors to turn a blind eye to other breaches of Customs regulations, for instance those relating to pornography ? When did the Minister first learn of these allegations? What action has the Minister taken or what action does he propose to take as a result of these allegations?
– Some representatives of the Customs Officers Association made a number of general allegations of the kind referred to by the honourable member. These allegations were first made about 18 months ago, so I am informed, and certainly were made earlier this year as well, about the administration of that part of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs known as the Bureau of Customs. Some of the allegations occurred during the industrial disputes in January and February of this year. In August last year, following very similar claims about corruption in the Bureau of Customs, the then New South Wales branch secretary of the COA reported in writing to the Department that he had been misrepresented. The COA representatives had the opportunity of giving evidence about these matters to two royal commissions of which the honourable member will be aware. But from the reports of the commissions there is nothing to suggest that there is any substance in the allegations or claims, as far as I can see.
No details of the alleged corruption have been furnished to the Department in spite of a number of written requests being made to the COA and officials to give particulars in support. I am advised that the present secretary of the COA has declined to respond to requests from the senior officer in New South Wales, the New South Wales Collector of Customs. There has been a lot of contact between those officials and the Department. Mr Speaker, I seek permission to table some correspondence between officials and Mr Spanswick of the COA. Before I do so I refer, Mr Speaker, with your permission to a sentence in one of the letters which is dated August of last year. It states:
In closing I would like to say that you should rest assured that if I was aware of any so called corruption in the Bureau of Customs I would comply with Departmental requirements and inform the Chief Officer of same.
I have asked the head of the internal affairs unit of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr R. A. Wilson, who is a former Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Police, to go to Sydney and seek to interview these officials and to report to me on these latest allegations. I believe it is the duty and responsibility of those officials to co-operate with Mr Wilson after these even greater allegations have been made, though they would not do so with the New South Wales Collector of Customs. In conclusion, I say that the Government is determined to have the Customs section of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs effective. No government, I believe, has done more to endeavour to prevent illicit imports, including drugs. All the information before me indicates that Customs works well and towards longstanding objectives of successive governments. If anyone really has any information he or she should come forward and advise either Customs or the Federal Police of precise details.
page 25
– Is the Minister for Education aware of the very great concern among students and teachers of the chiropractic department at the Preston Institute of Technology about the continued lack of Commonwealth Government funds for that course and, in particular, about the lack of eligibility of students of that course for allowances under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme? Why is it taking such an unconscionably long period for the Tertiary Education Commission to resolve what is basically a simple matter about this course? Why is it taking so long to recognise the course? Will the Minister do his best to cut through the red tape as quickly as possible and obtain the proper entitlements for these students and proper Commonwealth Government support for this very important course?
– I have been trying to crack an answer to this question for some time. In view of the way the honourable member has presented his question this afternoon, let me say to him and to the House that the matter has not been before me for an inordinate period. The matter was raised with me only recently. I immediately took it up with the Tertiary Education Commission. This chiropractic course was started some years ago and has not been funded by the Commonwealth. The application for Commonwealth funding has been lodged only recently. The matter is being dealt with today by the Advanced Education Council, which is part of the Tertiary Education Commission. I understand that the matter will go to a meeting of the Tertiary Education Commission within the next few weeks. I hope then to be in a position to announce a decision.
page 25
-I understand that the honourable member for Lalor intended to lodge a request for detailed information relating to the administration of the parliamentary departments.
– Yes, Mr Speaker, I seek information relating to the operation of the Parliamentary Library and other departments.
-The honourable gentleman should put his request for information in writing and hand it to the Clerk. If it is in order, it will appear in today’s Hansard. In due course I will answer the question and that answer will appear in Hansard.
– It shall be done.
page 25
– For the information of honourable members I present a copy of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia. The report’s detailed recommendations are currently under study by the Government. I expect to be in a position to announce the Government’s considered response early in this sitting of the Parliament.
page 25
– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Parliament
House Construction Authority on the winner’s design, Parliament House design competition.
page 26
– Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 1 present.proposals for alterations to the Administrative Building and to improve the external lighting at the National Library. The views of the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House are also being sought. When those views are available I shall be in a position to take further action under the Parliament Act to seek the approval of the work by the House.
page 26
– Pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 I present the Remuneration Tribunal 1980 Review which was presented to me on 4 June 1980. Copies of the review were distributed to honourable members at that time.
page 26
– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory relating to the National Estate.
page 26
– Pursuant to section 12 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 1 present the Kakadu National Park plan of management together with representations received on the plan and a report on the representations by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.
page 26
– by leave- In relation to allegations of security breaches in the Office of National Assessments, the Director-General of ONA, Mr Furlonger, asked the Director-General of Security, Mr Justice Woodward, to review security practices in ONA and to report. Subsequently there were further allegations of deliberate security breaches and the Director-General of Security was asked to investigate these also. Mr Justice
Woodward has now reported on these matters and I have examined his findings. The report, as would be expected, deals with a number of matters of high security content and, in accordance with normal practice in the Parliament and elsewhere, I do not propose to make the report public. I shall make it available to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) if he so wishes. However, in view of the public and parliamentary interest the matter has attracted, I think I should indicate now in general terms what have been Mr Justice Woodward’s findings.
Mr Justice Woodward’s report finds that there is no credible evidence of any ONA document having got into the wrong hands, nor of the improper use of classified information by any ONA officer, nor of any serious breach of security by any ONA officer. And therefore no reason, arising from the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation inquiry, to conclude that ONA is not a basically secure organisation. On the particular question, which attracted much public attention, of a missing security document, Mr Justice Woodward has reported that his investigation has established beyond reasonable doubt that the missing document was destroyed in ONA by an officer whose duty it was to dispose of unwanted papers and who in this instance had no reason to doubt that he was doing so legitimately. Before that happened, however, there was mishandling of the paper, about which the ASIO report is properly critical. The report nevertheless makes a number of recommendations for improvements in security procedures in ONA, and confirms other security measures already taken by the Director-General of ONA. It observes that its recommendations should not be regarded as implying any culpable weakness in ONA’s former practices. As I have said, Mr Justice Woodward’s report is available to the Leader of the Opposition if he so wishes.
The Director-General of ONA, Mr Furlonger, has reported to me that he has taken, and is taking, action to implement the recommendations made in the ASIO report. It is of course essential that this be done. The Government attaches the highest significance to the work of ONA, and obviously its security is an essential part of its continuing overall effectiveness in contributing to the bases on which Australia’s external policies in the political, strategic and economic fields are formulated. The ASIO report also provides the occasion to express and underline the Government’s concern that there should be strict application of security procedures and practices in all Commonwealth organistions. Steps are being taken, as it is deemed appropriate, to improve such procedures and practices and to ensure that the requirements are strictly observed.
More recently there have been assertions in the media that in some way the Director-General of Security was pressed to change some of the ASIO findings about ONA practices, and in some way to water down the strength of his conclusions. I am informed by Mr Justice Woodward, in respect of this report, that it is false in every specific point made and in its implications. Mr Justice Woodward has written to me stating that he took all the significant decisions about the two parts of the report himself; that at no time did he decide that any of the contents were too damning to be given to me, as alleged - or even consider such a question. His only concern was that the report should be absolutely accurate and as fair as his judgment could make it. Mr Justice Woodward rejects utterly the implication that in some way his report was watered down deliberately to meet some accommodation of ONA. May I say that I accept Mr Justice Woodward’s assurance absolutely - as I am sure the House does also. Mr Justice Woodward’s letter to me on this issue also is available to the Leader of the Opposition to peruse.
Mr Speaker, not everything has been right in ONA’s procedures. Actions of some officers gave ground for criticism. But things are being put right- have largely been put right - and there is no ground for any public apprehension about the basic security and continued value of ONA. Genuine debate and responsible and balanced criticism in respect of ONA or ASIO, or indeed any areas of Government administration, are to be expected and not shied away from. The criticisms of ONA and ASIO have tended to have the effect of undermining public faith in these two organisations. The Government for its part will continue to support and encourage ONA and ASIO in the proper discharge of their important responsibilities. I urge all others to do likewise.
– by leave - The key paragraphs in the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) are paragraphs 4 and 5, and I repeat them because of their importance. Paragraph 4 states:
Mr Justice Woodward’s report finds that there is no credible evidence of any ONA document having got into the wrong hands, nor of the improper use of classified information by any ONA officer, nor of any serious breach of security by any ONA officer. And therefore no reason, arising from the ASIO inquiry, to conclude that ONA is not a basically secure organisation.
That is a reassuring finding from a man whose prestige and standing as far as this Parliament is concerned, and certainly as far as the Opposition is concerned, is such as to leave us with every conviction that the job has been done properly and that the finding is one that can be accepted completely. In paragraph 5 the Prime Minister said:
On the particular question, which attracted much public attention, of a missing security document Mr Justice Woodward has reported that his investigation has established beyond reasonable doubt that the missing document was destroyed in ONA by an officer whose duty it was to dispose of unwanted papers and who in this instance had no reason to doubt that he was doing so legitimately.
So there are no grounds for the development of a conspiracy theory about subversion within the Office of National Assessments. Mr Justice Woodward, a trained judicial analyst, analysed all the evidence before him. He had the resources of trained investigators backing him and he came to that conclusion. That, too, is reassuring. He is candid in acknowledging that there have been defects internally, and they are being remedied. With Mr Furlonger in charge of the organisation one would anticipate that the defects, to the extent that they exist, will be quickly repaired. Mr Furlonger has an impressive record as an administrator and as a fair and impartial servant of the public and the Parliament.
In view of the rather sensational, if not extravagant, statements that have been made in some quarters, I want to put on record the reasons why I feel relieved to discover that ONA has been given what is effectively a clean bill of health in this matter. I have had the benefit of drawing on ONA on several occasions for briefing on important and often sensitive matters relating to international affairs. I have been impressed enormously by the common sense of the officers of ONA and the way in which they have analysed the issues and arrived at what appeared to me to be quite sound, thoroughly sensible conclusions. I have been reassured to find a coincidence of views in the conclusions and understandings reached by ONA and myself. It has been a matter of some unease to find on so many important issues such a great gulf between the Government’s understandings and the conclusions and those of the accredited objective body charged with the duty of making sensible assessments on matters of international affairs.
page 27
– by leave - I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979, the House of Representatives -
That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of the resolution agreed to by the House of Representatives.
As the House now knows, the Government has received the report of the Parliament House Construction Authority on the winning design for the new Parliament House. It must be pleasing to all members of the House to hear the almost universal acclaim that that design has received throughout the Australian community. It is an imaginative design. It fits into the general landscaping of Capital Hill and the Parliamentary Triangle. When completed, it will serve the needs of Australia for as long as Australia survives. The Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House is expected to report shortly to the Parliament on the Construction Authority report. At the appropriate time, when the Joint Standing Committee’s report has been received and examined, the Government will move substantive motions, as foreshadowed by this motion. Honourable members obviously will have an opportunity to debate the matter at that time. In the meantime, they are encouraged to study the report of the Construction Authority, and the report of the Joint Standing Committee when it is available, and to make use of the display that has been mounted and is available, which I am sure most honourable members will have examined. It think it is appropriate to note that the matters are going forward in a way which must give encouragement to all members of the House, and I thank those who are directly responsible for that.
– I move: That the debate be now adjourned.
-I apologise for intervening in this way, but I indicate to the honourable member for Adelaide that, as I understand it, it would be desirable for the Prime Minister’s motion to be passed and for debate to occur subsequently on the motion to be moved on Thursday. That is an indication only. I am in the hands of the House.
– With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I might explain that, as I have been briefed on this matter, the procedures I expected were not followed. Leave was to be granted to move this motion, there were not to be any speeches on it, the matter was to go forward, and this House would have the opportunity very shortly to debate the whole issue of the new Parliament House. If the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) can give me the assurance that there will be that opportunity very shortly, to debate these matters, then I am prepared to withdraw my motion and let the other motion go ahead.
- Mr Speaker, I can give the Manager of Opposition Business that assurance. It is the intention of the Government to bring on the other motion as soon as it is submitted to the House. I hope that that will be on Thursday, when honourable members will have an adequate opportunity to debate the whole question.
Motion (Mr Hurford’s) - by leavewithdrawn.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
page 28
– by leave - Honourable members will recall that on 17 April 1980 1 undertook to make a statement once all investigations into the operations of Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Limited had been completed. Regrettably, all investigations into this matter have not yet been completed, but I believe it is appropriate for me to advise the House as to the latest position.
As a result of a request by my predecessor in March last year, the accounts and records of ADI, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Australian Dairy Corporation have been examined by the Commonwealth Auditor-General. The purpose of seeking the audit inspection was to assist the Government in its consideration of the future role and operations of ADI. The reports of the Auditor-General revealed certain deficiencies in the financial and managerial control of the company, and questioned the appropriateness of certain past expenditure. I have previously stated that the deficiencies in the financial and managerial control were examined by a committee established by the Australian Dairy Corporation. Action has been taken, or is being taken, to rectify the deficiencies and ensure that the company operates in a normal commercial fashion.
The only matter now outstanding in respect of the audit of ADI relates to the appropriateness of certain past expenditure by the former chairman of the company. This matter has been the subject of detailed examination by officials. I have received legal advice from the Commonwealth
Crown Solicitor and the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to the effect that certain matters arising out of this detailed examination should be reported to the police for further investigation. Upon receipt of that advice, and at my request, my Department has reported the matters in question to the Australian Federal Police for detailed investigation. In light of this, it would be improper to consider either tabling the AuditorGeneral’s reports, or comment further on the matter. As I have said in the past, I will make a statement on all aspects of the audit inspection when all investigations are completed.
– by leave- I must say, in speaking on behalf of the Opposition on this matter, that the Opposition is disappointed. The Government has now given a statement which indicates that the matter is quite serious, but we are concerned that it has taken so long to do so. In terms of the length of this inquiry, we must say that it is a feeble response, if not a pathetic one, to a serious matter. This should not be a partisan matter. One has only to look at the work of a Senate committee regarding statutory authorities to realise that there is a widespread concern for the proper administration and accounting of statutory authorities. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) today asked a question about some complaints from that Senate committee and the Auditor-General regarding the Australian Wheat Board.
This matter has been transformed into a partisan issue because the Government seems very reluctant to expose fully all the facts of a serious but seemingly straightforward misdemeanour. It has become partisan because of the length of time this matter has taken. Really, how much longer do we have to wait for a full and public explanation? Australia’s international reputation is involved, yet this matter has dragged on literally for years. The Opposition and its spokesman on rural matters, Senator Peter Walsh, have never regarded this as a witch hunt. Recognition by the AuditorGeneral of the whole matter shows how legitimate the Opposition has been in pursuing it. Senator Peter Walsh has been attacked by his political opponents and by the rural media because basically one of the principals in this long-running inquiry is a very popular person. The Opposition regrets the actions of some rural leaders in trying to transform this matter into an attack on Senator Peter Walsh. It is not a matter for sentiment just because personalities are involved.
I draw the attention of the House to the statement today by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) in which there is reference to the police. Leaked copies of the Auditor-General’s report have been widely published and most of us know what is in it - this is a very leaky Government. The Minister has had the report since May 1980. How much longer does the Minister need before he tables that report from the AuditorGeneral? We know that Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd was operating what has been described elsewhere as a private slush fund for some directors and their families. These are serious charges. We need these sorts of statements laid to rest. The Opposition believes that the Minister has known basically the facts of this question for over a year. In fact two Ministers have had the information before them. Quite plainly and simply, the Opposition finds it hard to believe that this matter could not have been resolved by now.
page 29
– Pursuant to section 33 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, I present the zoning plan for the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park together with a communique from the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council meeting of 1 August 1980. 1 seek leave to make a statement relating to the plan.
Leave granted.
– The Government’s policies and initiatives concerning the Great Barrier Reef are based on the need to conserve this outstanding natural asset for all people, while allowing reasonable multiple uses to continue in a manner which is compatible with reef conservation. Finalisation of the Capricornia zoning plan is significant. It reflects a most intensive research and consultation program and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the careful planning of environmental protection to ensure that whatever is done is done effectively and efficiently.
The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premier of Queensland agreed to establish the Ministerial Council, which comprises two Ministers from each Government. It is a focal point for co-operative effort between the Commonwealth and Queensland in the proper management and protection of the reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act specifically states that the Authority can perform any of its functions in cooperation with Queensland. It also provides that the Commonwealth Government may make arrangements with the Queensland Government for the performance of functions by Queensland officers. The establishment of the Ministerial Council to enable both governments to coordinate policy in relation to the reef has reinforced these provisions. The result is that the Commonwealth Government has been able to move rapidly towards the establishment of the marine park. The tabling of the Capricornia zoning plan and our moves towards declaration of a section of the marine park off Cairns provide solid evidence of the soundness of the Government’s approach to the administration of the Act and the progressive establishment of the marine park as provided for by the Act.
The Authority is required by the Act to invite interested persons to make representations in connection with the development of zoning plans for declared sections of the park. Representations made in relation to the Capricornia zoning plan were submitted to me together with comments from the Authority. The Act also provides for individuals or groups to channel their views to either myself or the Authority through the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee. By taking this co-operative approach and deliberately involving the public in the management process, the reef will be protected and conflicts between various activities will be minimised.
The Capricornia section was chosen as the first section of the marine park as it is the most accessible part of the reef for tourists. Tourist and local use has increased significantly and management is necessary to provide for the protection of the area. Under the plan, the section is divided into six zones which provide a range of uses consistent with the conservation of the reef. There are two general use zones with very few restrictions, one providing for movement of shipping and trawl fishing and the other excluding these activities; two marine national park zones providing unrestricted public access for recreational activities, with certain conditions relating to recreational fishing and collecting; a scientific research zone; and a preservation zone providing areas protected in their natural state undisturbed by man except for approved scientific research purposes. Within certain zones, areas of periodic restricted activity are proposed for management and conservation purposes as described in the zoning plan.
To ensure the most effective and efficient implementation of the zoning plan, the Commonwealth and Queensland governments are developing a set of management principles and guidelines. The relevant Queensland agencies will have the responsibility for undertaking day-to-day management of the marine park. The aim is to rely as much as possible on education and the cooperation of the public in order to achieve the objects of the marine park. However, as with any land park, regulations are required to confer functions and powers, and impose duties upon inspectors. Similarly, regulations proposed will provide for the imposition of penalties for infringements. When the regulations come into effect, probably later this year, an explanatory booklet will be made available to promote understanding of both the zoning plan and regulations.
Considerable progress has also been made on a proposed section of the marine park off Cairns. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has assembled biological, physical and economic information and has evaluated public comment on this section. The Ministerial Council has invited the Marine Park Authority to examine and bring forward to the November meeting of the Council proposals for boundaries for the proposed Cairns section, and the full implication of these boundaries. It is anticipated that this section will be declared before the end of this year. Honourable members may have seen a recent statement claiming that the Marine Park Authority had completed the zoning work on the Cairns section in January. This is simply not true. No zoning plan for the Cairns section, in draft or any other form, has ever been prepared by or for the Authority. The Authority has insufficient information at this time to enable it to prepare a zoning plan. Before a plan can be prepared, the boundaries of the section must be defined, the section declared and public comment obtained on a proposal to prepare a zoning plan. These are the steps required by the Act. They were followed precisely in establishing the Capricornia section and its zoning plan. Experience in the preparation of the zoning plan for the Capricornia section has confirmed the wisdom of the Parliament in making provision for an effective public participation process under the Marine Park Act.
I have previously expressed concern at statements claiming that the reef was not adequately protected. Some people still continue to call on the Government to proclaim without delay the entire remaining reef region a marine park. The procedure now being followed is precisely what was proposed by the then Labor Government and adopted by Parliament in terms of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.
The Act specifically states that the GovernorGeneral shall not proclaim an area to be part of the marine park except after consideration by the Executive Council of a Teport by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. To undertake a thorough investigation and to prepare a comprehensive report covering the entire region would take the Authority a considerable period of time even if its resources were unlimited. A policy of progressive declaration allows each section of the reef to be thoroughly investigated prior to recommending declaration and for the views of persons interested in the Reef to be taken into account. Whilst such consultation takes time, the Government believes it to be an essential part of the preparation for declarations of sections of the marine park and to the development of zoning plans for those sections.
Zoning of the reef in accordance with the Government’s objectives is not simply a matter of drawing lines on a map and promulgating a few rules. The zoning plan identifies many of the issues which require careful and detailed consideration. The plan comprises six separate zones and two areas of periodic restricted use. These were determined after a comprehensive program of research and investigation. From those studies, boundaries, objectives and use and entry provisions were prepared. The zoning plan deals in detail with recreation, commercial and other fishing, the navigation and operation of vessels, the operation of aircraft, collecting, research, construction of facilities and visitor aids. Proposals for the regulation of various activities will obviously extend to matters such as the discharge of waste, dumping of materials, littering and the like. In developing the plan, the basic aim has been to minimise regulations but, where regulation is necessary, to make it as simple as possible.
Nevertheless, the zoning plan and regulations will provide a comprehensive basis for effective reef management and conservation in the area. While this process of progressive declaration is proceeding the entire Great Barrier Reef region is safeguarded from damage as a result of the package of policies and measures agreed between the Premier of Queensland and the Prime Minister.
I have emphasised on several occasions and I repeat that these policies are designed specifically to ensure the protection of the reef from drilling and mining and . to formalise arrangements to ensure that the provisions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act are fully and efficiently implemented through co-operation between the two governments. The Government has been accused of avoiding questions relating to the reef. The opposite is true. The Government has issued frequent bulletins on its policies and initiatives. The most recent example are publications entitled The Reef, the Commonwealth Government and You’ and ‘The Great Barrier Reef- The Commonwealth Government Role’ which I have just released. I commend the pamphlet and booklet for the information of honourable members.
Implementation of the Government’s policies and initiatives will ensure that the Great Barrier Reef and surrounding region remains a spectacular natural phenomenon to be used by people from Australia and the rest of the world. The reef is an essential feature of the world heritage, an area of wilderness which must be protected at all costs. The zoning plan now before Parliament is evidence of that concern and of the Government’s commitment to the conservation of our environment.
– by leave- The ministerial statement read by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) is more interesting for what it does not say than for what it says. For the last two years or more I have been trying to get some answers from the Government to the key questions. These are the questions that the people of Australia are asking. They want to know the answers before they make a judgment on the Government’s policy with regard to the Great Barrier Reef. I gave the Minister a number of questions when I challenged him to debate this matter publicly. The first question is: Does the Government intend to permit drilling in the Great Barrier Reef region? I think that is a fairly clear, fairly concise and easily understood question. It is not obscure. I will repeat it: Does the Government intend to permit drilling in the Great Barrier Reef region? It is a question that the Government refuses to answer.
The second question is: If so - that is, if it intends to permit drilling- what new scientific method has it discovered which will ensure that there will never be a blowout in the reef region? The third question is: If it is not aware of any new fail-safe methods of preventing blowouts, how can it give an assurance that ‘it will permit only drilling that will not damage the reef? The fourth question is: Is the Government aware of the recent blowout at Ixtoc 1 in the Gulf of Mexico which spewed 140 million gallons of light crude oil, of the most toxic type, into the ocean and which affected the fishing, prawning and tourist industries 800 kilometres away on the Texas coast not to mention the damage to the area around Ixtoc 1?
The fifth question is: What is there to prevent a similar blowout on the Great Barrier Reef or in the Great Barrier Reef region? One has to be very careful with the use of words when one is dealing with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister. When one asks one question one is given an answer to another question. They never answer the question that is asked. What is there to prevent a similar blowout on the Great Barrier Reef or in the region which would result in damage being caused to the fishing and tourist industries on the Queensland coast? The sixth question is: What guarantees can the Government give that a blowout will not permanently damage the world’s greatest coral ecosystem? The seventh question is: If the Government does not intend to permit drilling, why does it not say so and why does it not declare the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? The eighth question is: Why does the Government continue to assert that it does not have the staff to do the zoning of the various sections of the reef when it is common knowledge that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had completed the preparatory work on the Cairns section in January? It is only the recalcitrance of the Queensland Government that has prevented a declaration of the Cairns section. The ninth question is: Why does the Government not proceed to declare the whole of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park thus preventing oil drilling or mining on the reef, ensure the protection of the reef and proceed with zoning over the next four or five years? Those are the questions that have to be answered.
It is always very interesting to hear the Minister use words such as ‘zoning’. But such words are irrelevant to the prime question. I have asked the Minister to answer these questions. I have asked the Prime Minister to answer them. I invited the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean) and the Minister, who represents the electorate of Leichhardt which is a key area along the Queensland coast - your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, is also a Barrier Reef seat - to debate this matter with me. I received the following reply to the letter I wrote to the Minister:
Thank you for your letter of 3 July concerning the debate on the Great Barrier Reef. I regret that I am unable to accept your invitation.
Yours sincerely, DAVID THOMSON
That is a very nice letter from the Minister. It is a very courteous letter as the Minister’s letters always are. But it really does not explain why the Minister is not prepared to meet me out in the public arena. The Minister has said before that he is prepared to debate this matter with me in this place. Unfortunately there is no way of resolving an issue in this place. I can say something and the Minister can say something which is quite wrong or quite different from what I said. However, there is no way in which the people of Queensland or the people of Australia can cross examine either of us. This is not the case when a matter is debated on television or in a public forum. The only question is: Will the Government assure the people of Australia that no oil drilling will be permitted in the Great Barrier Reef region. Any other answer, any other qualification or any equivocation can only be interpreted as meaning that the Government will permit drilling on the reef. That is the only interpretation that can be placed on this - I have used the word ‘slick’; perhaps I should not use the words ‘slick and oily’ - obscure, glib answer by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Science and the Environment when questioned on drilling in the reef region.
Let me distinguish between the Great Barrier Reef and the Great Barrier Reef region. The headlines in the newspapers say ‘ “No drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, says the Prime Minister’. That is terrific; everyone relaxes. But, that does not deal with the key question of the region. The reef constitutes only a small fragment of that whole area from the Torres Strait right down to near Fraser Island and the Capricornia section of the coast. It extends about 200 miles from the coast. It takes in all those waters and all that coastline. That is the Great Barrier Reef region. It does not matter very much whether one drills on the reef or near it. In fact, if there were a choice I would rather drill on the reef because at least on some of the islands there is solidity and stability. It is in the waters off the reef that the real damage can be done. If a blow-out occurs at an oil well on the mainland, the oil can be contained. However, these oil blow-outs cannot be contained in water, unless one happens to be King Canute. I do not believe that the Minister is King Canute. That is the difficulty, and that is where the obfuscation arises. The Government talks about the reef, but not about the reef region.
The Government claims it has control of the region under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. That is not true. The Government will have the power only when the Act is declared. Queensland has the power, and who would trust Queensland with anything to do with mining? In Queensland they would drill the gold out of their grandmothers’ teeth if there were a quid in it. The Government does not have the power. It has the power if it wished to use it, but it has shown no signs of willingness to use it to protect the whole of the region. The Government now has power over the Capricornia section, for which the Minister has just provided the zoning details. We may assume that soon the Government will have power over the Cairns section. Power over these regions is irrelevant in terms of the total protection of the reef. If oil drilling is permitted in any other part of the reef, the same amount of damage can occur. It could be the case that 99 per cent of the reef is declared as a national park and one per cent is undeclared, but if there is drilling in that small area and a blow-out occurs, the whole area will be ruined. The Minister says that that would not happen and that the Government would not draw little circles around the oil rigs and drill only in those areas.
Why would it not do that? It did it in Kakadu National Park. That was the most cynical exercise of all time. The Government declared one of the great eco-systems in Australia, and the world as a national park and then put little squares around Jabiru, Jabiluka, Nabarlek and Koongarra. It said that those places were not in the park. The Government was able to tell the conservationists that it did not permit mining in national parks. It is unbelievable. That is what can happen in the Great Barrier Reef region. The Government can draw little circles around all the oil wells and say, We are drilling in only a fraction of one per cent of the Great Barrier Reef region’. That is enough. It is like me saying I will cut out one per cent of the Minister, but unfortunately for him it will be his heart.
It has been said that this Government is following an Act introduced by a Labor government. With all due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a quite different situation. It really is amusing to hear the Government say that the Labor Government did this and that it must follow suit. Since when has anything done by the Labor Party become holy writ for the Liberal-National Country Party Coalition? Usually if it is something we have done members of the Government run around and change it. That used to be the golden rule - ‘The Labor Government did it so we will do the opposite’. Suddenly, the Government is quoting what we did. There was one difference. When we were in government there was not even a skerrick of a suggestion that we would permit drilling on the reef. There is nothing to stop the Government from changing the Act. The Opposition would support that; the procedures can be changed so that the Park can be declared and the zoning can be done afterwards. In fact, I believe that that can be done now. The Government can make the declaration to protect the reef and then it can go ahead with the procedures afterwards.
I want to know why the Minister for Science and the Environment is so scared to debate this matter publicly. Is it because he knows that what I have said is correct? He knows that he has a brief that is impossible to defend in public. The stock answer is that there will be no harm to the reef. I know that the Minister is not a bad bloke but he does not have supernatural powers. If drilling is permitted there is a risk, and if there is a risk, this country, to its everlasting shame, will place the greatest coral eco-system in the world at risk and future generations will spit on our graves for having done that. Once it is ruined it cannot be brought back. The Minister’s statement is interesting. It is an academic exercise. I think the people of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have done a good job, but the real job will be done when this Government declares the whole of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. If this Government does not do it, I promise that one of the first acts of a Labor government, in about 10 weeks time, will be to do just that.
page 33
The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:
Conciliation and Arbitration (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1980.
Whale Protection Bill 1980. Fisheries Amendment (Whale Protection) Bill 1980. Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1980.
Northern Territory (Commonwealth Lands) Bill 1980.
States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1980.
States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1980.
Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Bill 1980.
Tasmania Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill 1980.
Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Bill 1980.
Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Bill 1980.
War Graves Bill 1980.
Australian War Memorial Bill 1980.
Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1980.
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1980.
Road Grants Bill 1980.
Supply Bill (No. 1) 1980-81.
Supply Bill (No. 2) 1980-81.
page 33
Assent to the following Bills reported:
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Bill 1980. Australian National Railways Amendment Bill 1980. Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1980. Ship Construction Bounty Amendment Bill 1980. Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill 1980.
Excise Amendment Bill 1980.
Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1980.
Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 980.
Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980.
Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill 1980.
Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1980.
Bounty (Ships) Bill 1980.
Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill 1980.
Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1 980.
Wool Tax (Nos. I to S) Amendment Bills 1980.
Distillation Amendment Bill 1980.
Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No.2) 1980.
Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980.
Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.
Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax (Repeal) Bill 1980.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1979-80.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1979-80.
Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill 1980.
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. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1980.
Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1980. Northern Territory (Commonwealth Lands) Bill 1980. Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill 1980. Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Bill 1980. Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill 1980. Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Bill 1980. Seas and Submerged Lands Amendment Bill 1980. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1980. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1980.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1980.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exploration Permit Fees) Amendment Bill 1980.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipeline Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Production Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980.
Fisheries Amendment Bill 1980.
Navigation Amendment Bill 1980.
Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Bill 1980.
Migration Amendment Bill 1980.
Conciliation and Arbitration (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1980.
Wireless Telegraphy Amendment Bill 1980. Whale Protection Bill 1980. Fisheries Amendment (Whale Protection) Bill 1980. Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment BiU 1980.
States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1980.
States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1980.
Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Bill 1980.
Tasmania Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill 1980.
Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Bill 1980.
War Graves Bill 1980.
Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1980.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1980.
Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Bill 1980.
Australian War Memorial Bill 1980.
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980.
Roads Grants Bill 1 980.
Supply Bill (No. 1) 1980-81.
Supply Bill (No. 2) 1980-81.
Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1980.
Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980.
page 34
-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The increasing racial conflict in Western Australia as a result of the Western Australian Premier’s insistence on oil drilling at Noonkanbah, W.A.
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 -
– It is ironic that Noonkanbah, the Aboriginal-owned pastoral lease which has been the site of so much confrontation this year, should have begun as a Federal Government project to restore a dignified lifestyle to the Yungngora community. Yet, when the lifestyle of these people was directly and savagely threatened, the Federal Government turned a blind eye to its responsibilities. In 1971 this community, then made up of pastoral workers on the white-managed pastoral lease, went on strike because of maltreatment. They were reduced to living in appalling and degrading conditions around Fitzroy Crossing, some 60 miles away. But, in 1976 the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission acquired the pastoral lease for the Yungngora community. The station, which is one million acres in size, was in ruin. The people have successfully restored Noonkanbah station to pastoral viability and have re-established their traditional way of life within a white community.
Sacred sites have a special and particular significance to Aborigines. They believe that sacred sites are those places where the heroic ancestors travelled, forming the world, the people and the whole blueprint for life. These sites are the subject of religious celebrations by which Aboriginal people protect the sites and renew their religion and associations with the land. Wherever Aboriginal people have been able to continue their culture, these sites have been an integral part of it. They form the nuclei of particular Aboriginal people’s association with their land, passed on to them by their ancestors, and are thus central to the Aborigines’ very existence. In Western Australia sacred sites should be protected under the State Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 which empowers the Western Australian Museum to investigate, recommend and declare sacred sites. However, the Minister for Cultural Affairs, at present Mr Grayden, has the power to override the Museum recommendations.
In June 1979, after an extensive survey of Noonkanbah, the Museum compiled a report on the sacred sites. It recommended that, amongst others, the areas bounded by No. 1 and No. 2 drill sites chosen by Amax Exploration (Australia) Inc. should be protected. But, Western Australia’s unsavoury and arrogant Minister for Cultural
Affairs, Mr Grayden, very swiftly used his veto powers and overrode the Museum. Amax gained authority to drill for oil at Noonkanbah in early 1979. In addition, 30 different mining companies and prospectors have pegged out 600 separate exploration tenements on Noonkanbah. It is little wonder that the people are worried for their future on that station.
Let me briefly run through the appalling events of the last five months. On 2 April the Noonkanbah community forced off the site the water drilling company contracted by Amax. In July the State Government foreshadowed amendments to restrict even further the Aboriginal Heritage Act, although the Minister still has power to override the recommendations of the Museum. On 24 July the Western Australian Government declared the road through the station a public road and excised the drilling site from the pastoral lease. The community had proposed a compromise to the State Government, including a re-mapping of the area by the Museum and the State Government’s acceptance of any recommendations. The Government rejected the community’s proposal and then launched the infamous ‘operation convoy’. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from the Noonkanbah community, signed by Joe Wunmah, Mick Michael, George Bell and Bob Mululby, to the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, which adequately sets out the terms of the proposed compromise agreement.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows -
We have asked Mr Ernie Bridge to deliver this letter to you for your consideration.
We want to put these proposals to you as a way of reaching agreement on the question of mining on Noonkanbah. We hope you will accept this as being made in good faith in a real effort to resolve these difficult questions.
The main thing is we must know that all our sacred places will be safe from mining and that you will believe our word about these places.
We have asked Ernie Bridge to take this word to you and now we wait for your answer.
page 35
Signed by:
– This secretly contrived 53-vehicle convoy was resisted by Aboriginal communities, clergymen and unionists on the way to Noonkanbah. More than 50 people were arrested. Some 32 trucks were used in the convoy, more than 30 police were present, and 20 police wagons were used. The cost to the Western Australian Government for the police and the officers of the State Emergency Service, and for organising the use of Main Roads Department bulldozers, graders and two trucks to clear the road of vehicles in the convoy’s path was $500,000. It should be pointed out that the Commonwealth shares part of that cost through its tax-sharing arrangements with the States.
I visited the area on Sunday, 10 August, and I was revolted by the scene at the drilling site. The entire area was surrounded by a fence of cyclone wire topped with razor wire 10 feet high. The perimeter was guarded by large numbers of State police. Here, in Western Australia, was a scene straight from racist South Africa set up by the Western Australian Government and condoned by this Federal Government through its inertia and inadequacy. The most disgraceful expedition any Australian government has ever launched, was the description used by Professor Charles Rowley, the former Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, which bought Noonkanbah for the Yungngora community in 1976. This disgusting power nexus between the State and
Federal governments was broken by the announcement of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on 12 August that no union labour would be used on the site until an appropriate agreement was reached between the community and the company. The members of the Australian Workers Union, to their everlasting credit, have refused to work this scab rig, and Richter Drilling, the contractor to Amax, has stated that it is not prepared to use non-union labour.
The Court Government in Western Australia - I say this advisedly - is determined to crush the Noonkanbah community. It is deliberately sacrificing Aboriginal people to its gung ho mining and development policy. Premier Court’s attitude towards Aboriginal people has been clear throughout this whole miserable exercise. He has threatened, insulted and savagely attacked them with the full power of the State police, and has made outrageous media statements. He has said that it will be impossible to approve a pastoral station for another Aboriginal group. He has said that taxpayers will be bitter because public funds have been given to the Aborigines. He has further stated that the Aborigines, Professor Berndt, and other leading anthropologists were lying about the religious nature of Aboriginal relationship to land. He said: ‘We now find that the true objectives of the people attacking the Government are land rights and royalties’. The Noonkanbah people have denied repeatedly that they want royalties. They want their land. The issue is one of land rights because of the religious nature of land and the implications of sacred sites.
The Premier has attacked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). On 8 August in the West Australian he ridiculed Senator Chaney’s pathetic plea for compensation for the Yungngora community. Court said:
If the drilling program ends with this year’s activity the Yungngora community will have nothing but an additional water source and improved roads to remind them of it.
He is denying Aborigines their religious feelings. No white Australian would tolerate such callous disregard for their religion or their culture. Even more racist and disgusting have been the responses of Court’s Minister for Cultural Affairs, the abysmal Mr Grayden. He has said that cultural freedom and land rights for Aborigines in Western Australia should be kept out of his State like a noxious weed, and that the Noonkanbah sacred sites are not genuine. In one sentence he dismissed completely the whole body of anthropological knowledge and the Museum’s work. Grayden said in the Western Australian Parliament on S August that Aborigines sit around drinking alcohol and playing cards and two-up. He called Aboriginal communities junk-yards. He has hidden in a cowardly way behind his parliamentary privilege to slander Aboriginal people. When the Western Australian Aboriginal Legal Service had the audacity to announce that it would take action on his racist attacks he called for the abolition of the Aboriginal Legal Service across the nation. Senator Chaney has been written off by Aboriginal Australia. He has engaged in hypocrisy, double-speak and duplicity by pathetically attacking Court on the one hand and by complying with the Prime Minister on the other. On 1 1 March - this is the best comment honourable members will have ever heard - Senator Chaney said:
The rumour that the company would enter the property without notice and with police protection- caused great consternation. It is good that the Premier has put that rumour to rest.
Yet in July Senator Chaney was at Noonkanbah standing over the Aboriginal people. He told them that it was inevitable that drilling would take place and that they should try to make the best of the situation. On 4 August he and his predecessor, the present Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), who is sitting opposite, said in the West Australian that a mediating structure should be provided to work out the best solution and to provide for compensation. They showed that they understood the Aboriginal association with the land in that West Australian article. They made an emotional but pathetic plea for a reasonable approach to Noonkanbah. They said: Quite simply, the Aborigines believe that if their land is destroyed, then they too are destroyed.’ They criticised Court’s insensitivity and lauded the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which I remind honourable members was introduced in this Parliament by a Labor Government in 1975. They stated that justice for Aborigines, as provided by that Act, could be given only by politicians, not by police, courts or trade unionists, and they called for an accommodation of interests at Noonkanbah. But what attempt was made to create an accommodation of interests? Their own Prime Minister had already rebutted their remarks. On 2 July the Prime Minister told the Aboriginal people at Broome in the Kimberleys that ‘Australia needed to build up its oil reserves and this could not happen if drilling was stopped or delayed’. The Prime Minister said that oil drilling must proceed at Noonkanbah.
– He didn’t say that at Broome at all.
– The Prime Minister said that oil drilling must proceed at Noonkanbah. How much longer will the national government tamely accept, in this servile way, being stood over by this arrogant, dictatorial and awful old man, the Premier of Western Australia? How much more ahuse of Aboriginals will it tolerate from this bigoted State Government? The truth is that, despite all the rhetoric about Aboriginal selfdetermination, this Government has been shown clearly to be repressive and anti-Aboriginal by simple virtue of its refusal to act and to use its Federal powers. Why is Court so insistent on drilling? Does he really expect Amax to find oil? The answer is no. I contacted the General Manager of the Amax operation and was told that the chances of striking hydrocarbons at Noonkanbah are no better than 50 to one. The Western Australian Government knows that popular opinion on land rights is moving the Aborigines way. But, that Government’s view is quite simple: It wants no land rights; no recognition of sacred sites; no recognition of Aboriginal culture; no right to negotiate the right to mine on Aboriginal land. In short, it seeks to crush the Aboriginal’s morale at Noonkanbah, once and for all.
Quite clearly, unless the Prime Minister withdraws support for Charles Court’s actions and policies, the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Chaney, ought clearly to resign. He supports land rights in the States; he understands the Aborigines unique relationship with their land; he knows the significance of the sites; he espouses self-determination for all Aboriginal organisations. With all these fundamental Aboriginal causes, I agree. Labor agrees; the trade unions agree; the majority of the Australian people agree; but the Prime Minister does not agree with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Prime Minister supports black rights in Africa, but says that drilling must proceed at Noonkanbah. That is another example of his duplicity.
– What rot!
– Why does he not do something about it? Why does he not stop this monster in WA? The Federal Government has the power and the responsibility. In the show-down between mining companies and Aboriginals, with this Government the Aborigines will come last every time. Senator Chaney is jammed between Court and the Prime Minister. He is a prisoner of his belligerent State colleagues. He has been sold out by his own Prime Minister.
I congratulate the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the clergy and all those who supported these people. I hope they will continue that support. It should not be a trade union function to protect the Australian Aboriginals; it is the responsibility of the Federal Parliament. The Prime Minister must withdraw his support for Court and resolve the immediate problem of Noonkanbah by acquiring under section 51 of the Australian Constitution the sacred sites and areas at Noonkanbah. Failing that, if the Government is not willing to stop Court, Senator Chaney, as an honourable man - and I believe he is underneath - and as a result of his expressed criticism of the Western Australian Government, must resign.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
– Listening to the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) it seems to me that the mark of the success of a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is to have someone call for his resignation. I think the Premier of Queensland called for my resignation three times. I think even the Premier of Western Australia called for my resignation at one time.
– I do not want to see him resign; I want to see him act.
– I can assure the honourable gentleman that Senator Chaney’s administration of Aboriginal affairs holds the greatest respect amongst Aborigines and within this Government.
– I will be happy if you act.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I remind the House that the honourable member for Cunningham was listened to in silence.
– Mr Deputy Speaker–
-If the honourable member for Parramatta continues to interject while I am addressing the House I will be required to deal with him. Every honourable member has the right to be heard in silence. I request that that course be followed.
– The honourable member for Cunningham also made some most disparaging remarks about the Premier of Western Australia. They are quite unbecoming in this House, and advance his argument in no way at all. Let me just remind him that the Premier is regarded as one of the most dynamic premiers ever of Western Australia and one of the most dynamic premiers in Australia. He has brought more advancement, both social and economic, to the people of Western Australia than any Labor premier before him. So, let not those sort of things be said of Sir Charles Court.
I have lived through a number of situations where the Commonwealth has had to come into conflict with the States in Aboriginal affairs. Members such as the former member for Fremantle, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and the former member for MacKellar, Mr Wentworth- a very highly respected Minister for Aboriginal Affairs - have had to fight for Aboriginal interests right throughout Australia. It seems to be the lot of any Commonwealth Minister that he must do so. I have admired the way in which Senator Chaney has fought for Aboriginal interests at Noonkanbah and other places around Australia.
Let me state clearly the Commonwealth’s position: The Commonwealth has consistently expressed its view to all parties that conflict should be settled by negotiation, not by confrontation. Yet, the call of the Opposition in this matter of public importance is for confrontation. If there is one lesson that has been learned over many years of Aboriginal affairs, it is that confrontation does not succeed. It is easy to advocate development projects proceeding regardless of all other consequences. I know there are people in this community who hold that view. It is also easy to argue for the protection of Aboriginal interests at all costs. I know there are people in this community who argue that point of view. But the real challenge is to allow development of Australia’s natural resources - so essential for the benefit of all Australians - to proceed and, at the same time, to provide properly for accommodation of Aboriginal interests.
The essence of the article which Senator Chaney and I wrote and which was published in the West Australian was that there needed to be an accommodation of interests. That was precisely the task which the Federal Government set itself with regard to the development of the great uranium deposits in Arnhem Land; an accommodation of interests which beforehand people considered were irreconcilable. These included accommodation of mining interests, accommodation of conservation interests and accommodation of Aboriginal interests. The resolution of those interests in the Northern Territory, I think, will stand the test of time.
The Commonwealth has consistently recognised the responsibility of the States for land tenure and granting of mining rights and has accepted that mining cannot be prevented on pastoral leases. As I have said, the Noonkanbah dispute cannot be settled by confrontation; it can be settled only by compromise on both sides. Unless there is a willingness to come to terms with the reality of the need for accommodation there will be nothing but bitter resentment and a deeper widening of the gulf that separates the black and white people of Western Australia.
The Commonwealth has a clear direct interest in this matter on three bases: Firstly, on the basis of the 1967 referendum which gave to the Commonwealth power to make laws with Tegard to the Aboriginal people; secondly, in the national interest to bring about a reconciliation and a harmony between all the races which populate Australia; and thirdly, a clear international interest to have regard to the way in which the rest of the world looks upon what we do within our own continent. At the heart of this dispute is, as Senator Chaney and I said, the question of land. Our article states:
At the heart of the Act–
That is, the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act- is the special relationship that Aborigines have with their land. This is at the heart of Noonkanbah. It is what sacred sites are all about.
Unless and until that is recognised there cannot be a reconciliation of interests. Therefore, I regret that so many people in Western Australia speak of the Noonkanbah people, the Yungngora community of Aboriginal people, as detribalised; in other words, devoid of any traditional interest with respect to the land which makes up the Noonkanbah pastoral lease. That proposition is wrong, and unless that is recognised, as I say the necessary reconciliation, the necessary accommodation, cannot be achieved.
The dispute centres upon the question of what protection should be accorded not to specific sacred sites but to what have been described as areas of influence surrounding such sites and in particular, whether such areas lying between major sites should be closed to mineral exploration and development. As we know, the Noonkanbah dispute derives from the desire of Amax Exploration (Australia) Inc. to drill in an area of influence rather than on any specific sacred sites, the closest of which is 1.25 kilometres from the drilling rig. The Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act provides for the protection of places including any sacred ritual and or ceremonial site which is of importance or of special significance to persons of Aboriginal descent.
– What did the Museum say about that?
– The interpretation of the Western Australian Museum is that areas of influence come within that definition, either as an area of sacred ritual or a ceremonial site or as an area of special significance to persons of Aboriginal descent. Therefore, the essence of the question is: How does one protect the Aboriginal interests while allowing development of the prospective natural resources on the Noonkanbah property?’ The Western Australian Government proposes to amend its Act. I hope and I know that Senator Chaney hopes that the amendment will not simply clarify - whatever that might mean - the provisions of the Western Australian Act but give adequate machinery for protection by Aboriginals of their traditional interests.
The honourable gentleman has sought to criticise the Prime Minister and to assert that in his statements he has shown no interest in Aboriginals. I wish to put the record straight because it is important to do so. The Prime Minister met an Aboriginal delegation at Derby on Tuesday, 1 July 1980. In answering a question from Jimmy Beiundurry, the local National Aboriginal Conference member, the Prime Minister said:
On the question of sacred sites, as I understand it, I do not know of any difference between the Aboriginal people, the people of Noonkanbah, the Western Australian Government or the Commonwealth Government. There has been an absolute commitment on the part of the Premier, Sir Charles Court, that sacred sites will be protected and that of course is the view of the Commonwealth and the view I am quite certain that you want us to adopt . . . sacred sites must also be protected, and there must also be rules that protect a particular community - in this case, the Noonkanbah community rule for access and I know that there is no disagreement between governments on that point.
Later, answering another question from Jimmy Beiundurry, the Prime Minister said:
Having in mind that sacred sites are to be protected and must be protected, it is my firm belief that drilling for oil must not be impeded. This is a pastoral lease and it is in conformity with pastoral leases in Western Australia to enable mining or drilling for oil to take place. And therefore I think it ought to be allowed to do so.
In order that the record remains straight, I ask for the whole of the passages from which I have quoted to be incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Jimmy Bieundurry
Again, I would like to ask Mr Fraser about - in Western Australia as you know, and everyone else knows, and just cross the border, which has been introduced by the Federal Government in Northern Territory we have land rights and haven’t got any ownership we are missing some of these and haven’t got any ownership we are leasing some of these places and our own name and our Aboriginal name or whatever the organisation, so we can really say, this is where we belong to and this is what we want to own. Your policies are quite simple and have recognised the land rights in the Northern Territory and the only difficult land rights situation in Western Australia and the States where Aboriginal people would have, or buy land, or to have business enterprise of any sort of development then is set up rather than just in communities and you know, all sitting together- 300, 400 people sitting in one place just getting social security service, but we want to spread out and set up our own thing and this is the kind of thing, one or two families, three families, wanted to get at, and are looking at on the issue regarding to, in relation to, land rights. So, I think that in some cases we want, we would urge to ask and taken you aside and ask some ways of assistance.
Prime Minister
The Commonwealth policy in the Northern Territory has been operating for some time and I think it has worked quite well. Senator Chaney and Ian Viner before him have expressed the policy of the Commonwealth in relation to these matters. We believe in the principle behind the policy, the principle in relation to land rights. But at the same time, it is a matter in which we believe that the States themselves should make a decision in relation to the States, and that of course, is important in relation to Western Australia. There are leases here which are the same as the kind of possession that can be available to other people but part of what your question was about as I understand it, was not just sitting down in a community and receiving social service payments but being able to get up and do things and being responsible for themselves. I think that is an admirable and a proper objective. There are two things I would say about that.
The Development Commission itself would have a role in assisting aboriginals to do things to establish enterprises on their account, and so, we as a Government, look to it as a significant one of the initiatives, and I hope it is looked at in the same way by the aboriginal people. I think that that is the important thing. I do not know at this point that there is much more that I can say about it because there are some things which do need to be determined within a State and by a State. The policies in relation to those matters need to be determined. If they are not, I think that no matter what the Commonwealth might do, the policy will not work harmoniously and well ‘to the advantage of aboriginals themselves. So, I would hope over time the policies that have worked in the Northern Territory can become an example . . . (inaud) . . . to the wider sphere in Australia.
Jimmy Bieundurry (reading a letter from the Noonkanbah Community handed up by George Bell) ‘Canberra Government has the power from the 1968 Referendum to make laws and help Aboriginal people. We want them to use this power to stop Charlie Court making the road public and taking the drilling area away from the Noonkanbah lease and also to stop any drilling on sacred land’. The problems I would like to stress on that one is about the Federal Government. In the 1967 Referendum when the Government refused to take to . . . (inaud) overrun it and whatever the development is. That is the State Government has more power and also the Federal Government has more power to overrun us on this because of the 1967 Federal Referendum. I would like to hand that over to you to think about it and take it up in your Parliament time on behalf of the Noonkanbah Community.
Prime Minister
Thank you very much. There are just one or two things I would like to say about this problem which I know is a matter which has concerned a number of people. It is not a matter which can be resolved today. But I would like to say one or two things which are I think important - to state the principles which I think guide this particular matter. On the question of sacred sites, as I understand it, I do not know of any difference between the Aboriginal people, the people of Noonkanbah, the Western Australian Government or the Commonwealth Government. There has been an absolute commitment on the part of the Premier, Sir Charles Court, that sacred sites will be protected and that of course is the view of the Commonwealth end the view, I am quite certain, that you would want us to adopt. There is also agreement, as I understand it, on the need for proper rules for access so that the community would not be disturbed by other activities, so that the community would be properly protected by it. But I do want to put it to you that Australia is short of oil, that the drilling that is intended to take place at Noonkanbah is drilling for oil, and this is an important national objective, an important objective for all Australians, including of course, the Aboriginal people. Many of you drove long distances to come here today, and a good deal of the oil we have to use comes from overseas. It is important that we try and build up our own reserve and make Australia as a nation more independent, more self sufficient from suppliers overseas.
That cannot happen if drilling for oil all around Australia is to be stopped or is to be held up. Having in mind that sacred sites are to be protected and must be protected, it is my firm belief that drilling for oil must not be impeded. This is a pastoral lease and it is in conformity with pastoral leases in Western Australia to enable mining or drilling for oil to take place. And therefore I think it ought to be allowed to do so. Having in mind again what I said, sacred sites must also be protected, and there must also be rules that protect a particular community- in this case, the Noonkanbah community rule for access and I know that there is no disagreement between governments on that particular point.
There has been a good deal of publicity about matters at Noonkanbah and at this point there is only one other thing that I would urge on all the people at Noonkanbah, indeed on any community - whether it is an Aboriginal community or any other. But, especially perhaps in matters of this kind. I think in matters of this kind where there are strong views, and sometimes, sharply held views, it is very important for a community to look to its elders; to look to those in the community with great experience and with wisdom in guarding that community’s affairs.
I think if that happens in the Noonkanbah community, it will assist in making the resolution of this matter more easy. I know there are matters in which members of the Noonkanbah community feel strongly. But, where there is a need for consultation, discussion and negotiation, I believe that that is something that should occur with the traditional elders and seniors of the Noonkanbah people. I do not think there is very much else that I can add to this problem at the moment, except to remind you that there are national objectives and there are important Aboriginal objectives which are not in dispute. Perhaps the only other thing which I feel I should say is that the problems to which we all seek to address ourselves, one of the reasons why I am here today to listen to you to hear your views, one of the reasons why we have the National Aboriginal Conference, why we have the Development Commission and (it is going to be run by Aboriginals for and on behalf of the Aboriginal people) is because we believe that these matters need to be determined sensibly, having in mind all the interests that must be taken into account in Australia, and that there needs to be consultation, as there has been, there needs to be understanding, as I believe there has been, but there is a need for national objectives also to be pursued.
Everything that I have said is against the background that it is a firm commitment of the West Australian Government which has obviously the strong support of the Federal Government to see that sacred sites of Aboriginal people are properly defined and properly protected. That is a firm, and total commitment of the Premiers and of the Western Australian Government. Against that commitment, I would have thought it should be possible for the matters which stirred some people in relation to Noonkanbah to be solved and settled without difficulty. But I again would urge that the people of Noonkanbah should listen to their elders in relation to these particular matters, and turn aside from any path of confrontation or something that might lead to difficulty in that way. (general clapping of approval).
I don’t really think your answer on Noonkanbah is satisfactory. If the State Government had kept its word about protecting sacred sites, there would have been a resolution by now. They have completely ignored the views of the Noonkanbah people which are that the elders are the ones who are making the decisions. You are implying that it is somebody else giving advice to the community. You are not recognising the intelligence of the people and the level of intelligence of the elders at Noonkanbah to be able to make their own decisions. What has also happened in another incident at Argyle was that the Western Australian Museum, an official body recognised by the State, carried out a site survey on the C.R.A. mining tenement who were not supposed to work within one kilometre of a particular site. We go there and at that site, find there was a big hole in it.
I am glad to hear you say that the problem is one that involves sacred sites only, because on some of the reports, there had been other issues put as being matters that had been raised in relation to Noonkanbah and to have you confirm that it is a question of the sacred sites, and only a question of the sacred sites, is, I think, a very useful thing. I am also glad to hear you say that it is indeed the elders who are governing this matter for the people of Noonkanbah because, against the commitment that Sir Charles Court has made, that sacred sites will be protected and I do not believe that there is anyone in the whole of Western Australia who would ever say that Sir Charles, if he gives his word on a matter, then that’s it, and that it is kept, and kept absolutely.
The State Government is totally committed to the preservation of the sites. The Commonwealth Government has total commitment and support of the State Government in that, and Noonkanbah people want the sacred sites protected. Now, against that background, I would believe that it ought to be possible to resolve this particular matter, and I am glad to have you say that there are not other issues which, could or had in fact, been raised in the past in relation to it.
– A few days later- on 6 July- at the State Conference of the Western Australian Liberal Party in Perth the Prime Minister, in addressing that conference, said:
It is important that matters of principle be preserved; and for the aborigines - the important matter of principle of their sacred sites and the protections of their own community. For Australia and Australia’s national interests the important principle is being able to drill for oil where that is necessary and it is important that that be preserved. But it is important for all of us- aboriginal and for all other Australians that we have a capacity to resolve these matters by consultation and negotiation.
Again, for the correctness of the record, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the total passage from which that quotation is taken.
Leave granted.
page 40
Sir Charles had made sure that I was accompanied by various State Ministers for different parts of the visit and I appreciate that. The Acting Premier was with me at Derby. I would just like to mention there that there was, as I believe, a constructive, useful and friendly meeting with a number of people from the aboriginal community who had come from many different places- some of them 700 or 800 kilometres from Derby. Noonkanbah, obviously was raised and I made it plain at that particular meeting that on the Commonwealth’s part, we stood as one with the State, in firmly believing and supporting the State in a State commitment to preserve sacred sites. Also I indicated that the support of the State and its determination in the national interest, that drilling must, at the appropriate time proceed; but went on to say that those at Noonkanbah should listen to their elders and that ‘it was my firm belief, and it remains my firm belief, that it is a matter that can be resolved by negotiation and consultation. As a result of discussions that I have had with Senator Chaney and which the Acting Premier has also had with Senator Chaney - those consultations with the elders at Noonkanbah are likely to take place. It is important that matters of principle be preserved; and for the aborigines- the important matter of principle of their sacred sites and the protections of their own community. For Australia and Australia’s national interests the important principle is being able to drill for oil where that is necessary and it is important that that be preserved. But it is important for all of us- aboriginal and for all other Australians that we have a capacity to resolve these matters by consultation and negotiation. I was encouraged and I think the Acting Premier was also encouraged by the tenour and the tone of the meeting and the discussion at Derby that it was capable of being achieved and concluded in that way. And the Commonwealth will certainly co-operate with all its resources in helping to achieve that objective.
– That principle which the Prime Minister enunciated was precisely the principle which the Commonwealth and the Aboriginals of Arnhem Land had to face with regard to the Ranger project. It was resolved there by long, patient negotiation and consultation, but that consultation and negotiation required one thing to succeed. It required the participation of all parties, and I emphasise that. I shall nominate the parties which must be involved. Firstly, the company concerned must be involved. Here, of course, it is Amax. It must be directly involved in the negotiations. It cannot be involved through an intermediary. It cannot be vicariously involved; it must be directly involved.
Secondly, the Aboriginal people themselves must be involved on a basis of integrity and trust so that they are met on common ground, not denying to them the intelligence to be concerned about and to look after their own interests, nor denying to them the capacity to make their own judgments, quite apart from those who are described as outsiders, stirrers and the like. I met those kind of people over Ranger, Aurukun and Mornington Island. Thirdly, the state Government must be involved. Fourthly, the Commonwealth must be involved. Only when those four parties get around a table together is there any hope of resolution on the basis that I have suggested.
Above all, it must be acknowledged by both sides of the House that solutions imposed upon Aboriginal communities are not acceptable to them and can rarely be acceptable to the community as a whole. The Commonwealth does not believe that in situations such as Noonkanbah solutions imposed on the State Government would be lasting. Clearly the most effective solution is one in which, as I have said, all parties are involved and which all parties accept and are prepared to work together towards achieving and one in which the interests of all parties are respected. That is what Senator Chaney has sought to achieve. He has worked diligently and very hard. In many places he has received a good deal of criticism for his efforts. Much of that criticism was made not to his face but behind his back.
Again, if there is one thing that we learnt from Aurukun, Mornington Island and Ranger and from introducing land rights into the Northern Territory, it was that where Aboriginal affairs are concerned no side wins from an act of political warfare. Within the Australian Federal political structure we do have States and we do have a Commonwealth. Each has its own responsibilities and its own jurisdiction. Whatever the solution at Noonkanbah, the people of Noonkanbah must live with it because they live in Western Australia and within the social, economic and political life of Western Australia. Therefore a solution must be found which gives them an equal place in the social, political and economic life of that State, one which as I have said and as the Prime Minister has said, protects the Aboriginal interests.
-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.
– Again we have seen a treacherous sell-out of the interests of Aboriginal people throughout this country and it comes from the grand master of treachery, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). He is the Minister who took up the cudgels on behalf of the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island and sold them down the drain. Just as Aurukun and Mornington Island destroyed him as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; so too will Noonkanbah destroy the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney).
– Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the language used by the honourable member. I believe it to be unparliamentary.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The Chair was in some doubt at the time the remarks were made about to whom they were directed. Criticism of that nature made earlier in the debate went in another direction. If the honourable member for Fremantle was addressing them to the Minister, I would ask him to withdraw the expression he used as it was unparliamentary.
– Which expression? The fact that he is the grand master of treachery?
– That is the expression to which the Chair refers.
– Despite the accuracy of the statement, I will withdraw it if you insist.
-Order! The honourable member is not entitled to qualify it.
– I will withdraw it, if you insist. The treachery is in the form not of the action which the Government has taken on this occasion but the fact that it has taken no action when it can take action. There is absolutely no excuse remaining for its not acting in relation to Noonkanbah. The Government knows that the authority exists under the Constitution for it to act. Indeed, it took action under that constitutional authority when it purported to provide self-management for the people at Aurukun and Mornington Island. Even though the law which it passed through this Parliament was in the end ineffective, it was based fairly and squarely on that power. The Senate committee which investigated that Act endorsed the Commonwealth’s authority to move in to acquire land for the interests of the Aboriginal people. Indeed, the treachery is extended because we find in an article of 4 August 1980, Mr Viner and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs eloquently–
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member is required to refer to the Minister by his correct title. The honourable member continues to use the term that the Chair required him to withdraw. Whilst he does not attach that term to any particular member, as a result of his earlier remarks there can be no doubt as to the allusion.
– I am referring to the treachery of the Government. The treachery of the Government has been extended because of the way in which the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs co-authored an article which appeared in the West Australian newspaper on 4 August. In that article they eloquently made out a case for a new legal framework to protect the interests of Aborigines in Western Australia. In their article they made a plea for a negotiated settlement which recognised the prior Aboriginal ownership of the land and the central importance of land to Aboriginal spirituality. That is the case which they have made out; that is the case which they say they support. But they will take no action.
Today the Minister has said that it is necessary to avoid confrontation. I do not know where the
Minister has been for the last two weeks. Confrontation has arrived. The Western Australian Government organised a paramilitary operation involving 57 trucks, supported by 40 policemen. It involved the arrest of 20 people at Noonkanbah. What on earth is that if it is not confrontation? Is that confrontation? That is the confrontation which we said months ago that the Government could avoid. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I awaited the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and told him what was necessary and what action he could take in order to avoid the confrontation that has now taken place at Noonkanbah and every mile from Eneabba to Noonkanbah up the length of Western Australia. That is the confrontation we were trying to avoid. That is the confrontation which this Government, through its inaction, in fact precipitated. What could be confrontationist about this Government simply with the stroke of a pen acquiring the land at Noonkanbah and acquiring the minerals that are in that land? That is not confrontationist. That is simply a responsible exercise of its constitutional power.
If some dispute develops as a result of this action with the Western Australian Government there are plenty of processes to which it can appeal. The High Court of Australia exists to sort out any dispute which might arise between the State Government and the Federal Government as a result of that action. That is not confrontationist. What it would do overnight with a stroke of pen would be to take this whole issue out of the area of police activities and out of the area of something akin to warfare. That is what it would do. It would remove it from the confrontation which the Western Australian Government has been absolutely determined to pursue over the last few weeks. It is the fact that this Government, this Minister and his colleague in the Senate, have refused to do it which is the crime. That is their guilt. Their failure to act leaves them just as culpable as the Western Australian Government in its horrendous, brutal and authoritarian activities over the last couple of weeks. That was the action of a megalomaniac determined to get his way. Yet this Government, through its inaction, has simply ‘ condoned it. If the Government of Western Australia does get its way it will be this Minister, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who will have blood on their hands. Let them remember this and let no one ever forget it. They will be participating–
– You do not like Charlie, do you?
– Leave Charlie out of it. Charlie has got nothing to do with it. The fact is that it is the grinning Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, who was the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the grinning Minister who has put his name to an article which has supported the spirituality of the Aboriginal people who is the one who will have blood on his hands as a result of the activities of the Premier of Western Australia. He has the Premier of Western Australia acting for him. He does not have to take responsibility directly, he thinks. But I say that if the Western Australian Government does get its way this Minister and the Minister in the other place will be just as much participants in a further destruction of one fragile part of Aboriginal society. If he has an ounce of decency in his soul the consequences of that participation will haunt him, will haunt Chaney and will haunt Fraser for the rest of their days. What they are participating in is the further destruction–
-Order! The honourable member must not refer to honourable members of this House or of the other place other than by the seat they represent or by the office which they hold.
– I think everybody knows who I am talking about. They will be haunted for the rest of their days because what they are doing is something which is irreparable; it is something we cannot correct. I ask honourable members to imagine what would have happened if, when the convoy arrived, the rig had been assembled. I ask them to imagine what, would have happened if the workers had decided to work that rig. If that had occurred then this very week would be the week when a sacred site - an area essential to the spirituality of the people at Noonkanbah - would have been totally and irrevocably destroyed. Any form of compensation would not have meant anything to those people. That essential sacred area would have been destroyed for all times. What has been delivered to this Minister and what is being delivered to this Government because of the action of the Australian Workers Union in deciding to withdraw their labour, is an opportunity for the Western Australian Government to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
The Minister says that he has great faith in the possibility of arriving at a negotiated settlement. He draws upon the experience of what happened in the Northern Territory. What he fails to explain is that in the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal people have statutory rights, as small as they may be. Their consent is required before certain things can happen on their land. The Minister knows that that is not the case in Western Australia. Under no circumstances is Aboriginal consent required for anything. A minister in
Western Australia can override Aboriginal interests in relation to entry on to reserve lands. The Aboriginals cannot hold up mining applications. Their consent is not required before mining leases are given out over their land or areas of interest to them. They have absolutely no rights. What we have been saying is that under those circumstances there can be no sensible negotiations when one of the essential parties to those negotiations is totally powerless. What we simply say to the Minister and what he has failed to answer today as he and his colleague have failed to answer time and time again is: Why will they not act to give the Aboriginal people at Noonkanbah some real negotiating position in any discussions aimed at settling this dispute? That is all that we are asking for. The Aborigines have not opposed mining everywhere on Noonkanbah. They are prepared to approve of it if they are given an opportunity to properly discuss the matter.
-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
– Today we are talking about a very emotional subject which has great and deep meaning to a lot of people throughout Australia. I believe that the way in which this matter has been approached by the Opposition with mounting passions, in advocating confrontation and in talking of acquisition will do nothing at all to solve this problem. There will be nothing–
– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement which he just made that we are advocating and engendering confrontation.
– There is no point of order.
– The fact is that it is these people and the Western Australian Government who are causing the confrontation.
– There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.
– It is quite clear, as today’s Hansard will disclose, that the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) in fact quite clearly advocated acquisition of land in Western Australia as a means of solving this conflict. Now he is trying to deny that he said that. The truth of the matter will be shown in the copies of Hansard tomorrow. The honourable member for Cunningham and the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) have been mounting passions on this matter. They have been advocating acquisition. They have been advocating confrontation in order to solve the problem. I believe that this will not solve the problem at all. A few things have to be made quite clear on this matter. There was talk by the honourable member for Cunningham and by the honourable member for Fremantle that a sacred site is about to be drilled or is being destroyed in Western Australia. It is clear from all the anthropological evidence, from other expert evidence and from evidence from the Aborigines themselves that the sacred sites are not about to be drilled or destroyed. The drilling and other activities in that area are taking place about 1 .25 kilometres from the nearest sacred site. They are approximately 3.5 kilometres from Pea Hill which a lot of people have been saying is the site about to be destroyed. There is no question that a lot of mythology surrounds these sacred sites. It is very interesting to note that the honourable member for Cunningham and the -honourable member for Fremantle are talking clearly of land rights.
In all the negotiations between the Aboriginals of Noonkanbah and the State and Federal governments, the Aboriginal people have been talking of sacred sites. To expand this talk to embrace land rights is completely wrong and is a complete myth. The honourable member for Cunningham has moved his position from the destruction of a sacred site to a land rights claim embracing a much greater area. It is that very point which was made clear by the Prime Minister when he spoke to the Aboriginals in Derby. For the information of the honourable member for Cunningham, I inform him that it was not at Broome! would like to correct that myth held by him. The Aboriginal people of Noonkanbah said in the clearest terms that their concern was for their sacred sites and for the deep effect that those sacred sites would have upon their lives. Only one man who was not a Kimberley Aboriginal - a Mr Yu - expanded that concern immediately to embrace a land rights claim. The Prime Minister took him up on it and made that difference very clear at the meeting with the Aboriginals.
Let us be quite firm on what we are talking about. Are we talking about the protection of sacred sites? Are we talking about drilling in an area which might have some deep religious significance to these people or are we talking about the much broader land rights claim of Aboriginals in Western Australia? There are two distinct areas and both areas must be negotiated. We cannot turn our backs on those areas or walk away from them. We must negotiate with the Aboriginals on them and talk about them. But let us not confuse the separate issues; let us not confuse the drilling of a hole at Noonkanbah with a much broader land rights claim. There are reasons why we should be talking about land rights and sacred sites. In this case, when one mentions Noonkanbah, the Noonkanbah people are concerned that their sacred sites will be destroyed or drilled.
From time to time the Federal Government has made its position quite clear. Very recently it has reaffirmed its position. The Commonwealth Government has put to the State the view that procedures must be developed to resolve conflicts between mining interests and Aboriginals and has proposed discussions to this end. A conflict situation cannot solve these conflicts. It will only make matters a lot worse. The people who will suffer in a conflict situation are the Aboriginal people of Australia. Members of the Opposition are losing sight of the fact that it is the Aboriginal people who will suffer. The honourable member for Cunningham and the honourable member for Fremantle will not suffer this great damage or personal hurt. They will not suffer from this tremendous traumatic situation confronting the Aboriginals. It will be the Aboriginal people who will suffer.
– Of course they will.
– The honourable member for Cunningham says: ‘Of course they will. Let us have this conflict.’ Those are his sentiments. He says: ‘Let us have a conflict and damage the Aboriginal people’. A conflict will not solve this problem in any way. It is interesting to note that the Australian Labor Party - if it is talking of land rights - had its chance to grant land rights, to acquire land and to carry out all of these actions that it says we should be carrying out at present, when it was in power between 1972 and 1975. The Australian Labor Party failed to do anything. When it had power to acquire the land and to carry out these actions about which it is talking, it failed the Aboriginal people miserably. It will fail the Aboriginal people again and again.
The Australian Labor Party is talking of conflict. It is promoting a conflict. It has talked about mounting a union picket on the road to Noonkanbah. In the heart land of unionism in Western Australia, the Australian Labor Party was able to get 1 5 miserly union conveners on the road. That was the sort of picket and support that the Australian Labor Party was prepared to give to the Aboriginal people. It disregarded them. It has no deep feelings for the Aboriginals of Australia. It has done nothing for the Aboriginal people and will continue to do nothing. The conflict and the confrontation that have been promoted by the Australian Labor Party will not solve this problem. They will only hurt the Aboriginal people of Australia. I sincerely believe that we must set guidelines and find a place for negotiation so that we will not have this horrible conflict that will destroy the people we are trying to help.
We have been talking about people’s emotions. The emotions that have been aroused by the honourable member for Fremantle and the honourable member for Cunningham are beyond description. Mention has been made of another confrontation that took place at Noonkanbah. I want to make it quite clear that that confrontation also was arranged and orchestrated to a large extent by outside forces. Mr Don McLeod, who is a well known activist and confrontationist, claims that he speaks for every Aboriginal in Western Australia. He claims that in 1941 he was given power to disown any government in Australia and to speak for every Aboriginal. Today there is hardly an Aboriginal alive in Western Australia who recognises the authority of Donald McLeod. The Aboriginal elders of Noonkanbah have expressed very serious and sensible approaches to this problem. They have told me and the Prime Minister–
– When did you go there?
– I have been there. It is a lot more than the honourable member for Batman has done. I have been there and have spoken to the Aboriginal elders on several occasions. They have said to me quite clearly: ‘We recognise that drilling should take place. We are concerned that our sacred sites must be protected. We think we can find a way to do both these things’. I believe that is the answer. Drilling should proceed. The sacred sites must be protected. The Commonwealth and State governments have given very clear undertakings that the sacred sites will be protected. If we are talking of land rights, then we are talking of another subject and should sit down and talk very seriously of land rights as a separate issue.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.
page 45
Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr MacKellar:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill and the Nursing Homes Assistance Amendment Bill 1980 as they are associated measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.
– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two measures? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed.
– The National Health Amendment Bill 1980 and the Nursing Homes Assistance Amendment Bill 1980 are two small Bills in the health field. Although they are minor Bills Opposition members are rather thankful that we get any health Bills to debate at all. It is interesting to note that these are the first two Bills introduced by the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) in the nine months during which he has been Minister for Health. One could accuse the previous Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) of being hyperactive. He produced a new national health scheme every year. One year he produced three national health schemes. He was often charged with being too active. That is certainly a charge one cannot bring against the present Minister for Health. His inactivity suggests, of course, that he is in charge of a functioning and efficient health care system, when instead he presides over one of the most inefficient, one of the least equitable and certainly one of the most confusingly complicated health care systems in the Western world.
Running the foreign affairs of this country no doubt minimises the attention that the Minister for Health can give to health issues. I suppose we should be grateful to the Minister for the little segments of attention that he gives to health, given his visits to France, to West Germany, to Britain, to the United States of America, to Fiji, to Botswana and to Zimbabwe, all in his brief nine month tenure as Minister for Health in this country. It was the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of this country who promised us in 1975 that he would not give us tourist Ministers. In Mr MacKellar he has given us a part-time locum as Minister for Health.
The two Bills now under discussion are the National Health Amendment Bill and the Nursing Homes Assistance Amendment Bill. The first objective of these Bills is to broaden the range of information that can be required from proprietors of approved non-government nursing homes. The
Department of Health can now require the furnishing of audited accounts from approved nongovernment nursing homes and the keeping of further records over and above those at present required under the National Health Act. The second objective is to introduce penalties for failure to provide the required information. The Bill increases the penalties relating to the provision of other information. Furthermore, penalties for nursing home proprietors deliberately providing false or misleading information have been increased from $200 or imprisonment for six months, to $10,000 or imprisonment for five years. Thirdly, the Bills introduce an alternative power - the power to suspend a nursing home approval as an alternative to the power of revocation. Revocation was a rather drastic and therefore rarely used sanction; and it seems to the Opposition that the power of suspension is a much more realistic option to be used for breaches of the National Health Act in relation to nursing homes. In introducing the power to suspend the approval of a nursing home the Government has rightly protected- the patients concerned. The Commonwealth benefit or the nursing home fund benefit will not be payable during the period of suspension, but the proprietor will be required to deduct those amounts from the fee to be charged. Thus the proprietor, not the patient, will bear the financial penalties of suspension.
The Nursing Homes Assistance Amendment Bill simply applies the penalties for deliberately providing false or misleading information to the deficit-funded nursing homes, mainly nursing homes run by non-profit, religious and charitable organisations. These organisations are already required to provide an annual budget and other detailed information. Unfortunately, there have been no previous penalty provisions for false and misleading information, and these have now been included in the amending Bill.
The Australian Labor Party does not oppose these two minor Bills. Indeed, we are gladdened by the sight of Liberals extending control and regulations over what they call private enterprise. We in the Labor Party believe that there is an inherent conflict between the provision of humane services in nursing homes and private profit from nursing homes. Because of this inherent conflict there is a need for tight public monitoring of profit-based nursing homes in this country. Again, the taxpayers subsidise nursing home benefits to the tune of something like $200m a year, and the Government, as guardian of the taxpayers’ interests, needs to have effective public controls. Therefore we welcome the legislation that has been introduced.
However, there are two general comments we would make. Firstly, these measures fiddle at the edge of what is becoming a set of accumulating problems in the nursing home sector. Secondly, there is no sign in the Minister’s speech of any vision of appropriate health care structures for the aged, no overall view of how private nursing homes should be fitted into a total and appropriate infrastructure for the elderly. I want to give four instances of the kinds of problems that are appearing in the nursing home sectors and which I think require immediate attention.
The first arises from a comment by the Minister for Health in his second reading speech, when he said:
Benefit levels are reviewed annually and are set at levels in each State which, with the rninimum statutory patient contribution, wholly cover the fees being charged for 70 per cent of beds in non-government nursing homes - excluding deficit financed homes- at the time of the review.
Of course, that 70 per cent cover occurs at only one brief point in the year and is very quickly eroded. I have a recent survey from the National Standing Committee of Nursing Homes. I realise that some qualifications have to be entered about it. It is a partial survey and is not totally comparable. Nevertheless, the figures reveal that, as at mid-1980, in Queensland only 37.7 per cent of beds are now covered, in New South Wales 38.8 per cent, in Victoria 42.3 per cent, in Tasmania 21 per cent, in South Australia 58 per cent, and in Western Australia 53 per cent. That is, the 70 per cent cover of beds is eroded rapidly as a result of increases in costs, which are then approved in the nursing homes. It is misleading of the Minister to proclaim that benefit levels wholly cover the fees being charged for 70 per cent of beds in nongovernment nursing homes without acknowledging at the same time the significant drift that occurs through the year.
I recognise that it is not an easy problem to solve. Certainly the Labor Party has no desire to swell the profits of private nursing homes on the ostensible grounds that it is benefiting the patients. If honourable members look at the Australian Financial Review they will regularly find advertisements listing nursing homes as worth while’ or ‘valuable’ form of investment. In New South Wales recently a private nursing home of 845 beds was up for sale for $ 11.5m, or some $13,600 per bed. Those bed costs are ultimately to be met through Commonwealth nursing home benefits, Commonwealth funded pensions, Commonwealth subsidies, from health fund contributions, and from the patient moiety. Clearly, many of these nursing homes are highly profitable organisations. Nevertheless, while being aware of the profit issue, the significant annual drift from the 70 per cent of beds fully covered does need governmental attention. Yet the Minister’s speech suggests that he is unaware of this drift. We ask him tonight: What is he going to do about this growing problem of drift in the cover in nongovernment private profit-making nursing homes in this country?
The second instance we present is the problem of the very different daily rates of benefit between the States. They vary amazingly, and seem to have been the result simply of accidental and fortuitous events. I look forward to seeing justification of the very big difference in the nursing home benefits paid in the various States. It is certainly one aspect of the problem that needs to be looked at today. The third instance is a need for more governmental action in exercising control over the level of training of staff provided in nursing homes. In Queensland the private hospital and nursing home associations are attempting to introduce a third tier of nursing in nursing homes, beneath the trained nurses and the nursing aides. The aim of this proposal undoubtedly is to reduce labour costs and therefore to increase pro- fitablility. Given this Government’s track record on nurses’ education, it will probably welcome this attack on nurses’ professionalism and the diminution of nurses’ status.
The fourth instance relates very much to the Labor Party’s philosophy in the matter of nursing homes. We believe that there is a fundamental difference between public and non-profit-making nursing homes and private profit-making nursing homes. One aspect of this difference is that public and non-profit-making nursing homes are likely to give much greater emphasis to rehabilitation. On the other hand, if honourable members look at private profit-making nursing homes they will see that there is a clear financial incentive for them to secure as many extensive care patients as possible because they attract the greater benefit. We as a party favour the development of the public and non-profit-making home wherever that is practicable. I do not believe the same to be true of the present Government, and I want to exemplify the difference and raise the issue in relation to the difference of emphasis on nursing home applications in the mid-Gippsland region, where it is a matter of some controversy.
In mid-1979 a Commonwealth public servant from the Melbourne office of the Department of Housing and Construction received approval from the Victorian Health Commission and the Commonwealth Department of Social Security to build a nursing home at Wonthaggi. It is not clear how this Melbourne-based civil servant knew of the appropriateness of applying to build in the Wonthaggi area. Certainly, information about distribution of nursing home beds was not publicly available. However, his information was certainly sound because central Gippsland had a general shortage of nursing home beds. This proposal was opposed by the Wonthaggi hospital, which also sought to develop a nursing home. The hospital favoured a community-based nursing home linked to the hospital for paramedical services and day hospital care with an emphasis on rehabilitation and the return home of the patients. That seemed much more appropriate than a profit-making home which would have to charge higher fees to regain its return on capital investment.
The Commonwealth public servant, having lost that battle and acting on information not publicly available, next turned his attention to Traralgon, which was again below the accepted bedpopulation ratio. He received approval for a 30-bed nursing home at Traralgon. At the same time as this decision was made approval was given for a 20-bed hospital-based nursing home in Traralgon and a 50-bed hospital-based nursing home in Moe. But the Victorian Health Commission and the Department refused a nursing home application by the Morwell community hospital. The reason apparently was that there was a sufficient number of beds in the central Gippsland region. But one should note about this decision that none of these beds was in Morwell. The Morwell application was based on the same sound community rehabilitation principles as the one at Wonthaggi. The Morwell people argue that if the application of the particularly wellinformed public servant for a private nursing home is rejected, Morwell would be able to have a nursing home provision attached to its hospital. Thus, Traralgon would still have its beds because they are provided for at the hospital there, Moe would have its beds and Morwell would also secure some beds. All of these would be communitybased with patients near to their relatives and all would have a clear rehabilitation emphasis. This is the solution that the Commonwealth Government should be supporting in the towns of central Gippsland. I urge the Minister to follow up this issue which, I believe, is still a matter of considerable controversy in the region.
Now I turn to the other weakness which we see in the Minister’s second reading speech; that is, there is no sign anywhere in it of the long run goals, the long run vision and the ultimate aim of the Liberal Government in health care for the elderly. In the remainder of my speech I wish to suggest what would be the major long run objectives of the Labor Party in the provision of appropriate health care services for the aged. We see three major goals. Firstly, we would reverse the priorities of the past and increase the public commitment to health care provision for the elderly. Secondly, we would endeavour to create in every community an infrastructure of services and institutions for the elderly so that they might choose the one most appropriate to them socially and medically. Thirdly, and at the same time, we would wish to reduce the emphasis on institutional solutions to the problems of the elderly.
Let me try to explain each of those proposals. First of all, public provision for the health care needs of the elderly has been much neglected in Australian society. There has been a tendency to leave it to the private sector and to the charitable sector. It is an issue which over the years has tended to be much more neglected than other health care concerns as a problem that could be left to the private sector. That tendency will have to be reversed in the remaining decades of this century. Greater public responsibilities will have to be accepted, not least because of the growth of the numbers of the old in our society for the rest of this century. Indeed, at present great opportunities are being provided because some of the aspects of hospital rationalisation - at another time I will devote more energy and effort to the hospital rationalisation proposals - and of public hospital provision permit and encourage opportunities to adapt and redevelop those facilities in order to serve the health needs of the elderly. So we have an immediate opportunity to move in the direction which I see in the long term as desirable.
Secondly, we need to create as far as possible - it will take time and effort - a total health care infrastructure for the elderly in every community. Too often the only choice for the old is between living at home, often with inadequate support services, and going into a nursing home. This limited choice is often both socially and medically inappropriate. As a humane society we need to provide a total range of choice for the old. I suggest that some of the main elements- I do not pretend that I can be completely comprehensive- of that range of choice are, firstly, the choice of remaining in the private home but with adequate domiciliary care and backup services; and the backup services are as important as the domiciliary care. I was most impressed with some of the developments in Western Australia where, particularly in the city of Perth, there are very good backup services, for example, help around the house to do odd jobs such as the changing of light globes for old people.
That is something we might not think about but. of course, old people living at home find it a very risky operation in many cases to change those light globes. We need these home help backup services as well as the immediate domiciliary care provision much more closely tied to health needs. So the first choice is the private home with adequate domiciliary care and backup services. The second choice is independent dwelling units; that is, people remaining in an independent situationbut with some medical support readily available. That can be organised in many different ways.
– With public funding?
– In part. In the next 20 years there will have to be a bigger public commitment in these fields because public resources will have to help to build this infrastructure. The third choice is hostel accommodation, the fourth is daycare centres and the final choice, of course, is nursing homes. I may not have included all the possibilities but we need to create this kind of infrastructure. I am not pretending that there has not been a start to such provision or that particularly some of the church and charitable organisations, with governmental support, have not already begun to make major contributions in this field. We need to begin looking at every community to begin to see whether that kind of range of choice for the old can be provided rather than, as in far too many communities in this country, the choice being often between living in a private home without adequate support services or in a nursing home. Sometimes, of course, there is not even that choice.
Thirdly, while concerning ourselves with making adequate provision in the ways I have suggested, we need at the same time to deinstitutionalise health care provision for the old and, indeed, for most other segments of this society. There is, in fact, a considerable misdirection of public resources by government into health care structures which are often inappropriate emotionally, socially and medically and which at the same time are often more expensive than more appropriate structures. For instance, two years ago there was a very interesting report, published under the aegis of this Government, on relative costs of home care and nursing home and hospital care. I compared the costs of home care provision with the costs of nursing home and hospital care. The costs of home care health services are always much less than the costs of hospital care, as that report quite clearly shows. The costs of home care health services are less than the costs of nursing home care except for patients requiring intensive levels of service. Of course, that does not mean that it is appropriate that all our hospital care should be home care. We must then look at the medical appropriateness of each case.
The report estimates that something like 25 per cent of patients in nursing homes would in many ways be much better suited by adequate home care and that between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of hospital patients would be much more satisfactorily treated through a home care system. Indeed, if the appropriate home care services were available, a possible saving in the health bill would be of the order of $1 00m. This concerns not just a saving in the health care bill but also the fact that those home care services are probably in many cases more medically, socially and emotionally appropriate, particularly to old people.
But what we have seen, particularly in the last two years, is in many ways a decline in the home care services provided. If one looks, for instance, at the overall funding of home care services, at least in real terms there have been significant cuts. There has, for instance, been a no-growth policy - I quote a bureaucrat - applied to the home nursing service. This has meant that the number of nurses eligible for the subsidy has effectively been limited. The Meals on Wheels service, which again is a part of the whole home care service operation, is struggling partly, of course, because of this Government’s policies on petrol. All are aware of the importance of the petrol bill to the whole Meals on Wheels operation.
Personal care subsidies for the frail aged have been cut. The destruction of the Australian Assistance Plan has meant that many worthwhile community projects - and the Minister can find out the details of the AAP projects that were under way - which were aimed at helping the elderly to keep out of institutions have collapsed.
We need to reverse these policies because they are basically false economies. All of these miniscule cuts - in many cases they were not so much cuts but rather increases were not made to match the inflation rate - are false economies. On the grounds of both health and expenditure savings we need to develop home care services, not cut them back. Of course, the results of these false economies and the health insurance mess are that many of the most vulnerable patients in our society are left confused. One only need talk to the old about the confusions of health insurance and about some of the blatant and appalling publicity that has been directed at them in relation to health insurance. We know that they are left confused, are often out of pocket and often find themselves in institutions which, if they had their choice, they would rather not be in.
In conclusion, I repeat the long run objects of my party when returned to power at the end of this year in relation to the provision of health care for the aged. Firstly, we will increase the public commitment in this field. We accept the expenses that will be involved in the long run in pursuit of this commitment. Secondly, there will be a comprehensive provision of health care services for the old in the community. Thirdly, we will try to de-institutionalise the health care segment for the old which, of course, will involve not only providing more appropriate health care but also, in the long run, will reduce the cost of that health care.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.
page 49
-I present the fifth report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.
page 49
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.
Bill presented by Mr Howard, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
In doing so, I present the Budget for 1980-81.
This is the fifth Budget of the Fraser Government.
It is the first Budget of a new decade - a decade in which all Australians can expect to share the benefits of exceptional growth and national development.
However, this will only be so if there is continued application of the right economic policies.
It will only be so if we continue those policies which in five years have brought Australia from a country clearly living beyond its means to where, this year- for the first time for seven years- we can achieve a domestic Budget surplus.
The dominant feature of those policies has been our relentless effort to control inflation.
There must be no relaxation of that effort.
Unless we persist in our fight against inflation, our full economic potential will not be realised.
Any other course would condemn the Australian economy to second-best status in the years ahead.
We owe our present strength, international standing and optimism to the persistent application of disciplined anti-inflationary policies.
Without them, we could not have hoped for the greater economic growth and development which are now in prospect.
As foreshadowed in last year’s Budget, 1979-80 proved difficult for the world economy.
That Budget was designed to equip Australia to succeed in a world environment of rising inflation and intensifying competition.
That objective was achieved.
Over the year to June 1980, Australia’s inflation rate as measured by the Consumer Price Index was 10.7 per cent - about three percentage points below the average of OECD countries.
Last year, exports grew by almost 1 5 per cent in real terms. .
For the first time since 1972-73 private external transactions produced a substantial surplus.
Overall, growth was 2.2 per cent reflecting stronger non-farm growth of 3.1 per cent partly offset by some fall in farm product from the very high level of the previous year.
Whilst business fixed investment declined with the phasing down of the investment allowance, it rose in the second half of the year.
Business profits increased strongly last year, but there is a need for further improvement to support increased investment and employment.
Private dwelling investment was strong throughout the year and recorded a real increase of over 10 per cent.
Although personal consumption expenditure was relatively subdued there was an encouraging lift in the second half of the year.
Greater non-farm growth was reflected in a strong rise in total employment of 2.4 per cent in 1979-80- the largest since 1973-74.
Unfortunately this was not enough to reduce unemployment, which in June 1980 was roughly the same as a year earlier.
Unless there is a moderation in wage demands and fewer industrial disputes it will be difficult to achieve a sustained reduction in unemployment.
The spread of work value claims and settlements - many on quite spurious grounds - together with other excuses for higher wages, such as the campaign for a 35 hour week, are utterly inconsistent with achieving a lasting reduction in unemployment.
The resultant growth in average weekly earnings over the course of 1979-80, of almost 12 per cent, is a clear indication that the task of restoring wage and price stability is far from over.
page 50
One of the most important economic decisions taken by this Government has been the move in 1978 to import parity pricing for our crude oil.
The objectives of that decision are being achieved.
Reflecting the need to pay market prices for a scarce resource, this policy has greatly strengthened Australia’s capacity to withstand world energy problems.
Consumption of major petroleum products fell by 1 i per cent last year.
Energy exploration has accelerated.
Alternative energy sources have become more economic.
Projects like Rundle Shale Oil, which might involve the largest resource investment in Australia’s history, could not have been realistically contemplated without our crude oil pricing policy.
The crude oil levy enables the Government to distribute to the community generally a share of the proceeds of crude oil price rises.
The levy revenue has been used sensibly and to the benefit of the whole community.
Without it the deficit would not have been reduced so quickly nor, for example, would the personal income tax cuts which took effect on 1 July last have been possible.
It is also assisting us to provide additional funds for defence.
page 50
The Budget outcome for 1979-80 was very close to projections.
Outlays were virtually the same as budgeted and reflected a slight reduction in real terms.
Overall receipts were largely as predicted except for the additional crude oil levy revenue which amounted to $204m.
The additional revenue was used to reduce the Budget deficit further.
Thus the deficit was ultimately $106m lower than originally estimated and $ 1,444m less than in the previous year - the largest ever reduction in a single year.
This greatly eased pressures which would otherwise have been reflected in higher interest rates.
page 51
This year’s Budget again places prime importance on the fight against inflation.
Lower inflation remains fundamental to greater private sector growth and to international competitiveness. -
Therefore, there will be a further sizable reduction in the Budget deficit.
This will be achieved despite the need for a faster rate of increase in outlays this year.
page 51
In 1980-81 outlays are projected to be $36,037m, an increase of 13.7 per cent on 1979-80. This represents a growth of just under three per cent in real terms in 1980-81 , and an average annual growth of about one per cent in real terms over the five years to 1980-81.
As a proportion of Gross Domestic Product outlays this year are expected to be 27.9 per cent compared to 30.1 per cent in 1975-76.
In summary, the Government’s decisions on outlays provide for much greater spending on defence, higher levels of support to areas of particular social need, increased payments to local government, and growing expenditures in areas of assistance to industry.
At the same time we have observed the continuing need to contain spending within a responsible overall economic package.
I now turn to the main expenditure provisions of the Budget.
More details are provided in accompanying Budget documents, particularly Statement No. 3.
page 51
This Budget gives a high priority to the strengthening of our national security.
The $3,541m which we are providing for defence is $533m more than last year. This is an increase of 17.7 per cent in current prices, no less than 7 per cent in real terms.
The changed strategic circumstances in which Australia now finds herself require a much greater commitment to defence spending.
This is a priority which the Government believes commands the support of the vast majority of Australians.
Further large increases in later Budgets will be necessary, up to an expected 3 per cent of Gross Domestic Product for defence spending by 1984-85, to accomplish the improvements to defence capabilities announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year.
page 51
Total spending on social security and welfare in 1980-81 is estimated to be S9,890m, a rise of 12.4 per cent over 1979-80.
It will account for over 27 per cent of all Commonwealth Budget outlays in 1980-81.
The size of present social welfare programs, their momentum and the need to achieve a responsible overall Budget outcome mean that little room exists for new initiatives or increases in those benefits which are not the subject of automatic adjustment.
The Government has decided that such additional funds as can be made available for social welfare without prejudicing the overall Budget outcome should be directed to those who need assistance most.
The rates of relevant pensions and benefits will continue to be adjusted each November and May in accordance with the relevant movements in the Consumer Price Index.
In November, for example, the standard or single rate of social service pensions will rise by $3.05 to $64. 10 a week, and the combined married rate will increase by $5.10 to $106.80 a week.
Children with Special Needs
The Budget increases rates of assistance for children in situations of special need from the first relevant payday in November.
The handicapped child’s allowance will be increased by $8 to $73 a month, providing improved assistance in respect of an average of 26,000 handicapped children in 1980-81. The double orphan’s pension will also be increased by $8, bringing it to $55.70 a month. This will provide additional assistance to families caring for orphans.
Additional pension or benefit payable to eligible persons with dependent children will be increased by $2.50 to $10 a week for each child; on average 560,000 children are involved. Single pensioners with children and supporting parent beneficiaries will receive further increases in rates of assistance- the mother’s/guardian’s allowance will be increased by $2 a week. The new rate will be $8 a week where one child is aged under 6 or invalid and $6 a week in other cases. On average, 190,000 single parent families will benefit.
The cost of these measures is estimated at about $63m in the current year and $97m in a full year.
We have decided that fringe benefits will be extended to sickness beneficiaries in appropriate cases. Details will be announced by the Minister for Social Security.
This is in recognition of the additional costs faced by many people who are temporarily unable to work because of sickness.
The Government has decided to remove the six-month waiting period for supporting parent’s benefit. This means that Commonwealth assistance will be available at uniform rates to all sole parents who meet the income test and other eligibility conditions. The States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act will be repealed.
The Government has decided to relax the income test on eligibility for unemployment and sickness benefits.
This has been done to give greater encouragement to those out of work to undertake temporary part-time or casual work.
At present, people who receive more than small amounts of private income have their unemployment or sickness benefits reduced dollar for dollar.
Such a situation provides no real incentive for those receiving these benefits to seek temporary part-time or casual work.
In its concern to remove this disincentive, the Government considered a number of options, including a simple increase in the allowable income threshold.
It rejected this course in favour of one permitting recipients to undertake a more substantial amount of temporary part-time or casual work without losing the whole of each dollar earned.
We have accordingly decided that from the first benefit payday in November 1980 the benefits will be withdrawn only on a 50 per cent basis for private income within the following ranges. $3 to $40 a week for single persons aged 16 and 17 years with a parent living in Australia; and $6 to $50 a week in all other cases.
An unemployment benefit recipient over 21 years of age who earns $50 a week from casual work would currently have the benefit reduced by $44 a week.
Under the new proposal the benefit would be reduced by only half this amount providing an extra $22 a week. .
Benefits will continue to be withdrawn on a dollar for dollar basis for all private income in excess of the upper limits of $40 and $50 a week respectively.
It has also been decided to increase by $2 a week from the first benefit payday in November the non-indexed rate of unemployment benefit payable to beneficiaries who are 18 years and over and who have no dependants.
Assistance to the Handicapped
Over the past five years, this Government has provided generous support for programs to assist the mentally and physically handicapped.
Again, in 1980-81, in addition to increasing the Handicapped Child’s Allowance we have - provided Slim in the first year of a three year program for the establishment of new services for handicapped children and adults; provided $300,000 to upgrade the quality and effectiveness of existing services for the handicapped; and decided to establish additional facilities within the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service network.
Funds will be provided for administration and planning for the International Year of Disabled Persons and for a number of other new programs for the handicapped and disabled.
Full details will be announced bj the Minister for Social Security.
The Budget provides for two measures of particular importance to veterans as well as increases in a range of supplementary repatriation benefits, and for certain extensions of eligibility for free repatriation medical treatment, with effect from November.
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be announcing details in a separate statement.
The Government has decided that, from 1 January 1981, only half of any disability pension will be taken into account in determining eligibility for a Pensioner Health Benefits Card.
The Government has also decided that the maximum loan available through the Defence Service Homes Scheme will be increased from the present $15,000 to $25,000.
The additional $10,000 will carry a concessional interest rate of 10 per cent.
The estimated cost of this measure is $25m in 1980-81 rising to $59m in 1981-82.
The waiting period for a loan under the scheme will be reduced to 10 months, at an additional estimated cost of $19m in 1980-81.
The cost of all the other measures is estimated to be $3.9m in 1980-81 and $6.3m in a full year.
Further welfare measures in the Budget include: an increase in the rate of accommodation subsidy paid to services assisting the homeless, by 45 cents to $1 .20 per person a day; an increase of 15 cents in the rate of meal subsidy for non-resident homeless persons and in the rate of delivered meals subsidy; and the provision of the same pensions and benefits to inmates of mental hospitals as are already provided to inmates of other institutions.
page 53
Total expenditure on health services in 1980-81 is estimated to be $3,644m which is $475m more than last year.
For States and Territories hospitals, provision is made for Commonwealth expenditure of an estimated $l,316m in 1980-81, to allow services to be maintained at their existing levels.
Pending final decisions on the Ralph Inquiry into the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry, the Government has decided to grant pharmaceutical manufacturers an across-the-board increase in Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme drug prices of 20 cents per prescribed item, at price to chemist level, effective from 1 November 1980.
This increase in drug prices under the Scheme will not result in a rise in the cost of pharmaceutical benefits to patients.
The estimated additional cost is $9. 5m in 1980-81 and $19m in a full year.
The domiciliary nursing care benefit, provided to assist with the cost of home nursing care for relatives who are 16 years or over, will be increased from $2 a day to $3 a day with effect from 4 September 1980, at an additional cost of $4.7m in 1980-81 and $5. 5m in a full year.
page 53
Details of funding of the Tertiary Education and Schools Commissions programs in 1981 have already been announced.
In recent years there have been real increases in funding for schools in Australia.
All Government school systems have now reached, or passed, the resource use targets set by the Karmel Committee.
There is increased questioning and indeed concern about the extent to which many young people leaving school are equipped to enter the workforce.
For its part the Government has undertaken an imaginative program to facilitate the transition from school to work.
The Government will continue the higher priority given in recent years to technical and further education programs.
To cater for expected growth in enrolments in 1981 general recurrent grants to thir sector are to rise by 4 per cent in real terms and the momentum of last year’s substantial increase in capital work will be maintained.
The Schools Commission programs will also provide added support to migrant education and to the least well endowed non-Government schools.
Eligibility for student assistance benefits is to be expanded, and the rates of benefits are to be increased.
There will be a 10 per cent increase in tertiary education allowances and adult secondary education allowances.
To provide further help on a needs basis to students wishing to remain longer at school, there will be a 20 per cent increase in both the allowances and the means test limits under the Secondary Allowances Scheme.
Assistance under the Isolated Children Scheme will be extended and the level of allowances increased.
In all, these changes are estimated to cost $ 19m in 1980-81 and $38m in a full year.
Full details will be announced by the Minister for Education.
page 53
Effective manpower training is crucial to the employment prospects of the workforce.
More than 430,000 Australians have been assisted by our training programs over the last four years, including some 170,000 in 1979-80.
The Government will provide $126m in 1980-81 for training programs, $23m more than was spent in 1979-80.
The provision for the CRAFT Scheme totals $56m and the National Employment and Training System and other forms of training and retraining assistance are expected to cost $68m this year.
The funds provided in this Budget are expected to cover all those eligible for training in 1980-8 1 .
The Government has also committed up to $150m for school to work transition programs over the five years starting in 1980.
This Budget provides $34m in 1980-81 for this purpose, with the States being asked to contribute matching amounts up to $9.9m for the 1981 calendar year.
page 54
The Budget provides $138m for special assistance to Aboriginals, $15m more than in 1979-80.
The establishment of the Aboriginal Development Commission, which is to be provided with $23. 8m in 1980-81, is a major initiative.
Of the total provision for the Commission, $10m will form an accumulating capital investment fund.
page 54
As announced previously, the Commonwealth will provide $285m to the States and the Northern Territory for welfare housing in 1 980-8 1 .
The Commonwealth has also offered to guarantee to provide a base level of $ 1 ,000m over the five years from July 1981 to assist the States and the Northern Territory in the provision of welfare housing.
Under this proposed arrangement, additional funds would be allocated each year as part of the normal budgetary process.
The value limits for the Homes Savings Grants Scheme will be increased substantially. At present, a full grant is paid on house and land valued at up to $35,000 with pro-rata grants then paid on house and land valued to $40,000. The value limits will be increased to $45,000 for a full grant, phasing out to a nil grant for house and land exceeding $55,000, to persons who enter into contracts to buy or build homes on or after today.
Private sector housing activity strengthened during 1979-80, aided by record lending by major housing lenders.
The Government again desires a high priority for housing finance to be maintained consistent with overall monetary policy.
page 54
The Budget provides some $383m for cultural and recreational activities in 1980-81, an increase of over 19 per cent on last year.
This includes $2 16m for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and associated activities, $28m more than in 1979-80.
The Budget provides also for the first stage of the rehabilitation of the Radio Australia transmitter at Darwin and for broadcasting equipment for the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane.
The Australia Council is to be provided with over $29m for assistance to the arts, and the National Gallery with $23m.
An amount of $21m is provided in 1980-81 for the new Multicultural Television Service, which is planned to commence in October, and for ethnic radio services.
page 54
The migrant intake is expected to rise to 95,000 in 1980-81 compared with 82,000 last year.
Provision is made for the entry of 30,000 people under the Assisted Migration Program, an increase of nearly 8,000 on the 1 979-80 numbers.
A total of $28m is allocated to continue the Adult Migrant Education Program.
Altogether more than $25m is being provided for programs and services for migrants under the recommendations of the Galbally Report.
page 54
The Budget contains a large provision for aid to developing countries.
A total of $547m will be provided for foreign aid in 1980-81 which is $49m more than last year.
Earlier this year, Australia assumed an increased commitment for the small countries of the South Pacific region and a new three year program of support commencing in 1980-81 was announced.
We are continuing to provide generous support for the training of overseas students. Over 3,000 a year are directly assisted to study in Australia under the Aid Program, and some 8,000 more who study privately receive tuition either free or at less than a third of the estimated cost to the Government.
page 55
The importance attached by the Government to encouraging exports, particularly manufactured exports, is demonstrated by the provision in this Budget of $260m for export expansion and market development grants - a rise of $45m or 21 per cent over 1979-80.
This will substantially reduce the carry-over of claims.
These programs have greatly helped Australian manufacturers in securing and developing markets abroad.
Existing measures supporting rural industry will continue.
In particular, we will increase the Commonwealth contribution to wool promotion by $6m to $20m for 1980-81.
The Nitrogenous Fertilizer Subsidy will be extended for a further year to the end of 1981 at a total cost of $5. 5m.
Rural industry and country consumers generally will continue to benefit from the Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme on which there will be a total expenditure of approximately $123m in 1980-81.
This is some $52m greater than last year; the increase results largely from the extension of the scheme last April which had the effect of halving the maximum freight differential between metropolitan and country areas.
Expenditure on research and development is of long term significance to industry.
Funding under the Industrial Research and Development Scheme will rise by $19m or over 55 per cent in 1980-81.
page 55
The Commonwealth has undertaken to provide the States and the Northern Territory with $3,650m in grants for roads over the next five years; $628m will be provided in 1980-81 which maintains the real level of our spending in this area.
The Budget provides $64m in 1980-81 for buildings, works and equipment at airports, $41m more than expenditure last year.
This includes work in line with our commitment to redevelop Brisbane airport by 1986 at a total cost of over S200m and to upgrade facilities at a number of other airports.
High on the list of priorities are a new international terminal at Perth, planning for new civil aviation facilities at Darwin, the development of Norfolk Island airport to medium jet standard, airport facilities for the operation of wide-bodied domestic jets, upgrading of Townsville airport for international services, and new terminal buildings at Canberra and Coolangatta.
The expected cost of all these additional facilities is some $ 145m.
The Government has decided that international sector air navigation charges will remain unchanged in 1980-81.
The Government has also decided that the target of full cost recovery in the domestic trunk airline sector should be achieved in 1980-81, a year earlier than previously announced.
Despite this, it will now be necessary to seek an increase of only 15 per cent in air navigation charges for that sector in 1980-81 compared with the 25 per cent increase previously announced.
The increase proposed will yield an additional S3m in 1980-81.
page 55
Budget- funding for energy research is to rise by almost 50 per cent to SI 3.5m in 1980-8 1 .
A further $2.5m will be provided for energy information and energy conservation programs.
These expenditures supplement the very significant taxation incentives which have already been provided to encourage greater energy exploration and development and the use of energy sources other than oil.
The total cost to revenue of those incentives in 1979-80 was at least $50m and this figure is expected to rise as industry takes increasing advantage of them.
This year the Pipeline Authority will be starting construction of natural gas pipelines from Young to Wagga Wagga and from Dalton to Canberra.
Studies will be undertaken on extending the natural gas pipeline from Wagga Wagga to Albury and on possible lines to Lithgow, Bathurst, Orange and Oberon.
The expected cost of construction and studies in 1980-81 is $26m.
The Pipeline Authority will fund such activities by borrowing from the private sector; interest on borrowings will be met from the Authority’s revenue and from the Budget.
page 56
This Budget provides a total of $1 8m for medical research which will be made available through the National Health and Medical Research Council.
This represents an increase of approximately 30 per cent and demonstrates the desire of the Government to provide substantial and ongoing support for medical research.
The Government recognises the high quality of medical research in Australia and wishes to build upon the past contributions of our researchers.
Significantly more support will be given to marine science this year. Specific funding for this research will rise from $650,000 to $3.5m and further resources will be provided for research activities in the Great Barrier Reef area.
In the next few years, up to $80m will be spent on the rebuilding and upgrading of Australia’s Antarctic bases, the transfer of the CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography to Tasmania, and the acquisition of a $9m oceanographic ship for CSIRO and other national uses.
In the field of conservation, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is to receive $6.6m and funding for the Biological Resources Survey will more than double. -
page 56
The Government will maintain strict restraint on its own administrative costs.
For 1980-81, provisional public service staff ceilings have been set to increase by less than 1 per cent and departments and authorities will again be required to live within the Budget allocation provided to them.
page 56
Major decisions in this area have already been announced.
Payments to the States, the Northern Territory and local government are budgeted to increase by $ 1,263m or 1 1 per cent.
Growth in State and Northern Territory taxsharing entitlements accounts for $665m, or more than half of this increase.
In accordance with out 1977 election promise, local governments’ tax-sharing entitlements are now two per cent of personal income tax collections.
They will be $302m in 1980-81, an increase of 36 per cent.
page 56
I now turn to the Government’s revenue measures.
Additional details are provided in Statement No. 4.
page 56
The Government has already announced major changes in personal income tax which took effect from 1 July.
The standard rate for 1980-81 is reduced to 32 per cent and the income ranges in the scale have been indexed by 3.8 per cent so that the tax-free threshold is now $4,041.
Dependant rebates have been increased by 34 per cent, with the rebate for a dependent spouse rising to $800 and that for a sole parent to $559.
These changes have an estimated revenue cost of $636 million in 1980-81.
In recent years a loading has been added to normal rates in calculating the provisional tax payment of taxpayers who do not self-assess, in order to achieve reasonable comparability in the treatment of PA YE and all provisional taxpayers.
In 1980-81 this objective is to be achieved by applying the 1980-81 rate scale to 1979-80 incomes increase by a factor of 71 per cent and allowing dependant rebates at 1980-81 values.
Provisional taxpayers will of course continue to have the option to self-assess and provide an estimate of their 1980-81 incomes.
Where this option is exercised the new rates and rebates will apply to estimated 1980-81 incomes.
Superannuation Arrangements for Self-employed Persons and Unsupported Employees
The Government has decided to provide a significant new incentive through the taxation system to encourage self-employed persons and employees not covered by employer-sponsored arrangements to make greater provision for their retirement.
At present contributions by an individual for superannuation purposes are included in rebatable expenditure, within a limit of $1,200 for the sum of life insurance premiums and superannuation contributions.
This limit applies whether the contribution is by an employee contributing to an employersupported fund, an employee who is not supported by an employer-sponsored scheme but makes his own arrangements to contribute to a public superannuation fund, or a self-employed person.
However, whereas employee members of an employer-supported fund also have the advantage of employer contributions on their behalf, and are not taxed on those amounts, there is no corresponding benefit for self-employed persons or employees who are not supported by an employersponsored scheme.
The Government has therefore decided to extend to such people, where no other contributions are made on their behalf, a taxation benefit broadly comparable to the ‘matching employer’ contribution of supported employees.
We have decided that contributions - up to a limit of $1,200 per annum - made by selfemployed persons and employees after today to a qualifying fund to provide retirement benefits for themselves and their dependants will be deductible from their assessable income if the person is not covered by employer-sponsored arrangements.
Contributions in excess of $1,200 will remain rebatable expenditure, up to the present limit of $1,200 for life insurance premiums and superannuation contributions applicable to all taxpayers.
At the same time, 5 per cent of lump sums received by self-employed persons and unsupported employees after today from qualifying superannuation funds will count as assessable income, to the extent that those sums are derived from contributions made after today and from earnings of the fund from the investment of those contributions.
This will result in that part of the lump sums being taxed to the same extent as lump sums received on retirement by supported employees.
That part of the lump sums derived from earlier contributions, and the earnings on their investment, will remain tax free.
On the basis of assumptions about the likely response rate to such a measure, the full year cost is estimated at about $100m.
We have decided to amend the law to provide some relief from Australian tax on certain foreign source income which Australian residents earn from their personal services overseas where that income is not taxed in the source country. Details are provided in Statement No. 4.
This measure is intended to enhance the ability of Australian consultants to obtain a greater share of the growing overseas consultancy services market. It will apply to income from services performed overseas on projects approved and entered into after today and is estimated to cost about $2m in a full year.
We have decided to permit tax deductibility of gifts made to certain educational institutions and voluntary overseas aid organisations.
Gifts made after tonight to certified technical and further education institutions will be tax deductible where those gifts are for approved purposes.
In addition to the substantial outlays made direct from the Budget for overseas aid purposes, the Government permitted tax deductions in respect of donations made in 1979-80 to the Kampuchea and East Timor appeals.
In recognition of the work performed by many of the voluntary bodies involved in the provision of overseas aid the Government has decided in principle to allow taxation deductions for gifts made to eligible non-government organisations extending assistance to approved programs and organisations in developing countries.
Eligible organisations will be determined by the Treasurer after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will be consulting relevant bodies including the Australian Council for Overseas Aid.
Inquiry into Zone Allowances
Income tax zone allowances for taxpayers living in remote localities were introduced in 1945.
While the supplementary component of those allowances has since been adjusted to reflect increases in dependants’ allowances, the basic allowance has remained largely unchanged since 1958.
In the meanwhile, of course, circumstances have changed.
Against this background we have decided to establish a public inquiry to examine in detail the cost and other disabilities of living in remote areas and to make recommendations on possible changes to the present system of zone allowances.
I shall announce the terms of reference and composition of the inquiry as soon as practicable with a view to it reporting prior to next year’s Budget.
page 58
We shall amend the income tax law in certain respects to encourage further progress in eradicating brucellosis and tuberculosis in cattle.
In particular, for cattle properties certified as subject to those diseases and where herd control is difficult, expenditure by 30 June 1984 on internal fences and stockyards contracted for while a certificate is in force will be deductible in full in the year in which the expenditure is incurred.
page 58
There have been many suggestions in recent years that the present depreciation provisions do not provide a sufficiently fast rate of write-off for new plant during periods of rapid technological change.
We have therefore decided to apply a 20 per cent loading to existing depreciation rates; for example, an existing rate of 15 per cent will become 1 8 per cent and so on.
These new arrangements will apply to new and second-hand plant ordered after today, with the exceptions of motor vehicles of the type now excluded from the investment allowance and plant for which statutory concessional rates are already available.
There is, by definition, no objective way of adjusting depreciation rates for obsolescence occasioned by unpredictable technological change.
The proposed loading does, however, represent a significant aid to businesses confronted with that problem and will encourage updating of plant and equipment.
The cost of this measure will rise over a transitional period, from an estimated $60m in 1981-82 to more than $250m per annum in the mid-1980s.
page 58
The sale of the Commonwealth interest in the Ranger joint venture is expected to be finalised this year, yielding $147m.
Negotiations are proceeding for the disposal of the Government’s interest in the Ngalia Basin exploration venture and the Fawnmac group of pharmaceutical companies.
page 58
This year taxation receipts will rise by 16.4 per cent.
In particular, company tax receipts and crude oil levy collections will rise at a relatively high rate.
The increase in company tax receipts reflects greater company profitability, the phasing down of the investment allowance in 1979 and last year’s decision to withdraw the trading stock valuation adjustment.
Crude oil levy collections will be higher mainly on account of the full year effects of the rises in the price of oil which occurred last year.
Personal taxation reductions for the year have been in place since 1 July. The Budget provides some tax relief for businesses. There are also some particular areas where taxation incentives have been provided.
Given the expenditure priorities I described earlier, further general taxation concessions could only have been given at the cost of forgoing the major reduction in the Budget deficit.
In our view the anti-inflationary objectives of this Budget, and therefore the long term economic interests of Australia, will best be served by the reduction we have achieved in the Budget deficit.
page 58
Total outlays in 1980-81 are estimated to increase by 1 3.7 per cent to $36,037m.
Total receipts, allowing for the cost of the measures I have outlined and of those previously announced, are estimated to increase by 16.2 per cent to $34,47 lm.
The overall Budget deficit is therefore estimated at $ 1,566m, a reduction of $468 million on the outcome for 1979-80.
When allowance is made for transactions abroad, there will be an estimated Budget domestic surplus of $39m- the first such surplus since 1973-74.
Such an outcome will represent further substantial progress along the road to fiscal responsibility and monetary stability.
page 58
The aim of this Budget is to maintain and develop a climate in which Australia’s high potential for growth in the 1 980s can be realised.
We also wish to see that development proceeds at a pace which is sustainable and that it provides benefits for all Australians.
Inflation and other economic difficulties which developed some years ago, though now reduced, threaten our growth potential.
For example, if the recent pattern of wage determinations continues in 1980-81, average weekly earnings would be likely to rise by around 12 per cent compared with 9* per cent in 1979-80.
Particularly at a time when overseas rates of inflation are showing signs of moderating, there is a real danger in this acceleration.
On the basis of the fiscal and monetary policies set forth in the Budget the rate of increase in the CPI over the year to June 1981 is likely to be around 10 per cent.
For 1980-81 the present outlook for the nonfarm sector of the Australian economy is for a somewhat faster rate of expansion than last year - 3i per cent or more compared with a little over 3 per cent last year.
After allowance for the likely small reduction in farm product, overall growth could be 3 per cent or more, compared with the estimated 2.2 per cent last year.
This compares with the most recent OECD Outlook forecast of no real growth in aggregate in member countries.
Although the Australian economy and in particular our exports will be affected by slower economic growth overseas, the impact will be lessened by our better inflation performance and the nature and destination of our exports.
For example, over 50 per cent of our exports go to Asian and Middle Eastern countries which are among those less affected by the slowdown in world economic growth.
The current account deficit will nevertheless be considerably higher in 1980-81, perhaps about double last year’s abnormally low outcome of about $ 1,200m.
Against this, a much larger inflow of private capital is likely, leaving the overall balance of payments satisfactory, and a surplus on private external transactions of up to S 1 ,500m.
Internally generated demand is expected to more than offset adverse international developments.
In particular, business fixed investment is set to show a real increase in 1980-81 of over 10 per cent.
The extent of the increase will be critically influenced by the availability of adequate supplies of labour and materials.
Dwelling investment should remain high in 1980-81, although growth is likely to be slower than last year.
The strengthening in private consumption expenditure during the course of last year should continue in 1980-81, reflecting further steady growth in employment of about H per cent and stronger growth in real disposable income.
Overall, the outlook for 1980-81 is for strong expansion in activity led by private sector demand.
The Government believes this stronger outlook for activity can be achieved with slower growth in the monetary aggregates than last year.
The further reduction in the Budget deficit is seen as essential to achieving the Government’s monetary goals.
It will help to make room for financing the significant increase in corporate borrowing likely in 1980-81 as private investment expenditure rises.
The Government will again seek to have the large wheat harvest in prospect financed in a manner which will minimise its impact on the monetary aggregates.
Predicting the monetary outcome is always difficult because of the number and nature of the variables which underlie particular monetary aggregates, such as M3.
Despite ^e much reduced Budget deficit in 1979-80, the growth in the money supply (M3) was 12.9 per cent against the projection of about 10 per cent.
That outcome again illustrates the wide margins of error inherent in such projections.
In any case, M3 is not a totally definitive measure of monetary growth.
For example, building society deposits, which have experienced greater growth than bank deposits in recent years, are not included in the M3 measurement.
For its part, the Government will continue to monitor a whole range of monetary aggregates.
We nevertheless see merit in continuing the practice of recent years of specifying a range for M3.
We shall be aiming for a lower growth in M3 this year than the outcome last year.
On present economic assessments, an outcome for M3 of about 9-1 1 per cent over the year to June 1981 would be consistent with the requirements of the Government’s economic policy and would in particular exert appropriate downward pressure on inflation.
page 60
This Budget consolidates the economic gains of recent years.
It strengthens our attack upon inflation through a major reduction in the deficit.
It maximises our potential for economic growth and development.
Within responsible expenditure limits, the Budget provides more for defence, areas of need and excellence and assistance to industry.
It is a Budget which will further enhance the strength and competitiveness of the Australian economy.
I commend the Budget to Honourable Members.
Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.
page 61