House of Representatives
9 September 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 975

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Preston Institute of Technology

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 1980, 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, Mr Bradfield, Mr John Brown, Mr Cadman, Mr Carlton, Mr Dobie, Dr Edwards, Mr Fife, Mr Garland, Mr Gillard, Mr Goodluck, Mr Holding, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Kerin, Mr Lusher, Mr MacKenzie, Mr John McLeay, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Nixon, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Porter, Mr Sainsbury and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

Hilton Hotel Bomb Disaster

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Bradfield, Mr John Brown, Mr Ellicott, Mr Goodluck, Mr Hunt, Mr James and Mr Les Johnson.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

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

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

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

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Cadman, Mr Goodluck, Mr Holding, Mr Keating and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Taxation: Child Care Expenses

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 John Brown, Mr Ellicott and Mr John McLeay.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will reform income tax laws to allow the joint income of husband and wife to be equally divided between them for taxation purposes.

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

Petitions received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Kerin.

Petitions received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:

    1. Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation.
    2. The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilisers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.
    3. The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerableto disease and other environmental threats.
  2. Recognise that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian Nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.
  3. Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Lusher.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petitions received.

Labelling of Cosmetics

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate:

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

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

Petitions received.

Rights of Non-smokers

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 recommendations on the rights of non-smokers made by the National Health and Medical Research Council at its 81st and 82nd sessions be implemented immediately in areas under direct Commonwealth control; and that State Governments and local government authorities be urged to implement these recommendations also.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that these recommendations will be implemented immediately.

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

Petition received.

Road Funding

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 1980-81. 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:

  1. That road funding arrangements for 1980-81 to 1982-83 reach at least a total of $2,200m over the triennium.
  2. That the Commonwealth maintain an active financial interest in the funding of all categories of roads.
  3. That the Commonwealth ensure that a proportion of the funds flows through the States earmarked for Local Government purposes.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

Petition received.

Intensive Livestock Farming

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 we object in principle to Intensive Livestock Farming, namely the system of keeping animals in close confinement in artificial environments and feeding them entirely or partly on concentrated foods with a variety of artificial additives.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that legislation be introduced to eliminate the existence of both the abovementioned practices, namely (1) the close confinement of animals in artificial environments, and (2) the feeding of animals entirely or partly on concentrated foods with a variety of artificial additives.

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

Petition received.

Television and Telephone Services in Isolated Areas

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

That there is a very real need for the immediate installation of television and telephones to service the isolated communities at One Arm Point, Cygnet Bay, Cape Leveque and Lombadina.

These communities are at the tip of the Dampier Peninsular, midway and West between Broome and Derby.

The total population of the four communities is nearly 400. There are about 250 adults and 150 children, of whom 85 per cent are Aborigines and 15 per cent White Australians.

At present the only communication for these isolated communities is by sending telegrams by radio through the Derby Flying Doctor Service, and OTC Broome.

Telegrams must be sent for every necessity associated with everyday living. They include orders for spare parts for faulty or broken down water pumps, generators and vehicles, and for food and household supplies. Telegrams must also be sent for such things as making appointments with dentists, and for booking air travel.

Cape Leveque has a radio telephone via Perth, at a cost of $2 per minute - with use of the service at the lightkeeper’s discretion.

This service is not reliable, particularly during the wet season, as there is often atmospheric interference and it is impossible to hear.

There is constant fear that in a medical emergency, such as snakebite, farm and home accidents - including kerosene ingestion by infants - when it is imperative to obtain a doctor’s advice, it might not be possible to make the necessary contact.

Similarly there is fear that some other emergency might arise necessitating contact with the police.

Our communities are perpetually at risk. And this risk is compounded in the wet season when airstrips and roads can be inoperable.

We depend heavily on radio for news of current events, and entertainment - newspapers arrive only once a week with the weekly mail service.

Yet we have only one radio channel - the ABC via Derby (regional 3) - and the content is extremely poor.

During school term programmes for schools are broadcast through most of the day, and the evening programs are of poor quality and do not have universal appeal.

The social life for people in these communities is extremely limited. They suffer from lack of stimulation from a broader environment.

As must be expected in the circumstances, in most cases their attitudes tend to be rigid and inward-looking.

Television would greatly increase their understanding of current events and life outside their own communities.

It would broaden the horizons of the isolated children who have known no other life than that of the community in which they live.

TV would provide an excellent educational medium and the opportunity to gain knowledge of the world in general.

It would also enhance the leisure hours of all those in these isolated communities.

Television is being introduced to Broome and Derby in September 1980.

We are said to be too far from either town to receive reception.

In 1979 we had a visit from Telecom officials who were looking into a possible microwave link from Broome to service our four communities.

Another Telecom official visited Cygnet Bay in early 1980.

He said that a television signal could be lobed from Derby, received at Cygnet Bay, and then retransmitted to other communities.

Obviously the technology is available.

There is, therefore, no valid reason why our communities should be deprived of telephones and television - the facilities most Australians accept without question as essential to their way of life.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government give this application its fullest support, and takes action to have television and a telephone service extended to our communities as quickly as possible.

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

Petition received.

Television: Implementation of Captions

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned individuals concerned with the welfare of the hearing impaired citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That there are approximately one million people in Australia who suffer severe problems with their hearing.

That when television was first introduced it was thought that it would be of great benefit to the hearing impaired. This has not proven to be the case as the visual content of most television programmes is heavily reliant on the audio content. Without suitable program captioning (or subtitles) television remains largely inaccessible to those who suffer a hearing loss.

That with the advent of Teletext and the development of videotex systems, optional (or closed) captioning is now possible.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House give all possible assistance to the establishment of an Australian Caption Centre and seek ways to encourage full participation by all television media bodies in a meaningful programme for caption implementation in Australia by 1981.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Rights

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

Whereas before Europeans settled in Australia, the Aboriginal peoples of Australia had lived on their traditional lands from time immemorial and had in Aboriginal law and customs a clear title to those lands; and

Whereas Europeans and other non-Aboriginal people have occupied and used most of the traditional lands of the Aboriginal peoples against their will and without negotiation, compensation or treaty; and

Whereas it has been the practice of nations established in territories previously occupied by indigenous inhabitants to reach a negotiated settlement with those inhabitants; and

Whereas that occupation has seriously damaged the traditional way of life of Aboriginal Australians and has caused poverty and hardship to be the fate of the great majority of their surviving descendants; and

Whereas the surviving descendants of the Aboriginal peoples have expressed a wish to have their rights to land acknowledged, to preserve their link with their Aboriginal ancestors and to maintain their distinctive identity with its own cultural heritage; and

Whereas the people of Australia in 1967 voted overwhelmingly that the Commonwealth Parliament should have responsibility for laws relating to Aboriginal Australians; and

Whereas it is accepted internationally by the United Nations organisation, that each country should work to establish the rights of indigenous peoples to selfdetermination, non-discrimination and the enjoyment of their own culture; and

Whereas the Woodward Commission in 1974 established principles by which Aboriginal rights to land should be acknowledged and realised; and

Whereas the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament in February 1975 resolved that Aboriginal Australians should be compensated for the loss of their traditional lands and for the damage to their way of life; and

Whereas the National Aboriginal Conference unanimously resolved in April 1 979 in Canberra to ask the Commonwealth Government to negotiate a Treaty with Aboriginal Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government should invite the Aboriginal people of Australia to negotiate a Treaty with the Commonwealth of

Australia, and any Treaty should contain provisions relating to the following matters: (i) The protection of Aboriginal identity, languages, law and culture, (ii) The recognition and restoration of rights to land by applying, throughout Australia, the recommendations of the Woodward Commission, (iii) The conditions governing mining and exploitation of other natural resources on Aboriginal land, (iv) Compensation to Aboriginal Australians for the loss of traditional lands and for damage to those lands and to their traditional way of life, (v) The right of Aboriginal Australians to control their own affairs and to establish their own associations for this purpose.

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

Petition received.

Relations with ASEAN Countries

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

  1. Australian Government policy of restructuring the economy, which aims to boost mining and export industries and to eliminate many sectors of manufacturing industries, is aggravating the employment situation in Australia.
  2. The transfer by corporations of their operations from Australia to Taiwan, South Korea and the member-nations of the ASEAN (i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines), where labour is grossly exploited, is detrimental to employment in Australia.
  3. In these countries production is conducted mainly by the multinational corporations and for export. This results in one-sided industrial development and unemployment in many sectors of the economy.
  4. All the above mentioned states have oppressive and undemocratic governments, many of them being military dictatorships.
  5. Throughout the region, there are increasingly strong opposition movements which are brutally suppressed.
  6. Australia’s military arrangements with the ASEAN countries could lead to involvement of Australian military forces in internal suppression activities.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Australian Government will undertake:

  1. 1 ) To convey to above mentioned governments its strong objection to their violation of human and labour rights.
  2. To restrict the possibility of corporations transferring their operations offshore.
  3. To prevent in present circumstances a substantial increase of labour-intensive imports to Australia in areas of major employment.
  4. To adopt measures (more spending for welfare, more public enterprises et cetera) to promote production for Australia’s domestic needs and full employment.
  5. To end all military arrangements with the ASEAN countries.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Donations to Approved Charities

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that despite repeated calls for taxation relief, charities which give expressly foreign aid are still not tax deductible, while donations to the National Party in Queensland through advertising in its magazine ‘Outlook’ are an allowable tax deduction.

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

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Donations to Animal Welfare Organisations

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.

National Natural Disaster Insurance Scheme

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

That the Government’s decision not to proceed with a National disaster insurance scheme will cause financial and personal hardship to people living in the country and city who are victims of natural hazards such as floods, land slip and tropical cyclones. That it is impossible to obtain adequate insurance cover for natural disasters from existing private insurance companies.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government reconsider its decision and honour its promise made in March 1976 to establish a National Natural Disaster Insurance Scheme.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Sullage Charges

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: 1, Recognise that the practice of disallowing taxation claims for sullage removal is discriminatory as tax payers owning property in sewered areas are entitled to a concessional allowance of up to $300 for sewerage services rendered.

  1. Take steps to remove the provisions of the Income Tax Law which prevent approval being given for taxation claims for sullage removal unless the charges are annually assessed.

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

Petition received.

Human Rights Legislation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that equal opportunity regarding Human Rights and fundamental freedoms is not enjoyed by all Australians irrespective of the race, colour, or ethnic origin of certain groups, particularly Aboriginal and Islander groups.

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament affirms:

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

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose any expansion of the facilities of Kingsford-Smith Airport which entails the building of a new runway as it would have the following detrimental effects. ( 1 ) The loss of one mile of waterfront including Lady Robinson’s Beach and a huge part of Botany Bay (2) The loss of up to 1 , 230 houses and a drop in value of remaining neighbouring properties (3) The creation of more noise pollution in the area (4) The creation of more traffic congestion on streets leading to and from the airport (5) The forced diversion of Cook’s River and further damage to the ecology of the area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will not consider satisfying the airport needs of Sydney by extending Kingsford-Smith Airport and that any decisions related thereto are not taken before there is an opportunity for adequate consultation with any community particularly affected.

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

Petition received.

Foreign Ownership of Australian Resources

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 there has been an escalation of foreign ownership and control of Australian industries and resources to the * detriment of the national interest. We view with deep concern that (i) over 55 per cent of the profits of all companies in Australia is payable overseas, (ii) that the Foreign Investment Review Board in the last 3 years has passed over 3,500 applications for the takeover of Australian companies and has rejected less than 25, (iii) that proposals for an effective resource tax on super profits made by foreign companies in Australia have been dropped, (iv) that foreign investment guidelines have been changed to favour foreign companies ahead of Australian owned companies for new ventures and takeover bids.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government reverses policies which place Australian resources, particularly Australia’s mineral energy resources, under foreign ownership and control.

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

Petition received.

Privacy Legislation

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

That we are gravely concerned by the invasion of privacy caused by Government agents seizing patients’ medical records:

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Legislate to protect the private and confidential nature of medical records from scrutiny except on the express and informed consent of the patient or an order from a presiding judge.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Unemployment

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

While an average of over 450,000 Australians are now suffering unemployment at any one time, over one million people have been unemployed for one or more weeks during the last year and of these, 62 per cent of women unemployed and 41 per cent of men unemployed received no unemployment benefits, and further that

While the poverty line for a family (one income, one child) is $ 1 1 7.90 per week and the average weekly earnings are $243 per week, the income for these one million unemployed Australians is on average $62 per week for women and $110 per week for men.

We the undersigned citizens therefore declare that unemployment with its attendant consequences of massive poverty is the major domestic, political and human question facing the National Government at this time, that the central issue for the 1980 Federal elections must be the economy and the creation of jobs so that all Australians who choose may work.

We call for the right to work guaranteed as a fundamental human right the restoration of full employment the maintenance of real wages and the creation of acceptable social conditions the maintenance and expansion of the public sector.

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

Petition received.

Export of Livestock

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

We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Government of Australia to ban the export of live animals for slaughter overseas and to immediately ban the shipment of live horses to Japan for slaughter for human consumption on the grounds that it is cruel and unnecessary.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

That the existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would:

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and
  3. require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not introduced.

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

Petition received.

Women’s Health Centres and Rape Crisis Centres

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

This petition of concerned citizens -

Earnestly requests that the funding of the Women’s Health Centres and Rape Crisis Centres be increased to allow these centres to adequately provide the services vitally needed by the women of New South Wales; Further to this end that funding be granted to allow new greatly needed Women’s Health Centres and Rape Crisis Centres to be established.

We abhor the continued cuts in funding that have occurred over the past three years and which are creating a situation whereby the centres are now facing the likelihood of no longer being able to function.

We submit that the deficit incurred by the cuts be made good by the Federal Government and to this end we submit this petition.

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

Petition received.

Petrol Pricing Policy

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 because of redundancies in the motor and associated industries, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government institute legislation to stimulate these ailing industries to protect the livelihood of those so employed and finance such measures from the increased revenue received from fuel taxes.

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

Petition received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that the Federal Government did not make increased funding available for government school programs such as:

  1. . General recurrent
  2. Migrant education
  3. Disadvantaged schools
  4. Special education
  5. Capital grants
  6. Multicultural education
  7. Disadvantaged country areas
  8. Children in institutions
  9. Services and Development
  10. Education Centres
  11. Special projects but increased the money available to the non-government school sector by5.9 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly 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 Anthony, Mr Dobie and Mr Les Johnson.

Petitions received.

Women’s Health Services

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

The humble petition of citizens of the electorate of MacArthur, respectfully showeth concern that the government has failed to recognize the importance, indeed necessity, of Women’s Health Programmes in New South Wales. Established services have already been severely affected by cuts in recent years or have not been able to expand to meet the growing needs of women in the community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that funding to Women’s Health Services be upgraded to meet present needs.

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

Petition received.

Women’s Health Services

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

The humble petition of citizens of the electorate of Cunningham respectfully showeth concern that the government has failed to recognize the importance, indeed necessity, of Women’s Health Programmes in New South Wales. Established services have already been severely affected by cuts in recent years or have not been able to expand to meet the growing needs of women in the community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that funding to Women’s Health Services be upgraded to meet present needs.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Isaacs respectfully showeth:

That the Family Law Act should be amended to limit child support orders to a set scale, to provide custody of children to the parent not primarily responsible for the breakdown of the marriage and establish a set schedule for division of matrimonial property that cannot be varied at the discretion of any judge.

These measures would reduce the divorce rate and reestablish stability and security in family life.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Act be amended to abolish the maintenance and alimony systems.

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

Petition received.

Education

To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

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

Government Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1 . 2 per cent while Non Government Schools will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

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

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

Petition received.

page 982

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr ANTHONY:
Acting Prime Minister · Richmond · NCP/NP

– I inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is expected to return to Australia from India tomorrow and that I am Acting Prime Minister during his absence. I inform the House also that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) left Australia on 30 August to visit Europe for talks on migration matters. The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) will act as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs until Mr Macphee returns to Australia on 14 September.

page 982

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Hurford proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will put his notice in proposition form.

page 982

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Uren proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will put his notice of motion in proposition form.

page 982

HUMAN RIGHTS

Notice of Motion

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

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

That this House-

1 ) notes that Australia’s human rights record has become the subject of international condemnation;

expresses its deep concern that the human rights records of the Western Australian Government and the Queensland Government are a cause of concern among all right-minded Australians;

calls upon the Government to pass effective and comprehensive human rights legislation under the external affairs power in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

page 983

STATUTORY AUTHORITIES: MEMBERSHIP OF PART TIME REPRESENTATIVES

Notice of Motion

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

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

  1. 1 ) That this House condemns the Government ‘s current actions which are designed to remove part time elected community and House of Assembly representatives from statutory authorities in the Australian Capital Territory, and

  2. Calls on the Government to:

    1. give a firm public undertaking that part time elected community representatives will remain on all statutory authorities on which they are currently office holders,
    2. ensure that no part time elected community representatives’ positions will be removed at the expiration of the current terms of office of all relevant statutory authorities in the Australian Capital Territory and
    3. make a clear public commitment to the principle of expanding part time elected community representation on statutory authorities in the Australian Capital Territory, whenever possible, to ensure full public participation in all aspects of Government.

page 983

FEDERAL OPPOSITION

Notice of Motion

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

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

That Australia should never entrust the ‘standard to be raised’ by those people who could only get it to half mast and the last post, such as the Opposition.

Mr Armitage:

– Is that notice of motion in order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member for Chifley taking a point of order?

Mr Armitage:

– No, I am just asking a question.

page 983

AIR FARE INCREASES

Notice of Motion

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

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

That this House is of the opinion that until there is public examination of all applications for air fare increases, air travellers will continue to be disadvantaged.

page 983

DUMPING OF NUCLEAR WASTE

Notice of Motion

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

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

That this House-

1 ) Condemns the proposed dumping of 1 0,000 drums of nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean, 900 kilometres north of the Mariana Islands, by the Japanese Government,

Notes with concern the comments of distinguished Australian and Japanese scientists that such action constitutes a grave threat to Pacific marine ecology and Pacific nations and peoples,

Further condemns the Federal Government’s failure to oppose such action by the Japanese Government, as being contrary to assurances given to this Parliament as to the safe disposal of nuclear waste and also to the tenth meeting of the South Pacific Forum on 9 and 10 July 1979, where all South Pacific Forum countries, including Australia, unanimously voted to oppose the use of the Pacific area as a place to dump nuclear waste.

page 983

DOMESTIC AIR FARES

Notice of Motion

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

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

That this House -

1 ) Expresses its concern at the failure of the Minister for Transport to announce and accept responsibility for the S per cent increase in domestic air fares which he recently approved,

Deplores his action in so departing from long established ministerial practice and public accountability, and

Calls on the Minister for Transport to promptly provide the Parliament with the precise details of all expenditure and revenue items he considered in granting his approval for the fare increases.

page 983

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 983

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr KERIN:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that while in 1 975 family health insurance cover amounted to 1.1 per cent of average weekly earnings, today the equivalent level of cover amounts to 6 per cent of average weekly earnings? Is it also a fact that while average weekly earnings have risen by 60 per cent since July 1975, the cost of basic health insurance has risen by 177 per cent? Is this what the Prime Minister meant by his 1977 election policy statement that the Medibank reforms give Australians choice in health insurance?

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

– I am not aware whether the assertions made by the honourable member are correct. I will have them checked. I would like to make the point that during the Australian Labor Party’s period of administration health costs in this country rose at unprecedented rates. We had the situation in which there was an enormous rise in total health costs and there were open-ended commitments. We were well on the way to breaking this country because of these open-ended commitments to health costs. The Opposition has put forward proposals which again will lead to an open-ended situation and which again would bring about an unprecedented increase in health care costs. That will not be accepted by this Government or the Australian people.

page 984

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE POLICY

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Defence advise the House what action he has taken to seek bipartisan support for an Australian defence policy?

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

– At the risk of being declared immodest, I should like to think that I have done a very great deal, both in this House and throughout the country, before bodies irrespective of their political character. I should like to think that my efforts and, indeed, the Government’s efforts have been attended with some measure of success. This has been done for two reasons: Firstly, acknowledging that there has been a tremendous sweep of political change in our immediate region in the last five or ten years; and, secondly, acknowledging the fact that costs in the defence area are soaring quite out of recognition. This can be illustrated in a great variety of ways. The House will recall that a few weeks ago I gave the latest cost of the FFG frigate project. At the moment the cost for four ships is of the order of $ 1,040m. In 1960 I think the cost of a Leander class frigate would have been of the order of $8m. I take the view, and the Government takes the view, that it should not be through political caprice or indeed through political accident that these massively expensive projects are disturbed.

I have said before, and I repeat, that I do not believe there is any monopoly of patriotism held by any political party serving in the Australian Parliament. As a consequence of that, I believe we should make every effort to secure a robust approach to defence matters on a bipartisan basis. I am quite prepared to accept that one does meet with disappointments from time to time.

Dr Klugman:

– You want to ensure your appointment as ambassador.

Mr KILLEN:

– No, not at all. I say to my honourable friend that today in Sydney the fifth defence seminar is being conducted, to which trade union leaders and representatives of my honourable friend’s party have been invited. Those seminars have been enormously successful and have been greeted by the community with enthusiasm. It is a matter of infinite regret to me to say that yesterday I listened to the honourable member for Fraser make a speech before the Federal Conference of the Returned Services League which I take the view represented a disgrace to that gathering and, if I might say so, did a very great deal of damage to his party.

page 984

QUESTION

MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE

Mr HOWE:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to a statement made at the weekend by Mr Keith Moon, the President of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association? Does the Minister agree with Mr Moon that less than 50 per cent of the potential market is now covered for at least basic medical and hospital insurance? Does he further agree with Mr Moon that substantial changes will have to be made to preserve the present scheme? Has the Minister, who is a member of this terminally ill Government, any ideas on how to isolate the gangrene and prevent the rotting away of the present health system?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– I must congratulate the honourable member on his choice of language, which was colourful but inaccurate, as it usually is. I have had my attention drawn to Mr Moon’s statement, but I point out, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, that basic hospital and medical cover is taken by approximately 60 per cent of people in Australia. This is in marked contrast to the urgings of Australian Labor Party spokesmen over some time now. It seems a little strange to me that the Labor Party should be saying that the system is falling down because people are leaving hospital and medical benefits insurance while at the same time urging people to do just that. It seems that the Labor Party wants to create a situation in which people will leave private health insurance. When I became Minister for Health people such as the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the outflow of people from private health insurance funds would become a raging torrent. It has not. The situation is being monitored closely by the Government. There is no need, on the figures available to me at this stage, to take precipitate action.

page 984

QUESTION

PATERSON’S CURSE

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

– Can the Minister for Science and the Environment inform the House of any Government plans to be represented at hearings of the South Australian Supreme Court regarding injunctions preventing progress in the program being carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for the biological control of paterson ‘s curse?

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

– I know that a number of members from country areas where paterson’s curse is a problem are concerned about this injunction. The Deputy Crown Solicitors of both Victoria and South Australia have been retained and counsel has been briefed by CSIRO. The case has not yet been heard. It may be heard later this year or early next year. It is now awaiting hearing in the South Australian Supreme Court.

page 985

QUESTION

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS: PAYMENT OF OUTPATIENT ACCOUNTS

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the Minister for Health aware of reports that private health insurance funds are refusing to pay outpatient accounts that are bulk billed to them by public hospitals? Given that this Government has directed hospitals to charge the privately insured for outpatient services, will the Minister use the powers he has under the National Health Act to control the operations of private funds and ensure that they pay public hospitals for services to contributors for which they are responsible?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– I am aware that there is some concern by some State governments that private health insurance organisations will not accept bulk bills supplied to them by public hospitals. As I understand it, they do so because they cannot be certain that the bills they are provided with are accurate. They need to know the names of people so they can be sure that the amounts they are paying out are properly ascribed to them. I think this is at least understandable. This is a matter between the State governments and the health insurance organisations. I wish that they would get on and sort it out.

page 985

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND COAL MINERS’ STRIKE

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources aware of reports that Japan is now wary of Australia as a coal supplier in view of the very long strike by the Queensland miners and that Japanese industry might be looking to other countries for new long term contracts? What are the implications for coal sales and for the development of new coal projects?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– There have been reports, indeed messages, from Japan expressing great concern about the coal strike that took place in Queensland and the effects it was having on supplies of coal to Japan. I must say that the strike has done damage to our reputation as a reliable supplier of coal. Now that the strike is over I hope that shipments can soon start and we will be able to reinstate ourselves as a supplier of coal. I hope that Japan and other customers might look back on this strike as a unique one and one we will not see any recurrence of in the future.

Australia is certainly very fortunate in the coal resources it has. It has huge resources of various types of attractive coals relatively close to deep water ports and can therefore be efficiently produced in large quantities. I believe we have the potential to be one of the major coal suppliers in the world. I hope that countries which are looking for future supplies will not look too harshly upon us as a result of the strike which took place in Queensland–

Mr Young:

– Caused by the Government.

Mr ANTHONY:

– And that we can again have a strong position in the international market. The honourable member for Port Adelaide interjected caused by the Government’. A very great principle was involved and that principle was maintained by the Government. Fortunately a compromise was reached by the parties. Now that the strike is over I think that it is up to everybody - the Government, the industry and the unions - to get back to work and to see that we are again a major supplier with a good reputation.

page 985

QUESTION

HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS: PRIVATE FUNDS

Dr BLEWETT:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Will the further subsidy by the Australian taxpayer of $75m, which represents an increase of 150 per cent to the hospital re-insurance pool, lead to any overall reduction in the rate of health contributions by the private funds?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– I am very pleased that the honourable member brought this matter up because it gives me a chance to point out that this Government, in marked contrast with the Opposition, has a very real concern to assist the aged and the chronically ill within the community. Our policies are directed to helping those most in need, which is again in marked contrast with the points of view put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman on health matters. The Government has decided, as the honourable member for Bonython well knows, to increase further the amount of Government contribution to the Reinsurance Trust Fund by $75m, which will bring the total contribution to $125m. As I say, this will bring marked relief to the aged and the chronically ill within the Australian community. As I understand it, the vast majority of premium rates applying to health insurance funds will remain at approximately the same level. There may be minor variations in some of them.

page 985

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Giles proceeding to address a question to the Treasurer -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is out of order.

Mr Giles:

- Mr Speaker, may I rephrase the question?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have ruled the question out of order.

page 986

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I will ask the Treasurer a more interesting question. Is it a fact that money supply as measured by M3 for the last three months is running at an annual rate of 20 per cent, well beyond the Government’s target of 9 per cent to 1 1 per cent for 1980-81? Is it also a fact that if the marked increase in foreign capital inflow forecast by the Government for the immediate future occurs it will add substantially to further growth of the money supply? Would this mean either that growth in money supply would get even further out of the Government’s control or alternatively would the Government have to impose severe domestic monetary restraints to bring growth of money supply back into line with Government targets? Would the first course mean a more serious aggravation of inflation, already moving rapidly upwards, and would the second course seriously squeeze, indeed damagingly squeeze, domestic industry, particularly manufacturing industry, so that room could be created for foreign capital inflow? Finally, which of the alternatives does the Government prefer - serious inflation or a severe domestic credit squeeze?

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

– I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me the opportunity of saying a few things about the different impact on monetary conditions of Australia of the sharply contrasted fiscal policies of this Government and a Hayden Labor government if it were to be elected at the end of this year. The Leader of the Opposition professes by implication a concern about the growth in the money supply. Of course the alternative high deficit policies advocated by the Leader of the Opposition would do more than anything else to aggravate the growth of the money supply in Australia, particularly as the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that the greatly expanded deficit would be funded by what he is pleased to call a modest expansion of the money supply. We all know what a modest expansion of the money supply represents to the Labor Party and to the honourable member for Oxley. The first part of the Leader of the Opposition’s question is answered in the affirmative.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. The Treasurer is not answering and I suspect cannot answer the question. He lacks the basic technical understanding.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr HOWARD:

– I realise the Leader of the Opposition is a little nervous without his two front row forwards with him, but the fact of the matter is that the money supply for the first few months, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, is running at the figure he specified. That information can be obtained from the official statistics and there is no secret about that matter. The 12-month figures, as I understand it, for the month of August will show a deceleration from the month of July, and the Government remains of the view that the monetary targets set out in the Budget can be quite suitably achieved without either of the drastic effects that the Leader of the Opposition chooses to raise.

page 986

QUESTION

DANDENONG RANGES: TELEVISION RECEPTION

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications concerns the provision of an adequate television reception to parts of my electorate, and most particularly the Dandenong Ranges and adjacent areas. Can the Minister advise me whether he has now received the detailed report that has been long awaited from his departmental officials regarding what might be done to improve this television reception. If so, does he have any good news for the electorate in this regard?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for the good news.

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

– Indeed, Mr Speaker. Happily, I have good news for the honourable member for La Trobe. I must say that the honourable member for La Trobe has achieved this good news where all previous members for La Trobe sadly have failed to achieve results in that area. The situation is that owing to his constant representationsindeed, he took me to the Dandenong Ranges to see the reception - my Department has come forward with a technical report, lt has advised that it will be possible, with three translators, to overcome almost all the reception problems which face the people in thi Dandenong Ranges at present. They are very great reception problems. Many people get none of the television stations clearly and some get very few clearly. The Department has advised that the best locations for these translators would be Bruce Crescent, Ferntree Gully, Lookout Tower, Belmont Avenue, Upwey, and Best Street, Belgrave. It is believed that these translators will create improved services for about 20,000 people in the area of the Dandenong Ranges. I will be receiving a detailed planning proposal at the end of this month, which I will be forwarding. These are major developments which I believe will overcome the reception difficulties in almost all locations in the Dandenong Ranges area.

page 987

QUESTION

RIVERINA AREA: TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Post and Telecommunications with more good news.

Mr STALEY:
LP

– It is extraordinary that there are some people in the Opposition - perhaps it is the Opposition generally - who are not looking forward to what satellite communications can do for the rural and remote areas of Australia. The Government is committed absolutely to the concept of satellite broadcasting in this country because satellite broadcasting will bring to the people of the Australian outback and rural areas benefits that can be brought through no other means.

Mr Fitzpatrick:

– What about the cost?

Mr STALEY:

– Members of the Opposition are whinging about the cost. They whinge about many things, but now it is cost. When the Government made this decision a considerable time ago to go satellite I said then that it was based not simply on a cost-benefit analysis. It was based on social priorities as much as it was ever based on a cost-benefit analysis. To be specific in terms of the last part of the honourable member’s question, which was in regard to cost, I have had no information which varies from the information that has been available to me and to the public over many months to the effect that the cost of earth receiving stations for radio and television broadcasting is something in the range of $400 to $ 1 ,000 installed. Of course it is impossible to be more precise at this stage until contracts are finally signed and until one knows how many earth stations will be manufactured. The cost of earth stations which will be used for telephones will not be borne basically by the subscriber but largely by Telecom. Telecom bears the large part of the costs associated with the installation of telephones in rural areas. That is not disputed by Telecom. There are arguments about the precise costs of providing telephones by satellite. Those arguments will continue for a long time yet.

page 987

QUESTION

UNIFORM DISCIPLINARY CODE FOR THE SERVICES

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the problems faced by successive governments in introducing a uniform disciplinary code for the armed Services. Will he inform the House whether this matter has progressed any further?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The honourable gentleman is perfectly correct when he speaks of problems that have been associated with the development of a uniform disciplinary code for the three Services. This is a problem which has plagued successive governments for no fewer than 35 years. I think that Mr Frank Forde, who I am happy to say is still alive today, set up a board in 1945 which was presided over by Mr Justice Reed of the South Australian Supreme Court to develop a uniform disciplinary code. There was almost a note of despair in the report of that board as to the prospect of securing such a code. I say to the honourable gentleman that there are scores of Acts and regulations which relate to the discipline of the three Services. The previous Government had a crack at securing such a code and this Government, to use that language again, also had a crack at it.

In November 1978 I chaired a conference attended by the three Judge Advocates General of the Services, their Honours Mr Justice Helsham, Mr Justice Glass and Mr Justice Kelly, the then Chief of Defence Force Staff, the Chiefs of Personnel, the directors of the respective legal services and officers from the Attorney-General’s Department. We eventually determined guidelines for the drawing up of a code. I am happy to inform the honourable gentleman that the Government has approved a draft Bill. It is a very large Bill. It runs into more than 200 clauses and has four Schedules. No matter what may be the outcome of the contest which I am informed lies ahead- for my part I have no doubt about the outcome - I hope that the government of the day will proceed with the Bill and put it on the statute book.

page 988

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer the Minister to recent reports in the Australian newspaper that in 1976-77, as part of an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation operation which apparently was called ‘Operation Answer’, the homes and offices of journalists and others were illegally entered in order to plant listening devices and to photograph documents. Will the Minister undertake to examine whether any ASIO officer participated in any illegal entry during that period? If so, what action will be taken?

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

– The honourable gentleman is aware of the usual practice with regard to questions dealing with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation - that is, not to answer questions relating to the security activities of ASIO. However, having regard to the question asked by the honourable member, I will refer it to the Attorney-General and obtain a reply for him.

page 988

QUESTION

SURVEY OF UNEMPLOYED YOUTH

Mr CHAPMAN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs seen Press reports referring to ‘the most comprehensive statistical survey ever conducted in Australia of unemployed young people’? Can the Minister inform the House of the extent of this survey? Is it a Federal Government document? Can the document be relied on as an authoritative publication?

Mr VINER:
LP

– I have seen the reports. They come from the honourable member for Port Adelaide. The survey described by him as the most comprehensive statistical survey of unemployed young people ever conducted in Australia was in fact a survey of 21 1 unemployed persons in Victoria. That is to be compared with the Australian Statistician’s survey on unemployment of 30,000 households throughout Australia. The honourable member made the statement at his rather extraordinary Father’s Day conference last Sunday afternoon. In his Press release he did not refer to the fact that the survey was of only 21 1 unemployed persons in Victoria; yet he proceeded to quote statistics based on that survey and then to tell the public that it was the most comprehensive statistical survey of unemployed young people ever conducted in Australia. He also attempted to compare the survey with the White Paper on full employment which was published by the Government of the day immediately after the war. What a leap in logic from a study of 21 1 persons in a particular area of Australia to major conclusions on the direction of national economic policies! Even the honourable member for Lalor does not have the mental agility to undertake that.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Nonsense.

Mr VINER:

– What company! A great Father’s Day hoax was perpetrated on the Press and the public. The honourable member for Port Adelaide obviously confused Father’s Day with April Fool’s Day. The document he described as a Public Service report’, and one which he led the public and the Press to believe was a Federal Government document, is a paper prepared by a research officer in the Victorian Department of Community Welfare Services. It contains only draft recommendations. It has not been received by the Victorian Employment Committee, which commissioned it, or by the Victorian Minister responsible, the Hon. James Ramsay, and it does not have the approval or the endorsement of the Department of Community Welfare Services, in which those officers are employed. Therefore it was not a Federal Government document, nor was it a Victorian Government document, as it was represented to be by the honourable member. It was not even in the hands of the Victorian Government. It is plain, deliberate misrepresentation to tell the public that the document was deliberately withheld by the Victorian Government because of the pending Federal elections. I might mention to the House some of the recommendations that are in it, and one in particular. The recommendations would bind up Victoria in socialistic, bureaucratic machinery.

Mr Hayden:

– Oh dear! That means something would be done for people for a change.

Mr VINER:

– There is the voice of the socialist leader of the Australian Labor Party. A beautiful set of manpower programs researched, forecast, planned and implemented through a network of national, State, regional and local manpower boards, to which industry would be required to refer manpower proposals, is suggested to replace the vagaries of the labour market’. No wonder such a socialist recipe for Victoria found so much favour with the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

page 988

QUESTION

TAX AVOIDANCE

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which deals with tax avoidance, is directed to the Treasurer. Does he agree with the findings of Edward Nash, the economics writer for the Adelaide Advertiser, when he says: ‘These days paying tax is optional’? Is he aware of the deep public disquiet over the complexities of our tax laws and, more particularly, public outrage at the extent of artificial schemes for tax avoidance, which are being upheld consistently by the High Court of Australia? Has he noted recent editorials on this issue in the Age, the Australian and the Australian Financial Review.”1. Will he arrange for a reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission requiring it to simplify and redraft the Income Tax Act and to make recommendations for dealing with the problems of tax avoidance?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I have not read the specific article by Mr Nash but I will do so. He is an economics writer whom I respect. I will certainly take up the suggestion of the honourable member for Hawker, who I know has a sincere interest in this matter and read the article. Of course, the Government is concerned about the incidence of tax avoidance. I think we have done more than indulge in rhetoric on the subject. We have matched our professed concern with decisive action. That contrasts very favourably with the lack of action, despite the rhetoric at Blacktown in 1972, of the predecessor Government. As for the possibility of referring the Income Tax Assessment Act to the Law Reform Commission, I think honourable members interested in taxation - that probably includes all of us - would agree that there has rarely been an Act or a network of laws affecting the Australian community which has been as much inquired into as have our taxation laws. It is only a fairly short period of years since we had the very voluminous report of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee. There was, of course, the report of the Mathews Committee of Inquiry into Inflation and Taxation which was commissioned by the previous Government. Prior to that we had the Ligertwood inquiry into taxation and one or ttw other inquiries into taxation. Frankly, I do not believe that the problem is to be solved by referring the matter to the Law Reform Commission.

I think one observation that has to be made about our taxation laws is that they are very complex, that they are complicated because we have a very complicated system of taxation and that, of all the areas of economic responsibility that I have, there is no area in which it is more difficult to achieve a consensus as to a common approach then the area of taxation. Not only people holding different political points of view but also people holding different points of view within on general political persuasion have sharply differing views on the sort of taxation system we have.

There is a common and very misplaced belief that all we have to do is to get hold of some expert draftsmen, set them to work on ‘simplifying’ the Income Tax Assessment Act and all of our problems would be solved. It is not so simple as that. We have a very complicated system and until we have a much broader consensus in the community as to the sort of taxation system that we ought to have the achievement of what I know the honourable member would like to see occur will be more difficult. Meanwhile, I believe that there is no proper alternative for the Government but to do what it can, as effectively as it can, to counter the sort of platant tax avoidance which I know concerns many honourabl e members in this House and which ultimately is paid for by the ordinary wage and salary earners of Australis.

page 989

QUESTION

PROPOSED NATIONAL HYDROCARBONS CORPORATION

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It refers to the demotion of the Chinese Vice-Premier, Mr Song Zhenmen, because he, being in charge of the petroleum industry, failed to take technical advice. Without commenting on that event, but knowing the importance of that industry–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman should ask his question.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– I am about to ask the question, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister considered proposals made in Australia for a national hydrocarbons corporation, thus copying four overseas countries?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am very much aware, and I think most Australians are, that the Australian Labor Party is proposing a national hydrocarbons corporation to get into the various areas of the oil industry, particularly oil exploration, to compete with or to replace the private sector in the risking of its capital in this type of venture. All I want to say is that it is a warning to Australian industry and to the taxpayer of what a Labor Government would do. It is putting on notice that the Labor Party firmly adheres to its party doctrine; that is, to use taxpayers’ money in risky public ventures when it is completely unnecessary to do so because we can get the private sector to invest its money. The proposed hydrocarbons corporation would be nothing more than a re-run of the old Petroleum and Minerals Authority, that ill-fated corporation which got Australia into a great deal of trouble. What was the result of it? We saw no developments taking place in this country. Oil exploration virtually came to a standstill. Since we came to office and revived the private sector’s search for oil it has increased five times to a record level today. To talk in terms of a hydrocarbons authority risking hundreds of millions of dollars in this area is completely disgraceful.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Thousands of millions.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Thousands of millions. We all recall the illegal Executive Council document that the Labor Party tried to get through to raise thousands of millions of dollars which would place this Government and the taxpayer in debt for many years. Fortunately, the Labor Government was replaced before it could get into those sorts of habits. We certainly do not want to see that sort of organisation established in this country when private enterprise is doing a good job.

page 990

QUESTION

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence: Has the decision on the purchase of 2,000-plus Mercedes trucks, which I understand was made recently, not been announced because of concern at opposition to European purchases by certain sections of the Government? Is the Minister able to assure the House that defence equipment purchases based in Europe will not be subject to domestic politicking of the crudest type?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I ignore the pejorative language of the honourable gentleman. The matter is clearly one of Government policy and Government decision. It will be announced at the proper time.

page 990

QUESTION

SKILLED LABOUR

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. I remind the Minister of allegations made from time to time that the Government is seeking to fill positions in the skilled work force by migration at the expense of locally trained people. I ask: Is migration the primary means by which skilled labour is supplied in Australia? In particular, what is the present level of apprenticeship training in Australia?

Mr VINER:
LP

– I am aware of assertions of the kind referred to in the honourable member’s question. They are wrong. The assertions have come from people such as the honourable member for Port Adelaide and they have come also from the authors of the document to which I referred earlier. The facts of the matter are that in the early 1970s 35 per cent or about 15,000 migrant tradesmen came into Australia each year. That figure was reduced to 14 per cent or 5,306 in 1979. During that period completions of apprenticeships increased from 22,000 in 1970-71 to 30,804 in 1980. 1 inform the House that new indentures of apprenticeships have reached an all time high of 46,152 in 1979-80, surpassing the 1977-78 record by 3,612. It is particularly pleasing to see that the critical metal and electrical trades have reached peak levels of new indentures. New South Welshmen might be interested to know that new indentures similarly reached an all time peak in New South Wales in 1979-80. There was substantial growth in Queensland and healthy growth in Victoria and Tasmania.

Mr Young:

– You are still scouring Europe for tradesmen and 20 per cent of all your tradesmen come from overseas.

Mr VINER:

– For the interest of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, apprentices in training - that is, the total number of apprentices employed- also reached a record level of 136,628 in 1980, surpassing the previous record in 1976 by nearly 2,000. Metal trades apprentices reached an all time peak of 51,845, some 3,026 above the 1976 record. On a State basis, records were achieved for apprentices in training in Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania. Completions overall were higher this year at 30,804 than last year. Vehicle trade completions peaked in 1979-80 and record completions were achieved in 1979-80 in Western Australia and the two Territories. I think those figures speak for themselves.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to draw his answer to an conclusion.

Mr VINER:

– I think it establishes the determination of this Government to maintain apprenticeship training and, through our Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training scheme, to give financial support to reach those levels.

page 990

QUESTION

DOMESTIC COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact that officers of his Department have stated many times that immediate prospective usage for the domestic communications satellite was sufficient to occupy 21 satellite transponders? Is it a fact that current proposals for the satellite system call initially for two orbiting operational satellites with a total of only 15 working transponders? What has happened to the missing usage of those remaining six transponders? Will the consequent loss of $60m in revenue add to the shaky economics of the whole project? Having regard to the Minister’s previous answer in relation to ground stations to supply broadband reception including telecommunications to the outback- he indicated that the cost of those ground stations will be met by Telecom Australia- will he assure the House that the shortfall which will be closer to $30,000 than S 1 ,000 for a ground station will be met by the

Government rather than spreading the cost subsidy to the consumers of telecommunications in this country?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– Once again the socialists opposite make it quite plain that they begrudge the people of the outback and rural Australia access to new communication services by satellite. They whinge and groan and grizzle. It is plain that their hearts are not in providing these improvements that can do so much for the people of Australia. The assertions and assumptions in the honourable member’s question are astray. The fact is that at the moment the Government has under consideration the technical specifications and is finalising them. Announcements will be made in the near future. The honourable member will then see that his assumptions were indeed astray.

page 991

QUESTION

DEFENCE: TACTICAL FIGHTER FORCE

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence and concerns the proposed new tactical fighter force purchase. Does the Minister consider that the acquisition of tanker aircraft for mid-air refuelling is fundamental and essential for the Royal Australian Air Force? Would such tankers extend the range of the 75 new tactical fighters, either the FI 6 or the FI 8, which the Government intends to purchase, by up to 100 per cent by providing sufficient in flight refuelling? Is the purchase of such tankers included in the Government’s defence program? Finally, does the Minister agree that the provision and acquisition of such tankers is a separate issue from the acquisition of an aircraft carrier replacement?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The honourable member for Higgins has asked a series of questions. May I seek to answer them in this form: Yes, there is provision in the five-year defence program for the acquisition of aircraft which would provide the Royal Australian Air Force with an in flight refuelling capability. At the moment two aircraft are under study. There is the possibility of a Boeing aircraft being refurbished in such a way as to provide that in flight refuelling capability. Also, consideration is being given to the use of the KC135 aircraft. No decision has been made. I appreciate the honourable gentleman’s very sustained interest in this project. Most certainly, it would give to the RAAF a very greatly enhanced range capability. This is one of the principal reasons why those aircraft are under consideration. As my honourable friend will appreciate, no decision has been reached. I imagine that it will be some considerable time before one is reached.

page 991

QUESTION

NOONKANBAH: ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Did the Australian Ambassador in Geneva, Dr L. Thomson, inform the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights for Indigenous People that the Court Government’s actions at Noonkanbah do not reflect the overall situation in Western Australia and that they were an exception rather than the rule? Are the Government and the Minister still supporting this fiction following their abortive meetings with the National Aboriginal Council and the Australian Mining Industry Council? Since Sir Charles Court has instructed them to stop meddling in his affairs–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will cease making a statement and ask his question.

Mr WEST:

– Is it a fact that since they have been peddling these views Sir Charles Court has instructed them to stop meddling in his affairs? Is it a fact that the Aboriginal land councils have imposed a national retaliatory suspension on negotiations with mining companies? In conclusion, just what actions will this Government take to ensure that, in Senator Chaney’s words, there are no more Noonkanbahs’ and to prevent the Court Government in Western Australia from further shaming Australia internationally and in the United Nations?

Mr VINER:
LP

– The Australian Ambassador to the United Nations, who spoke at Geneva on behalf of Australia, did say that Noonkanbah is the exception rather than the rule. My colleague the Honourable Fred Chaney has repeated that statement, and that is the fact. There have been successful negotiations between mining companies, oil exploration companies and Aboriginal communities in Western Australia and other parts of Australia which have not led to anything like the conflict at Noonkanbah. The Commonwealth Government has commenced discussions with the mining company associations and the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association. Those discussions will continue to see whether basic ground rules can be arrived at which in the future will ensure that there are no further Noonkanbahs.

page 991

NATIONAL COUNTRY PARTY OF AUSTRALIA

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party of Australia · Richmond · NCP/NP

– I desire to inform the House that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) has been appointed Whip of the National Country Party of Australia in place of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), who has resigned from the position.

page 992

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND RESOURCES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Trade and Resources 1979-80.

page 992

COMMISSIONER FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS

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

– Pursuant to section 46 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 1 present the fifth annual report 1980 of the Commissioner for Community Relations.

page 992

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH AND VICTORIA, QUEENSLAND AND NEW SOUTH WALES

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

– Pursuant to section 7 of the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act 1 979 I present agreements between the Commonwealth and each of the States of Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales. These agreements relate to the provision of financial assistance to upgrade main railway lines.

page 992

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES CORPORATION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present an interim statement on operations of the Defence Service Homes Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1980. I shall present the full report and audited financial statements when they become available.

page 992

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL OFFICE

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Electoral Office for 1979-80.

page 992

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 I present the forty-seventh report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on special assistance for States.

page 992

DEPARTMENT OF THE CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim statement of the Department of the Capital Territory’s annual report for 1979-80.

page 992

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 I present financial statements of the National Capital Development Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 980.

page 992

PARLIAMENT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim statement of the Parliament House Construction Authority’s annual report of the year ended 30 June 1980.

page 992

CANBERRA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Canberra Development Board for the year ended 30 June 1980.

page 992

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr YOUNG:

– Grossly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr YOUNG:

– During Question Time I did not bother to take a point of order, but the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) made a series of allegations about what I had said at a Press conference on Sunday and in relation to a report regarding unemployment in Victoria which has been made available to the Opposition. I wish to say a number of things about that. Firstly, the report is entitled ‘A Study of Unemployed Young People . . . Report to the Victorian Employment Committee’, and is marked ‘The Office of Research and Social Policy, Victorian Department of Community Welfare Services, August, 1980’. Further, I should like to read from the foreword to the report because of the allegations that have been made that only one person prepared the report, that it is of no significance, and that everybody in the Press has been fooled. The report states:

It was undertaken between February and July 1980 by the Office of Research and Social Policy of the Victorian Department of Community Welfare Services, under the aegis of Mr Colin Benjamin and under the overall management of Mr Michael Demetrious.

The Department engaged Dr Peter Burgoyne as principal research consultant on the study, Mr Paul Butler as principal research assistant, and Mr Lyndon Shea and Ms Kim Williams as research assistants.

Close liaison was maintained with the Australian Bureau of Statistics through the design phases of the study, and this proved particularly helpful in relation to sampling and questionnaire design. The assistance given by the Australian Bureau of Statistics trained interviewers in the conduct of the interviews is especially acknowledged, as is the assistance of Mr Kevin Kelly, who provided valuable statistical information and advice.

Further, I wish to emphasise this point:

The Department wishes to thank the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs -

I believe that that Department is the responsibility of the Minister, who said he did not know much about the report and that the report was made by one person. His Department actually was involved in the preparation of this report. The report continues: the Australian Consumers Association, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Unemployed Workers Union for permission to use their material in a kit to assist the unemployed people in the study.

The Minister said that this survey was taken of only 21 1 people and did not mean much. Firstly, I take the point that the Australian Bureau of Statistics was used as a guide as to how these people ought to be interviewed. The report states:

The number of young unemployed people interviewed with the final in-depth questionnaire was 211. (This is in addition to 40 interviewed during pilot studies). The number was based on the requirements of the Victorian Employment Committee in a brief for interviews to be conducted with at least 200 young unemployed people for this study, rather than on any statistical considerations. With a sample size of about 200 it is possible to make estimates of major trends, and to obtain useful information about the range of characteristics and views on issues within the community. It is not possible, however, to obtain accurate quantitative estimates about the characteristics of specific sub-groups. Such information would need to be based on a larger scale, quantitative study.

The further point I wish to make is that the total report, which I have in front of me and which I will seek to have tabled, was made available on Sunday to any journalist who wanted to have it. It is still available. The major feature articles in the Press, such as today’s article in the Canberra Times, for which I am very thankful - I understand that the Sydney Morning Herald also will have a feature article on it - are based on a full copy of the report, which has been made available to the Press. I never at any stage said that the report was a Commonwealth Government report. I said that it was a report on unemployment. I said that it was a significant report and that it was probably the most significant report on unemployed youth that we have had since the White Paper of 1946. 1 think it is an utter disgrace that a State government should have to undertake this study rather than the Commonwealth Government. Further, in Question Time the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, who does not have a reputation for telling the truth, said that–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr YOUNG:

– I withdraw. The Minister also said, in answer to another question, that I made certain allegations about apprenticeships and the number of tradesmen in Australia. The fact is, and everybody in this Parliament knows–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has ceased making a personal explanation in relation to one matter. That was in order.

Mr YOUNG:

– It was part of the same thing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman now appears to me to be engaging in a debate as to whether the Minister was correct. I ask him to make a personal explanation only.

Mr YOUNG:

– All right. Let me stick to the first point of misrepresentation. There is a whole series of recommendations concerning employment and unemployment in this report which I am very grateful to have read. The report states:

Migration should not be seen as the primary means by which specific forms of skilled labour should be supplied, nor as a convenient means of reacting to skill shortages which periodically arise as a result of inadequate manpower forecasting and planning.

This is the result of the survey done in Victoria. I make this report available and the Minister can move to have it tabled so that every member of the Parliament can have a look at the way in which it was done. Obviously, if the Minister has any guts he will do that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I interpret the honourable member’s remark as seeking leave to table the report. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Mr YOUNG:

– This is the shonkiest Government of all time. Government members make all the accusations at Question Time but they are not worried about the kids who do not have jobs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr YOUNG:

– They will tell lies all day.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr YOUNG:

– You are not worth a crumpet, any of you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide. He continued to shout after I had asked him to cease.

Mr YOUNG:

– I could not hear you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The reason the honourable gentleman could not hear was that he was shouting. It is his duty to hear the Speaker. I warn him and I will name him the next time he performs in anything like that way.

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

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr VINER:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister may do so.

Mr VINER:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has claimed that I misrepresented the nature of his statement last Sunday in his Father’s Day address. I quote directly from his Press statement:

The most comprehensive statistical survey ever conducted in Australia of unemployed young people is now in my possession.

I repeat and emphasise that:

The most comprehensive statistical survey ever conducted in Australia of unemployed young people . . .

The point that I made was that that survey was of 21 1 unemployed people in Victoria. On page 3 of the summary of the main recommendations attached to the Press statement released by the honourable gentleman and under the heading, Points Emerging from the Survey’, the first point was: 43 per cent of the unemployed people interviewed had never had a full time job. A further 21 per cent had not experienced a full time job lasting more than 6 months and only 23 per cent had ever had a full time job lasting more than one year.

There was no reference in that passage, nor in any part of the documents attached to the honourable member’s Press release, that the survey referred to was of 21 1 unemployed people in Victoria, the survey which the honourable gentleman described as ‘the most comprehensive statistical survey ever conducted in Australia of unemployed young people’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister must state where he has been misrepresented.

Mr VINER:

– The honourable gentleman sought to establish that in fact the document was the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken. I demonstrated that it was not. There was no misrepresentation by me during Question Time, quite contrary to the way in which the honourable member misrepresented the position to the public and to the Press last Sunday.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister has made the point. We will now proceed to ministerial statements to be made by leave.

page 994

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr Young- Mr Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Why is the honourable gentleman standing?

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to move the suspension of Standing Orders so that the report of the Victorian Employment Committee of the Victorian Government may be printed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question as moved by the honourable member for Port Adelaide must be in writing and seconded.

Mr Young:

– I have it in writing, Mr Speaker. All members of the Government can read it then and make their own judgments.

Government members interjecting–

Mr Young:

– Some of you must be worried about unemployed people.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent. I have already warned the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I will deal with him »* he does not obey the Chair.

The honourable member having submitted his motion in writing-

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

- Mr Speaker, I will be very brief in moving:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the report to the Victorian Employment Committee entitled A Study of Unemployed Young People, Part I being ordered to be printed.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 30

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– 1 second the motion. The Government has just used its numbers to censure and prevent public availability of a report prepared for the Government of Victoria on the extent and nature of unemployment problems.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Melbourne Ports be not further heard.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 31

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 70

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 996

DEFENCE: GOVERNMENT DECISIONS

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- The Government has recently made decisions on three matters which are of great significance to the defence of this nation. I wish to inform the House of those decisions. They concern the replacement of the aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, the construction of a new generation of destroyers and the base siting for one of the three new tactical fighter squadrons. The decisions have been made following long and exhaustive investigations. In the case of the replacement carrier, the inquiries have been of a particularly detailed nature, spanning a period of some years. Many millions of taxpayers’ dollars are involved in such projects over a long period. The Government makes no apology whatever for insisting on the most exhaustive scrutiny and examination of various proposals, and drawing on all of the professional advice and skills at its disposal, before making a decision in cases such as this.

The Government has decided to replace HMAS Melbourne with a purpose-designed ship to be equipped with helicopters for antisubmarine warfare, but with a potential for operating also short take-off and vertical landing - STOVL- aircraft. The Government will not make a decision on the actual acquisition of STOVL aircraft until 1983. 1 should emphasise that at this stage there is no commitment to acquire STOVL aircraft. The period between now and 1983 will provide valuable time for the Government to assess the advantages, availability, suitability and cost of STOVL aircraft in the light of further development of this particular type of aircraft. Further definition of the carrier details will now be undertaken and be completed in the next financial year.

I turn now to the question of follow-on destroyers. Defence planning must address itself to the eventual receipt of major items of equipment many years ahead. The follow-on destroyer program falls precisely into this category. Three new guided missile destroyers are currently under construction in the United States of America, and a contract for the fourth was signed in April this year. While the modernisation program for our destroyer escorts is not yet complete, the Government must plan for their eventual replacement from near the end of the decade. It is not too early to be making decisions in 1980 about major items, the first of which will not enter service for a number of years. In my statement to the House on 26 August, I said that the Government had before it recommendations for ship designs to replace the destroyer escorts. More than 50 destroyer designs were considered by the Government’s professional advisers. The issue has been a very complex one indeed. The Government has selected an FFG-type design. Subject to arrangements to be concluded, particularly with the United States Government, and to satisfactory resolution of a number of problems affecting productivity in Williamstown Naval Dockyard, the Government intends that two FFG-type vessels be built there and that options for long lead items be secured for the possible construction of another four at a later time. The sensor and weapons fit for the ships will be decided in about a year. The Government has made substantial investments in Williamstown Naval Dockyard to modernise its ability to build destroyers.

May I say at this point that the Australian shipbuilding industry would be languishing were it not for the substantial naval construction program now in progress. It is the Government’s fervent hope that its future programs will not be placed in jeopardy by industrial problems. The Government is clearly showing its genuine desire to retain an Australian war-shipbuilding industry. It would hope that it has the support of all Australians in pursuing this objective, expecially those whose livelihoods depend upon a viable industry. The Government is nearing a decision on the selection of the particular aircraft to constitute the new tactical fighter force. Whichever aircraft is selected, much work will be generated for aircraft and associated industries in Australia. It has already announced a commitment to purchase 75 aircraft, thereby creating three squadrons. Naturally, the new aircraft will be received into the Royal Australian Air Force over a protracted period.

The Government has decided that Darwin should be the location of a long term base of a TFF squadron. The Government’s commitment to the provision of facilities for the Defence Force in the north and north-west of the country is, I would hope, clearly acknowledged. Subject to the normal parliamentary procedures, necessary works for the reception of a squadron will start as soon as possible. The actual date of deployment of aircraft to Darwin will be a matter for decision later. The important consideration is that Darwin has been selected as the base and firm planning can now proceed. The process of selecting the aircraft to replace the Mirage is nearing completion. This matter is still under examination, and the Government expects to give it consideration in the near future. Even more so than with the carrier decision, large issues are involved in this important and costly project. I am determined that there will be no risk, but nevertheless we are proceeding to a decision as quickly as prudence and informed judgment will allow.

Finally, there is one other important matter to which I refer. At present, United States B52 aircraft from Guam conduct low level training flights over Northern Australia with the agreement of the Australian Government. I am now in a position to confirm that the United States Government has sought the agreement of the Australian Government to the staging of these aircraft through Australia for extended flights into the Indian Ocean. To enable final determination of the matter by the Government, discussions and negotiations will now take place between Australian and United States defence authorities. I present the following paper:

Defence: Government Decisions - Ministerial Statement, 9 September 1980

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) sets out a number of matters, some of which are not dealt with in sufficient detail at this stage for significant comment to be made. I wish to reserve my right to give more consideration to the commitment to purchase a replacement for HMAS Melbourne. The project outlined by the Minister is, to say the least, sketchy. The manner in which this project would fit into the overall defence requirement for Australia cannot be assessed on the details which have been made available to the House in this statement. The decision to station a squadron of the new fighter aircraft at Darwin acknowledges what I think is and will continue for some time to be a situation in which the major proportion of the Australian coastline, if not undefended, has the appearance of not being defended. There is no major defence capacity at this stage outside a line from west of Adelaide to slightly north of Cairns.

Some two-thirds of the continent of Australia and something in excess of 60 per cent of our coastline, including Tasmania, has no defence capacity at this time. It is an area in which there are problems with surveillance and incursions. I think it is fair to say that the existing arrangements are less than satisfactory. The arrangements are due to be reviewed next year and, therefore, I will not comment substantially on them. The Minister’s announcement relating to the stationing of one of the squadrons of the tactical fighter force in Darwin is interesting and has to be seen in the context of blunting any arguments in an election campaign. Unfortunately, the statement was not accompanied by details of other arrangements and consequences which will arise from this statement.

To my knowledge, no announcement has been made relating to the future of the two Mirage squadrons currently stationed at Butterworth in Malaysia. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Australian Government, or whether discussions have been held, to maintain a presence of the Royal Australian Air Force in Malaysia. I do not know whether the Government has decided - this statement seems to indicate that it has made a decision - that the RAAF’s presence in Malaysia will be withdrawn and that the new fighters, when they become the total fighter force, some time towards the middle of this decade, will be stationed at various points in Australia.

The decision on the TFF could not have been made with ease at this stage unless the Government has already made a decision on one of the . aircraft, the name of which I will not mention. Obviously, some problems still have to be resolved and information has to be sought about other aircraft. Some time ago the Government eliminated the possibility of the purchasing the Mirage 2,000 aircraft. Therefore, alternative considerations to the FI 6 aircraft would not seem to be reasonable on the information that is generally available to this Parliament and to the Australian community. I think it is unfortunate that the Mirage 2,000 was taken out of the project although I think it was unlikely to be chosen. It was taken out of the program substantially on the basis of its radar capacity. It is now evident that its radar capacity was not that which was suggested by the evaluation team. The aircraft is to be fitted with multirole radar. That is the area in which the aircraft was said to be deficient. Because of that deficiency it was eliminated from consideration for our program. The FFG hull decision is one I have to query. I note that the Minister has indicated that a large number of alternatives were examined. The FFG is a very substantial and capable warship with a limited role capacity. It does not have a multi-role capacity and it certainly has operational limitations. As early as 1974 an examination was carried out by marine architects for the Australian Government into the feasibility of fitting a medium gun to the FFG. It was found that the structure of the vessel was such that this was not an option that was reasonably available within the financial capacity of the Australian Defence Force.

To project a naval force made up almost exclusively of FFG type frigates is to indicate that we are forgoing the option of support to ground forces because we would then not have the capacity to supply gun support. It would remove the capacity to operate in several estuaries off the Western Australian coast and in significant areas of waters north of Australia because the draft of the FFG, due to its single screw propellor, is 7.5 metres, which is only 0.3 of a metre below that of HMAS Melbourne. This would significantly limit the areas in which we could operate our destroyers. It is fairly obvious that Australia needs to be able to operate its limited blue water navy in a number of roles and to have a number of capacities. At the moment the FFG does not have those capacities. A fleet totally taken up with that type of vessel could lack versatility and operational capacities which could be essential to our Defence Force.

Unless the vessel is subject to major redesign, it will not have room to provide accommodation for a fleet commander or a flotilla commander. It will not have room for the accommodation of seaborne maintenance personnel, which has been the custom of the Australian fleet in order to avoid the necessity for long delays in reaching port where maintenance can be carried out. Given the nature of the maintenance that would need to be carried out on this vessel, such accommodation would be advantageous in any hostile operations. It also lacks accommodation for junior officers who are taken to sea for experience during their training period. The vessel is restricted in most of these areas, and modifications cannot be made easily. It also has some problems with fire control in that it is not able to act with the sort of versatility available currently to units of the Australian fleet that are about to go out of service.

During the Estimates Committee debate I raised the question of the housing of defence personnel in Darwin with the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay). I hope that part of the project for placing the tactical fighter force squadron in Darwin will be the provision of adequate defence housing and the carrying out of long overdue maintenance on houses damaged by Cyclone Tracy, which apparently is not in this year’s program, although the Minister feels that some action is being taken on it. It is now six years since Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin and people in the Defence Force who are stationed there still get wet in the rainy season because only temporary repairs were carried out.

Mr Killen:

– With respect, that is not correct.

Mr SCHOLES:

– That is the evidence given to the parliamentary committee by the people who live in the houses, and they are the people who are likely to know if drips are coming through their ceilings.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is the question of the B52 aircraft operating from Australian airfields. My understanding is that the United States of America is asking for overnight stopovers in transit. The Opposition, has indicated that it has no objection to the use by our allies of Australian facilities. However, we would strongly object to the involvement of Australian territory in the storage, maintenance or servicing of nuclear weapons. We do not believe that de facto we should move into the nuclear weapons area. If we are to go nuclear then we should make a positive decision on it, not a de facto one. I put to the House in the strongest terms that any action which would involve hostile military acts should not be undertaken without the prior agreement of the Australian Government, and that matter should be made quite clear. I do not believe that Australia or any other nation is entitled to abrogate responsibility in a way which would allow a hostile military act to be perpetrated and thus involve the nation in war or warlike activities without the prior agreement of the Government. The most recent instance of this was during the abortive Iranian raid, when airfields in Oman were used without the knowledge of the Government of that country. We would insist that Australians and the Australian Government have a right to prior notification and prior approval of any act which could involve the country in hostilities.

The Minister’s statement sets out what the Government intends to do at some future time. It projects matters which are two, three and four years ahead. I think that it has been made at this time because of an event which at Question Time the Minister said was certain to occur. I do not intend to labour that point, but I think that a number of these decisions will be the subject of continuing review and refinement, whoever wins the election. Whether it will all come to pass will probably depend on the extent to which the defence budget is able to extend to cover the announcements that have already been made. It is a matter of concern at the moment that forward commitments which have been announced or alluded to seem to exceed by considerable amounts the forward financial program for defence equipment announced by the Government in its current five-year plan. Either that is going to be altered, which I doubt, or else there is going to be significant pruning.

I think it is also significant that priorities in the defence area seem to change almost daily. I do not see in the Minister’s statement or in any of his earlier statements any assessment of the overall shape or capacities we are seeking to achieve within our Defence Force. At the moment it seems that decisions are being made on individual items unrelated to the total concept of defence. I certainly think that this is true of the decision to use an FFG hull. It is limited in its capacity. The Government is aware of those limitations, yet it is committing our total naval structure to a very substantial increase- I say this advisedly- in our blue water capacity but a very substantial loss of versatility. There is no indication of any other proposed capability to stop up the gaps in the loss of versatility, such as the use of support gunfire and the ability to operate in the relatively shallow waters which exist to a considerable extent in and around Australia and in those areas which we consider to be our interest zones.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 999

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) on the ground of parliamentary business overseas.

page 999

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the report, together with the minutes of proceedings and attachments, from the Committee of Privileges relating to the use of or reference to the records of proceedings of the House in the courts, referred to the Committee by the House on 1 1 September 1979.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leave- The report which I have just presented stemmed from a reference of the House to the Committee of Privileges on 11 September 1979. That reference arose as a result of an order made by Mr Justice Begg in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 23 August 1979 in a case in which the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) had commenced an action for damages for defamation against John Fairfax and Sons Ltd, publishers of the Sydney Morning Herald. John Fairfax and Sons Ltd had asked for an order that certain interrogatories be answered and verified by the honourable member. Some of these interrogatories asked the honourable member to agree that speeches in Parliament shown in photostat copies of Hansard as having been made by the honourable member and two other honourable members were, in fact, made by him or them.

The decision of Mr Justice Begg to grant the request and the reasons given by His Honour are of considerable importance to this House. The Committee of Privileges believes that Mr Justice Begg was in error in his judgment. In reaching its decisions, the Committee was conscious of the fact that it was an ex tempore judgment given in interlocutory proceedings very close to the trial. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that the judgment cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. The House will remember that a petition from John Fairfax and Sons Ltd had been presented to the House on 28 August 1979 for leave to be granted to the petitioner:

  1. 1 ) To issue and serve subpoenas for the production of the relevant official records of the proceedings of this House . . .
  2. … to issue and serve subpoenas for the attendance in Court of those persons who took the record of such proceedings.
  3. . . . to adduce in evidence and to make reference to and otherwise to use in its defence of the action in Court the full and official records of the proceedings and the proceedings themselves of this House . . .

This petition had been referred by the House to the Committee of Privileges for consideration and advice but the referral was rescinded before the Committee could consider the matter because the action had been settled between parties. Nevertheless, the order of Mr Justice Begg of which the House was unaware at that time, had pre-empted any decision which might be taken by the House itself on the use to which it would allow its Hansard report to be put. The Committee considered this to be an entirely unacceptable proposition.

The Committee has recommended an arrangement for the House to follow in the future in dealing with requests for the production of Hansard or other House records in court proceedings. The recommendations of the Committee are as follows:

  1. that the practice of petitions being presented to the House for leave to refer to House records in the Courts, derived from the long-established practice of the United Kingdom House of Commons, should be maintained.
  2. that upon presentation of a petition, the House shall, at the earliest opportunity, refer the petition to the Committee of Privileges for its consideration and report.
  3. that in considering the petition the Committee of Privileges should enable the Member (or former Member) referred to in the petition to be heard on his own behalf.
  4. that the Committee of Privileges, at the completion of its deliberations, should report to the House its views on the petition and, in addition, recommend such conditions upon the production of the record or Hansard report as it deems appropriate in all the circumstances.

The Committee has further recommended that the House of Representatives should resolve:

  1. that the broadcast of the proceedings in the House of Representatives and the publication of those proceedings in Hansard do not amount to a waiver of privilege by the House of Representatives and that the decision to the contrary by Begg, J. in the case of Uren v. John Fairfax & Sons Limited is in error.

  2. that, whilst recognising that there are statutory exceptions, such as the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act, and common law exceptions, such as the fair and accurate reporting of the proceedings of the House by the Press, the House reaffirms -

    1. that as a matter of law there is no such thing as a waiver of parliamentary privilege,
    2. that the House has a paramount right to impose such conditions as it deems appropriate on the production of any Hansard report or record of its proceedings in a court, and
    3. that such conditions as a matter of law are binding upon the court before which the Hansard report or other records of its proceedings are produced.

I commend the report to honourable members. In doing so, I wish to make quick reference to the composition of the Committee, which included myself as Chairman, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman), the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), who is retiring, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates). I believe that, during the 1 1 sittings of this Committee, I was privileged to chair a committee made up of fine men whose common resolve was to find the right answer. I state for interested honourable members of the House who are not aware of the functions of the Privileges Committee that I hold the view that, if all committees could work as the Privileges Committee has worked, this Parliament would be a much better place.

I also wish to put on record - I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the Committee - a tribute to Mr Lyn Barlin, the clerk to the Committee. As honourable members are fully aware, we have had two inquiries running for several months now. The demands on Mr Barlin and, indeed, on the members of the Committee have been most strenuous. Mr Barlin has an ability to meet deadlines that normally would be regarded as impossible.

Finally, in commending the report to honourable members, I believe and the Committee believes that it is a report of tremendous significance for this Parliament and for all members of the

Parliament. I am quite sure that Mr Justice Begg will be quickly aware of its contents, as very shortly will other members of the judiciary who will be or have been confronted with this rather difficult question. Now that the Parliament, for the first time in the twentieth century, is to rule on this particular aspect, their duties should be made that much easier.

Motion (by Mr John McLeay) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for 17 September 1980.

page 1001

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO DRUGS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

- Mr Speaker has received letters from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Speaker has selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The failure of the Government to take positive action in response to the recommendations of the Williams Royal Commission into Drugs.

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

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– On 18 March the Government introduced into this Parliament the report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs - the Williams report. A very intensive investigation was carried out by that royal commissioner. One would have thought at that stage that the Government really intended to do something positive about it. As you have indicated, Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter of public importance has been brought forward on the basis that not enough action has been taken.

Other information has now come to light by way of the Press. Documents which have been leaked show that the Government’s reaction to the Royal Commission has been virtually one of going slow. One of the documents that has been leaked clearly shows that the Government was adopting the stance that if any question was asked as to what action it was taking to implement the recommendations in the royal commissioner’s report it could be said that the Government was doing something by way of helping the National Standing Control Committee. That is the Committee that the royal commissioner suggested should have done away with on the basis that it had been in operation since 1969, had been unable to keep up with the problems of drug trafficking in Australia and, therefore, needed to be replaced with a much more sophisticated arrangement. Today’s debate will clearly establish that the Government has no intention of doing anything about the arrangements that his honour, Mr Justice Williams, emphasised should be implemented as a matter of urgency.

I will go back a little in the history of this situation. In March 1979 the former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs - he is now the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) - when introducing the Customs Amendment Bill said that the Bill would enable Australia to face the drug menace head on armed with a law enforcement capacity equal to the threat that was then posed. Honourable members will recall that the purpose of that Bill was to give to the Narcotics Bureau powers of surveillance and telephone and mail interception. That was proved to be outrageously wrong because when Mr Justice Williams reported, his first recommendation was that the Narcotics Bureau be disbanded. That shows how this Parliament was misled at that time.

I will read what the royal commissioner had to say about the problems of narcotics in Australia. He said:

In the view of the Commission, the problem of drug abuse in Australia contains many elements of a war-time situation. Australia is a country striving to defend its people against an undisputed social evil, lt is not being over-dramatic to describe the present position as one of national emergency.

Honourable members should bear in mind that, whilst the Government introduced this report on 1 8 March this year, it has had it in its possession since the previous December. The question we are now up against is: What is it that the Government finds so impossible to implement? Admittedly, Mr Justice Williams made 246 recommendations. The only matter I concede the Government has done anything about is to make a small increase in the Customs fleet and to give some financial advantage to the dog detector unit. That is just not good enough. We are talking about illegal importations of narcotics and the devastating effect of drugs. All drugs of major addiction significance are imported. This Government has the legal responsibility to deal with this matter and it is not much good talking about a token expenditure on such things as launches or sniffer dogs.

The really important recommendations are these: That national criminal drug intelligence centres be established; that major amendments be made to the Customs Act, the Migration Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act; that there be substantial exchange programs between Commonwealth and State police; that a uniform drug trafficking law be passed; that forensic laboratories be upgraded; and that there be a significant upgrading of coastal surveillance. None of these recommendations has been implemented.

The chief recommendation of Mr Justice Williams was that the Narcotics Bureau be disbanded. But it has not been disbanded. It has been transferred to the Australian Federal Police. That transfer occurred last year. So we have the problem of allegations of impropriety being made against the Narcotics Bureau. His honour, Mr Justice Williams, had to recommend the disbandment of that Bureau because of its inability to handle the problems. That is putting the position mildly. The real issue is that we now have crime and murder on our hands as a result of recent evidence which has come before the coroner’s inquiry into the deaths of Douglas and Isabel Wilson. That inquiry was conducted in Victoria.

Honourable members should note that Mr Rod Hall, the Assistant Commissioner for Crime in Victoria, said that he had found allegations of bribery and corruption by the Wilsons - they were made initially to the Queensland police in the presence of a Narcotics Bureau officer - to be substantially correct. Mr Hall, who headed the New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Commonwealth police task force said that the Wilsons might not have been murdered but for the corruption within the Narcotics Bureau. He alleged that tape recordings of Douglas Wilson’s interview with the Queensland police and the Narcotics Bureau had been relayed to the head of and international drug syndicate by Bureau officers. This is an outstanding piece of evidence as to why this Government should be doing something about this matter. Initially, it was thought by a person called Terence John Clark, who is deemed to be the syndicate chief, that the Wilsons would not have been involved, but when he was provided with a copy of the tape recording he arranged for their execution.

Only two agents of the Narcotics Bureau have been the subject of a major investigation. Both of them were acquitted after a trial in Sydney this year. I make the point again that Mr Justice Williams found the Narcotics Bureau to be inept, inefficient and poorly trained. It is not surprising to find, when a group such as that is incorporated into the Australian Federal Police, that the Australian Federal Police officers feel that the side is being downgraded. They feel resentment–

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Do you have any evidence of that?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Yes. Further, those officers feel that they are at risk.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Rubbish!

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I want the Minister for Administrative Services to take note of what I am saying. It is of no use his saying ‘Rubbish’. Those Federal police officers feel they are at risk in having to work with people who they see as being inept amateurs or possibly people working for the drug rings. The Minister should not be making interjections such as the ones he has made. In his report Mr Justice Williams had this to say about the Narcotics Bureau:

It is unfortunate that the Report–

That is the report of Mr Hall - of the four police officers is not available at the time of writing. The Commission believes that the police officers’ report will have a general significance of greater importance than that simply in relation to the Wilsons’ allegations. This general significance is, of course, the security of systems of criminal intelligence against abuse and misuse by the persons entrusted with the information.

Let us now look at what happened. The evidence presented at the coronial inquiry in Melbourne justifies Mr Justice Williams’ claim. The most serious problem confronting the State police is that they have to work in a Federal police structure with former members of the Narcotics Bureau. At the National Conference of Australian Police Commissioners in Hobart, the Queensland Police Commissioner, Mr Lewis, said that he would not co-operate with the Australian Federal Police while the Narcotics Bureau officers remained in that force. He regarded them as the very same people who worked for the Bureau that the royal commissioner suggested be disbanded; they were merely wearing different hats.

The Victorian police have made it clear that they have no time for the Narcotics Bureau. With all its limitations the narcotics unit of the Federal Police might have started with some enthusiasm. That unit has now been downgraded because of a staff problem and a morale problem. From an original force of 1 29 men the unit is now down to about 80 men. If a unit has that sort of morale problem there will be other problems. How can such a unit be effective? The number of detectives has been reduced and over the last year the number of seizures has gone down by 25 per cent. There have been only minor hauls of heroin and one major seizure of cocaine by the Bureau since it was incorporated into the Australian Federal Police.

As recently as 29 August, a senior magistrate, Mr Kevin Mason, said at the coronial inquiry that the amounts of heroin being smuggled into Australia were beyond comprehension and exceeded all previous drug trafficking in Australia. He said that even life itself became cheap in proportion to the profits to be made. He pointed out that three persons were murdered and possibly another two had disappeared. He went on to say:

The evidence before me indicates that not only did persons within the drug organisation get carried away by mercenary greed, but apparently so did others in official Government positions of law enforcement.

The Government has not been honest in talking about dealing with the problems of narcotics and the importation of drugs into Australia.

Let us look at what happened in the Senate concerning this situation. In August 1979 the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), in answer to an Opposition amendment to Customs legislation - that legislation was giving all sorts of powers to the Narcotics Bureau - suggested it be withdrawn until the reports of both the Williams Royal Commission and the Hall police inquiry had been presented. But the Attorney-General said: ‘Oh, there is no need to do that. The inquiry is not being held into the Narcotics Bureau. It is a police inquiry’. But what do we find? Mr Hall, the Police Commissioner, gave evidence at the coronial inquiry. He stated that the main purpose of that William’s inquiry was to investigate allegations of bribery and corruption within the Narcotics Bureau and that these allegations were proved to be substantially correct.

So there we have it. What was said last week or the week before in the coronial inquiry has been proved to be right and what the Attorney-General told the Senate was completely wrong. It must be admitted that that is the situation because we find that soon after we had that nonsense of Government Ministers protecting the Bureau by passing legislation to give the Bureau all sorts of investigatory powers. But the Royal Commission gave a special report recommending that the Bureau be disbanded. It was virtually three weeks after the Government passed the legislation that His Honour, Mr Justice Williams, in September 1979 said, in effect: ‘It is no good; get rid of it’. This is an extraordinary situation because we come now to the present problem. What we need at the present time is a total national involvement in combating drug trafficking in Australia. There is no other way to go about it. We have to look at what is happening here at the present time. If the Minister looks at the evidence, he will see that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was anxious to snow the Parliament. This is quite significant. I have a copy of the document which has been leaked. It was in the Press.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– It was stolen. ‘

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– No, it was not stolen. The Government is spreading the wealth these days. This document comes from the security branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Let us have a look at it. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that the report was dated 18 March and was tabled in the House; so the security branch with its intelligence decided to tell the Prime Minister on 19 March: Look, when you get questions asked later on why the Government has not taken more decisive action on the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, you can answer this way’. That shows a pretty well planned operation. The day after the Government has tabled the report, the security branch is able to inform the Prime Minister how he might indicate at a later date what the Government was doing about it. We find that obviously the Government was not really going to pursue this matter of a national involvement. We can see the position; when the Prime Minister was asked questions about this he said: ‘We will continue the existing mechanisms with the National Standing Control Committee’. That is exactly what has happened. But his honour, Mr Justice Williams, recommended that that was an inappropriate thing to do and he said so as honourable members will see if they look at the recommendations. On page D22 of the report Mr Justice Williams said:

If the Commission’s recommendations are accepted, it would seem that the National Standing Control Committee will no longer have any useful role.

But here it is, right up front, with the result that no action has been taken. What is desperately needed in this circumstance is to have an Australian special federal group that can take effective police control. We favour such a group. It would add to the Williams recommendations. We want to see a major unit of the Australian Federal Police which will have special functions relating to drug trafficking. It will be composed of Australian Federal Police officers and a significant number of State police officers who, as far as possible, would continue to operate in their home areas. That is consistent with the Williams recommendations where he said that there had to be a central intelligence agency assisted by State intelligence agencies. We cannot leave the matter on the basis, as is now proposed, that there will be some upgrading of a departmental committee. I seek leave to have a memorandum from the security branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Possible Question:

Why has the government not taken more decisive action on the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission Enquiry into Drugs?

What mechanisms are proposed for consultations with the States.

Possible Answer:

The Government has taken decisions in principle to accept the Royal Commissions major recommendations

These recommendations significantly involve the States and cannot be implemented without their co-operation

Consultations will be initiated with the States through existing mechanisms (principally National Standing Control Committee (NSCC) on Drugs of Dependence, and Ministerial Police Advisory Council)

The NSCC has a useful breadth of representation from both Commonwealth and the States.

Background:

Mr Hayden has criticised the Government for holding back in its decisions. This over-looks the need for the States to be consulted. Much detailed consultation must follow with the States before decisions can be taken in specific areas.

Mr Justice Williams was critical of the NSCC as a mechanism for consultation with the States. This wasat the feeling of relevant departments and your message to States yesterday suggested that with suitable upgrading of the level of representation the NSCC could fulfill an important role, at least in the early stages of consideration of the Royal Commission Report.

Security Branch 19 March 1980

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– I thank the House. Because time is short let me talk about some of the matters that we feel should be mentioned. Mr Justice Williams said that we need a strategy towards a national policy against drug abuse. He said that it was the Commission’s recommendation that the National Standing Control Committee will no longer have any useful purpose. We want to make it very clear that that Committee has only a limited co-ordinating role basically related to the bureaucracy. What we do need is a special force as I have outlined. We want to see co-operation; we want to see gathering of intelligence on a national basis.

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

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– At the very outset I take the opportunity of thanking the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) for raising this matter of public importance. It gives us an opportunity to say what the

Government has been doing and is doing in this matter. I will refer to remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition which show that he is so very wrong in what he said. He said that the Government has no intention of doing anything. He said that the only thing the Government has done is to provide token expenditure, I think his words were, on the Customs fleet and the dog detector unit.

Mr Jacobi:

– That is true.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is not true as I will demonstrate. He said, in dealing with the law enforcement recommendations in the report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, that none of the recommendations have been adopted. In fact, the position is that they all have been adopted. I must say that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a tiger for punishment. He is like one of those persons who bashes his head against a wall and who keeps on doing it so that when he stops it will feel good. He is completely wrong in every respect.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Give us the evidence.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I shall. There are 246 recommendations in the report. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that. I shall not deal with the recommendations 1 and 2 and those dealing with Narcotics Bureau. He has just done that. They were of course adopted and the Narcotics Bureau has been disbanded and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has spent most of his time knocking the Narcotics Bureau. Also I will not deal with the matters of State responsibility. Those are matters that are not for us. I will not have time nor is it my purpose to deal with the technical recommendations that are in that report in respect of health, Customs and other matters. I want to deal specifically with the law enforcement recommendations in the Federal area. Of the 246 recommendations made in the report I have added up those recommendations relating to law enforcement and they amount to 59. It might take some time to go through them but I think it is important. The first 1 6 recommendations relate to the setting up of the National Criminal Drug Intelligence Centre. For the information of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that has been established. A meeting of police ministers was held in Melbourne on 29 August. The Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services released a Press statement which had coverage in the media. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition agrees I will have that news release incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE INAUGURAL MEETING, AUSTRALIAN POLICE MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE MELBOURNE, 29 AUGUST 1980

Commonwealth and State Police Ministers today formally agreed to the inauguration of an Australian Police Ministers’ Council. The Council, to meet initially on a six monthly basis, will include all Australian Ministers for Police, and will concentrate on expanding co-operative arrangements between respective Police Forces. The decision culminates a series of discussions and preliminary meetings, at officer level, which began in November last year.

Chairmanship of the Council will be rotated, with the Minister of the host State for each meeting accepting that responsibility.

The Ministers agreed today that the establishment of the Council was an essential first step in expanding and rationalising co-operative efforts that have previously been organised on an individual government-to-government level, and often on a one-off basis.

Ministers at today’s meeting agreed to recommend to their respective Governments proposals for the formation of an Australian Bureau of Crime Intelligence to be located in Canberra.

This decision followed a recommendation from the joint Commissioners of Police, representing the Commonwealth and all States.

The Bureau’s terms of reference will be to ‘provide facilities for the collation, analysis and dissemination of criminal intelligence, with a view to providing such to all Australian Police Forces to enable them to combat the spread of organised crime in Australia, and in particular, to assist Police to combat illicit drug trafficking.’

Reports from Mr Justice Williams to the Commonwealth and some State Governments and Mr Justice Woodward to the NSW Government, following their Royal Commission enquiries into drugs, recommended the establishment of such a Bureau.

The Bureau’s activities will focus on the whole ambit of organised crime, including illegal gambling, criminal pressure on, or infiltration of, legitimate business or trade unions, fraudulent share handling and company action, the interstate and international movement of profits from organised crime, and illicit drug trafficking

Today’s meeting proposed that the control and organisation of the Bureau be designated to a Management Council comprising Police Commissioners from all States, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth.

Under current recommendations, staff for the proposed Bureau would be seconded from Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Police Forces and related Departments. The Commonwealth had agreed to meet all basic operational costs of the proposed Bureau.

The Ministers stressed that the role of the Bureau would be confined to gathering and disseminating crime intelligence, and its functions would in no way compete with established State and Commonwealth agencies and units operating in this field.

The next meeting of the Council will be held in Perth on February 6, 1981. 29 August 1980

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I thank the House. A national criminal drug intelligence centre in fact was established on 29 August. This was the principal recommendation of the Williams inquiry. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition looks at recommendations 5, 21, 51 to 54, 63, 64, 86, 88, 101, 111, 124, 194, 202, 226 to 229, and 231-16 recommendations - he will find that this intelligence centre is featured in each of them. This centre obviously requires co-operation between the States. The Commonwealth cannot go it alone and neither can the States. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that. At the police commissioners meeting held in March of this year and also at the meeting held in August it was recommended to all State governments and the Commonwealth Government that this body be set up. The name proposed for this body was the Australian Bureau of Crime Intelligence. It was to be established with all police forces in Australia participating. That was a point that the Deputy Leader sought to make. It will cover all crime intelligence including drug intelligence. The detailed planning to establish the crime intelligence system is well advanced.

Legislation relating to the 1 6 recommendations was introduced by the Government and passed by the Parliament in November. That enabled the Australian Federal Police to intercept telephone calls and to use listening devices in respect of narcotics trafficking. I would like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to indicate where he stands on that issue. In one breath he tends to knock the use of listening devices and the tapping of telephones and criticises police for doing that and in the next–

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am pleased to say now that he says he does not and that the Opposition supports the use of those procedures.

Recommendations 118 to 124 deal with international law enforcement initiatives. The implementation of these recommendations is well advanced. Australia continues to concentrate its international efforts in the South East Asian area, and public announcements have been made about these matters. However, I should like to mention them in the 1 5 minutes available to me. Australia continues to support and provide aid for crop substitution programs in South East Asia. For example, $700,000 is included as being spent on anti-narcotics projects between 1978 and 1981. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned dog training assistance, which really is a very important part of the process of drug detection. Australia also is concerned with the training of South East Asian law enforcement officers. In the present Budget the Government has agreed to spend $250,000 on aid to Thailand for the purchase of equipment. It will also continue its practice of posting drug intelligence liaison officers in South East Asia. Australia continues to support the United Nations organisations which are working to combat international drug trafficking.

The report deals with co-operation between the Australian Federal Police and State police forces. Twelve recommendations relate to that matter, and their implementation is well advanced. The Australian Police Ministers Council, recommended by Sir Robert Mark, has been established. Sir Colin Woods, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, who is at present overseas, is achieving considerable co-operative measures with the commissioners of the State police forces. Australian Federal Police officers operate jointly with the Northern Territory Police drug squad, and we have a similar close working relationship with all the States. I have been around all the States and I have seen it with my own eyes. A combined Australian Federal Police-New South Wales drug task force is operating, particularly in respect of heroin trafficking in New South Wales. Honourable members will remember that the New South Wales Premier and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have just agreed to expand the work of the joint task force to investigate the Nugan Hand bank.

Every State police force is co-operating in the establishment of the National Crime Intelligence Bureau. Audit controls have been reviewed and strengthened. Courses at the Australian Police College at Manly have been upgraded. The thrust of all police drug enforcement is being directed at traffickers, using the method of targeting. The recommendation on the media is being implemented by specific police officers, who are available to the media to provide information. We see them at times on television and hear them on radio.

Eleven recommendations - namely, recommendations 74, 94, 95, 96 and 98 and recommendations 178 to 183 - relate to forensic support. Once again, those recommendations require close State and Commonwealth co-operation because forensic skills are more advanced in some places than they are in others. The State governments are in the process of forming their views on these recommendations. The financial aspects of drug trafficking are dealt with in recommendations 66, 191, 192, 193, 198, 199 and 200. All seven of those recommendations are being implemented. Officers of the Federal Police are working closely with officers of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Drug units throughout Australia and the Australian Federal Police- New South Wales task force are concentrating on the financial aspects of drug trafficking because very often the people who profit most from drug trafficking are not themselves drug traffickers. The National Crime Intelligence Bureau will play a vital role in assembling all this information for the drug units in the field.

Four recommendations deal with allegations of corruption, namely, recommendations 67, 69, 70 and 7 1 , and all those recommendations have been implemented. An internal affairs investigation division has been created in the Federal Police to investigate allegations of corruption or misconduct. The Commonwealth Ombudsman is available and has investigated a couple of complaints. All the State police forces have their own internal investigation divisions. There is co-operation between the Federal Police and the Bureau of Customs, and recommendations 3 and 47 relate to this item. A joint directive was given by the Minister for Administrative Services and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) in February of this year. The directive provides for the operational arrangements between the two agencies at entry points into Australia.

Honourable members will find that the recommendations dealing with law enforcement have been or are being implemented. Therefore, what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said was completely and absolutely wrong. I think it is fair to say that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was also critical of the success rate.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The coroner made the point.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– He said that since the Federal Narcotics Bureau was digested by the Federal Police only a few pounds of cocaine has been located.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That is right.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be interested to know the true position. The information I have deals with major arrests for drug trafficking this year. Investigations by the joint task force led to the arrest in April of four persons who were the main distributors of heroin in the King Cross and inner city area of Sydney. Acting on information received concerning a delivery of heroin, personnel of the joint task force- I stress that this included New South Wales Police- searched premises at Edgecliff and seized heroin with a street value of over $100,000. Weapons and ammunition were also found on the premises. Other searches were made of premises at Paddington and Balgowlah.

So far as the joint police group is concernedthis is the group headed by Commissioner Hall, who was mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - a syndicate group was arrested in Melbourne, and it is believed that about $10m worth of heroin was involved. That is hardly a minor, trifling success. In September this year the Australian Federal Police also arrested another Melbourne group which was alleged to have imported heroin worth $225,000. As recently as 20 August there was a seizure of $3m-worth of cocaine following a raid on a house at Cremorne in Sydney, when two persons were arrested. This is the largest seizure of cocaine ever made in Australia. In February of this year, as a result of liaison between the Federal drug liaison officer in Kuala Lumpur and the Malaysian and Singaporean authorities, two suitcases containing nearly 3,000 grams of heroin were detected and two persons were arrested. On 1 June a 24-year- old male, who had a package in his stomach containing 19 grams of heroin, was arrested at Melbourne Airport.

I think there is clear evidence that detection and arrests are proceeding very smoothly. From memory, about 130 or 140 people worked for the old Federal Narcotics Bureau at the time it was disbanded, and of that number, 83 were transferred into the Federal Police. The information coming to me, and I move around at all levels of the Federal Police in all States, is that there is great co-operation within the force and that those who have been transferred are now established in their various rate structures. I completely reject the assertions of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition. I claim that the force is going very well, and I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition most sincerely for the opportunity to put these remarks on the record.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– It is somewhat sad that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) should use an occasion such as this to thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) for raising a matter of pu”blic importance when in fact only four members of this House will be allowed to debate a report of national significance and importance to every man, woman and child in Australia. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made some very serious allegations about the essential recommendations in the report of the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. He said that those recommendations dealing with the creation of central structure to update our drug enforcement agencies at a national level had not been implemented. What was the Minister’s answer to that allegation? The Minister confidently asserted that as recently as August, a national intelligence criminal centre had been established. That had been the occasion for a Press release by the relevant Victorian Minister. I put it to the Minister that that is evidence of police initiative - a welcome police initiative but, is it the same thing as implementing the recommendations of the Williams report which did not include a recommendation in respect of the creation of a national intelligence criminal centre, however desirable that might be? The Williams report was quite specific. What it recommended was the establishment of a national intelligence drug centre, which is not the same thing. I suspect that the Minister, in his enthusiasm to suggest that the Government has acted in respect of the Williams report, was prepared to gloss over the very significant differences.

What was the situation surrounding the Williams report? At the time that report was brought down the New South Wales royal commission had found that highly organised crime syndicates were poised to flood the State with heroin and already controlled much of the marihuana market. That was at a time when heroin use in New South Wales had gone up by 24 per cent in two years. The New South Wales report stated that 26,300 people were hard drug users in the country. The report came at a time when Commonwealth and State law enforcement officers knew that drugs were being illegally imported into Australia and were being smuggled across international boundaries. So there was a clear Commonwealth constitutional responsibility to act, to defend the Australian community and our youth from these international crime syndicates and and their dealers in death.

Is it any wonder that Mr Justice Williams appropriately used the term ‘national emergency’? What a situation he found. We learnt that our own Narcotics Bureau had been infiltrated by organised crime and that these international syndicates had access to confidential files. Has that situation been rectified? The Minister was silent on that. The Victorian police believed that it was a major factor in the murder of two of their informers, the Wilsons. Think of the enormity of that. What is the allegation? The allegation was that organised crime could so infiltrate the Bureau controlled by Ministers of this Government that it could be provided with information in respect of informers operating with the Victorian Police Force and a hit man could be sent out to exterminate the informers. That is the serious allegation. Was it answered or dealt with in any way at all by the Minister? Oh, no! He assured us that all was well because the police commissioners had got together and we now had a national crime structure. I put it to the Minister that we have not got the structure recommended by the Royal Commission. I invite him to inform the House whether we have in fact implemented the central recommendations of the Williams report. What were those recommendations?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I just went through them.

Mr HOLDING:

– With great respect, the Minister does not have a reputation for knowing what goes on in his Department. He says that all these recommendations are being acted on. I suggest that what he ought to do is to make time available in this House so that we can debate the Williams report and he can tell us what his glossy record is. We will be very happy to learn of the details. But how can we trust this Minister or this Government when it was an essential recommendation of the Williams report that we needed to establish as a matter of urgency a national criminal drug intelligence organisation which would be staffed by federal police officers, by selected persons from Customs, and by police seconded from the State police forces. Does the Minister say that that has happened?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Yes, I just said it.

Mr HOLDING:

– No, what the Minister said was that an intelligence centre had been created. There is a very real difference. The other central aspect was that as these organisations were established and brought into being a number of organisations currently in existence would disappear. One of those organisations was the Narcotics Bureau. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already dealt with that and I do not propose to reiterate his arguments. The other organisation which was to disappear was the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence. There was a very specific recommendation about that. Indeed, His Honour Mr Justice Williams made it clear in his report that he did not regard that body as appropriate to try to produce any coordinated response from the States. Yet, within a matter of days of that report being implemented who does the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) vest with the responsibility of implementing or giving effect to the recommendations of the Williams report? I quote page 866 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 18 March 1980 where the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) is recorded as saying:

The Prime Minister has written to the State Premiers and to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory suggesting that the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence- NSCC- which has existed since 1969 for deliberation amongst the various Commonwealth, State and Territory bodies . . . might provide an appropriate forum . . .

So the very body which Mr Justice Williams recommended ought to be disbanded, the very body which he recommended ought to be phased out, the very body which he felt could perform no useful function, was the very body which was given this responsibility. Not only was that body given this responsibility but the Government, while paying lip service to the implementation of the Williams report, had its Prime Minister briefed on potential questions in this House on the basis that if a question were asked relating to what the Government proposed to do about the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs and what mechanisms were proposed for consultations with the States, the Prime Minister was to say that in principle the Government supported the decisions but the consultations would involve the States, principally through the National Standing Control Committee which has a useful breadth of representation. Of course, the thrust of the proposed answer was that the Prime Minister ought to make it clear that it really is very complicated talking to the States about these issues which the States regard as matters of urgency and that talks would take some time. The Prime Minister has been found out. The Minister has been found out. The people of Australia could have a ‘fix’ nationally before this Government gets down to doing anything effective about implementing the recommendations of the Williams inquiry.

I suggest that when the Minister quotes the statistics of people arrested, all that proves is what Mr Justice Williams said - that there is a national emergency; that this country is increasingly becoming a national target for drug syndicates. All the evidence he gives indicates the activities of drug smugglers have increased, not lessened. Any arrest, whether it is made by a State authority or a police authority is welcome. This Government has endeavoured to gild the lily. It has not allowed the Parliament to debate the essential recommendations of the Williams report. But what is even more serious to the people of Australia who want some real and effective action, is that it has not implemented the most important aspects of the report and it has left in being structures which will not really assist the effective enforcement and development of drug laws in Australia and the prosecution of these people who traffic in human misery. The Government is permitting structures to exist which will impede that development.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Hon. J. D. M. Dobie

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– Any constructive contribution that would assist in reducing the serious drug trafficking problem in Australia would be welcome. If today there had been a constructive contribution from the Opposition the Government would certainly have welcomed it. Regrettably, we have seen a prize piece of political posturing designed to attack two honourable Ministers, one of whom is the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) who took part in the Government’s decision to set up a royal commission. I ask: What more could he have done at that time? A royal commission was set up and the Commonwealth Government and four State governments issued writs for its establishment. The commissioner was to report back to all those governments. Subsequently the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) has taken many steps to ensure that the major recommendations of that royal commission are implemented. We have heard of the new structures that will be announced and are being developed.

Let me point out to the Opposition one of the most important of the recommendations of the Williams Royal Commission which has been adopted by this Government but which has not been adopted by the Labor Government of New South Wales. That is the recommendation that mandrax, described by the royal commissioner as the most abused prescribed drug in Australia, should be completely prohibited. Mandrax is a very serious drug. There have been instances of its use with alcohol by school children. The royal commissioner specifically found that there had been experimentation with mandrax followed by increased use in conjunction with other drugs, particularly alcohol, in search of bizarre effects.

The Royal Commission recommended that as the degree of abuse was so widespread within Australia it was necessary that it should be absolutely prohibited from importation and its use or possession after 30 June 1 980 should be absolutely prohibited in any part of the Commonwealth of Australia. This Government has prohibited the import of mandrax as of 30 June 1980 in accordance with that recommendation. It is not manufactured in Australia but there are still substantial stocks which were previously manufactured and which are still being sold in New South Wales. The Labor State Government so far has done nothing to implement that most vital recommendation about the most abused prescribed drug in Australia. So let the Labor Opposition go to the New South Wales Government and demand that it play its part in one of the major recommendations of this Royal Commission that we have played our part in. Let us not hear these arguments about so-called structures. Let us have some practical implementation by the Labor

Government of New South Wales of this extremely important recommendation about an extremely important drug - a devastating drug which particularly affects the young people of Australia.

The next point I want to deal with relates to the Narcotics Bureau. One of the major recommendations - the prime recommendation- came out in the interim report. The Narcotics Bureau was described as an organisation that was not highly efficient as an enforcement agency. In the Williams Commission report there was not specific reference to corruption within the narcotics agency- those allegations have come from elsewhere. But this Government specifically decided to adopt the interim recommendation as a matter of urgency. I invite the Opposition to read pages B162 and B163 of the Williams report, which sets out all that the Royal Commission decided about the efficiency and standing of the Narcotics Bureau. This Government specifically went out of its way to implement the interim report well ahead of the final report. To say that the Narcotics Bureau system has not been effectively dealt with by the Government is a complete sleight of hand.

The quotations from the Wilson coronial inquiry referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) are quotations in which the coroner referred to events which took place 18 months ago. What the coronor said about the corruption that he found to exist amongst certain narcotics officers was based upon factual material 18 months ago. Since that time this Government has disbanded the Narcotics Bureau and its personnel, except those who wanted to get out, have in the main transferred to the Australian Federal Police, the new police force that this Government has set up. It is the job of Sir Colin Woods, the highly respected leader of that police force, to ensure that any personnel who have been taken into the Federal Police are efficient and do their job properly. It is his job to ensure that his new force is operating properly. I believe that he is an outstanding police officer and that he is welding and moulding an outstanding Federal Police force. It seems to me that that has been acknowledged throughout Australia.

The attack on the present construction of the Australian Federal Police and the attack that was made today, which suggested that within that Federal Police today are officers who are not worthy to hold their positions and that there are other officers who are suspicious of some officers in the police force, is a direct attack on Sir Colin Woods, who has the responsibility for ensuring that the Federal Police force operates properly.

The regrettable part of the Opposition’s attack is that it can do nothing but mischief in trying to lead to lack of confidence by the public in the Federal law enforcement agencies in this country. That Federal law enforcement agency newly constituted under an excellent commissioner should be given the highest degree of support from all sides of the political spectrum, including the Opposition, which should not attack it.

I turn now to the other things which this Government has done but which the Opposition failed to recognise. An attack was made on the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence. It is true that Mr Justice Williams thought it should eventually be disbanded, but he gave it specific roles as are required to set up, between the Commonwealth and the States, new and appropriate machinery. That work is going ahead. Only last week it was announced that an Australian bureau of criminal intelligence will be set up between the Commonwealth and State police forces and will be a valuable additional aid to stamping out crime in this area. A national approach is being developed. The Williams report is the only national report. The Sackville report in South Australia dealt with welfare aspects in that State. The first Woodward report in New South Wales dealt almost solely with the Griffith situation and the second report, which to a great extent was an extraordinary recantation dealt specifically with certain criminal activities in the inner city of Sydney. The Opposition would be well advised not to attack this Government on the question of organised crime. All it has to do is ask a certain Mr Baldwin, who has made statements in New South Wales openly attacking his party colleagues or cohorts for having turned upon him. He has said that his assault was the subject of organised criminal activity.

The other attack that was made on this Government was a claim that we are not allowing sufficient debate on this matter. The Government allowed a lengthy statement to be made in the House and the Opposition had the opportunity in the usual way to reply, and we are having this debate today. In New South Wales the Premier, Mr Wran, said that the Woodward report would not gather dust. Yet his Government has refused to allow it to be debated. It cannot even be debated. Mr Hatton, the Independent member for the South Coast, said on the Caroline Jones show the other day, that he was disgusted that the New South Wales Government would not even debate the Woodward report. He wants to know what it is afraid of in New South Wales. It has not done anything about finding an answer to the Donald Mackay situation. There have been some attempts to cover the issue by the New South Wales Premier coming back from holidays and talking about getting the Australian Labor Party out of local government in New South Wales. Why will it not debate the Woodward report? What is it afraid of? The New South Wales Government is not prepared to be serious about these matters. The sooner the Opposition joins with us in applauding the Federal initiatives the better. More are yet to come. This Government will do more, and we welcome anybody, including the Opposition, who will help to eradicate the drug trade. The sooner the Opposition asks the New South Wales Government to ban the sale of mandrax and to debate the Woodward report the better.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) - Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 1010

COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employ ment and Youth Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Copyright Act in relation to photocopying, copying for handicapped readers, and record and film piracy.

Photocopying

The most extensive provisions in the Bill relate to photocopying, or to be more precise, reprographic reproduction of works, and they arise out of recommendations made in the report of the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction. I shall refer to that Committee as the Franki Committee, in recognition of its distinguished Chairman, Mr Justice Franki. The Franki Committee was appointed in 1974 by the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy. Its terms of reference were cast in very wide terms so that it could consider all the copyright implications of photocopying developments. In doing so it was required to consider the need for a proper balance of interest between owners of copyright and the users of copyright material.

The Franki Committee furnished its report to the Attorney-General in October 1976.I wish, at this point, to express the Government’s gratitude to Mr Justice Franki and to members of the Committee for the service which they have rendered to the community in this most difficult area. In its report the Committee noted that, as a result of developments in reprographic reproduction of published material, large numbers of people now have the facility to reproduce copyright material without having to resort to the laborious methods that had previously limited the quantities of material copied. In these circumstances infringing copying can take place without the knowledge of the copyright owner who, from a practical standpoint ; is unable to enforce his rights.

A tension had thus developed between the expectations of many copyright owners that they should benefit from the greater availability of their works, on the one hand, and, on the other, the needs of the community for ready access to information and knowledge. As the basis of its approach the Franki Committee adopted the following passage of the 1959 report of the Copyright Law Review Committee:

The primary end of the law on this subject is to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. On the other hand, as copyright is in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered.

The problem is not peculiar to Australia. The problems considered by the Franki Committee are engaging the attention of copyright experts and governments in many countries, but an early international consensus on how to deal with those problems is unlikely. For its part, the Franki Committee concluded that a reasonable amount of unremunerated copying by a person, at least for research or study, should be allowed. The Committee rejected as inappropriate proposals that would require payment on a per page basis to individual owners of copyright for all reprographic copies made.

The Committee pointed out that the rights of the copyright owner have never been absolute in the sense that no dealing at all with his work could ever take place without his consent. It drew particular attention to the right to copy minor or insubstantial parts of a work; the right to make copies in the course of what is known in copyright law as a ‘fair dealing’; and the right to engage in copying of a public benefit nature by librarians, educational bodies, research establishments and individuals.

The Committee was of the view that much of the photocopying taking place is likely to be within these existing exceptions and that the appropriate course, in the light of photocopying developments, would be to retain those exceptions but to modify or extend them to meet modern needs. At the same time the Committee saw a need to ensure that copyright owners were fairly remunerated in certain fields of multiple copying carried out by educational establishments.

The Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Franki Committee, which I shall now briefly explain. More detailed explanations are provided in the explanatory memorandum I have circulated. I have mentioned the existing right of a person to copy only an insubstantial part of a work in which copyright exists. The Franki Committee was aware of difficulties that arise in this connection but considered it impractical to attempt to lay down any tests to determine what is an insubstantial part of the work. I have also mentioned the ‘fair dealing’ exception. The Committee recommended that this exception be retained in relation to photocopying, but subject to the following amendments:

  1. Inclusion of guidelines in regard to what constitutes a fair dealing, coupled with a conclusive presumption that copying within certain specified limits constitutes such a dealing.
  2. Omission of the word ‘private’ from section 40, thereby removing the existing arbitrary distinction between a fair dealing for private study and one for other educational purposes.
  3. Inclusion of a provision to make it clear that the installation of self-service copying machines in libraries does not of itself impose any liability for copyright upon the librarian or the librarian’s employer provided notices in a prescribed form are displayed drawing users’ attention to the relevant provisions of the Act.

Copying by librarians falls into two main classes. One class includes copying for users of the libraries; the other includes copying for other libraries. The Franki Committee viewed libraries as information resource centres with a legitimate need to copy material. As in the case of copying by individuals, the Committee considered and rejected proposals for royalties to be payable on such copying.

Section 49 of the Act already makes provision for copying by libraries for students and members of parliament. The Franki Committee noted that the degree of copying permitted under that section is considered appropriate by most librarians. It is also noted, however, that librarians were finding difficulty in determining what constitutes a ‘reasonable portion’ of a work for the purpose of section 4. The Committee was not able to formulate a more satisfactory expression than ‘reasonable portion’ but it proposed the addition of a provision to make it clear that the expression covers at least one chapter or 10 per cent of the number of pages in an edition. Other changes proposed by the Committee in relation to copying by a library for users are:

  1. The existing requirement that the librarian be satisfied as to the purpose for which the copy is required be changed so that it is sufficient if the librarian or person acting on his behalf receives in good faith a signed statement declaring that the purpose falls within the section and that the copy will not be used for any other purpose.
  2. The inclusion of provisions permitting the copying of an entire work or more than a reasonable portion of it where an unused copy of the work cannot be obtained within a reaonable time at a normal commercial price.
  3. The existing requirement in section 49 that the person supplied with a copy pay not less than the cost of making the copy be changed to a prohibition of any charge in excess of the cost of making the copy.

I turn now to inter-library loans. The Franki Committee was satisfied of the desirability of facilitating such loans, particularly in the scientific and technical field. Provision for such loans at present exists in section 50, the detailed provisions of which, however, the Committee concluded were unsatisfactory. It, accordingly, proposed the following amendments:

  1. The protection to the supplying librarian should not, as it does now, depend on whether the requesting librarian complies with the section or upon the acts of the person to whom the copy is supplied by the requesting librarian.
  2. The position of the requesting librarian should be equated to the position I have already discussed of a librarian under section 49.
  3. The protection of section 50 should not apply to a borrowing by a library for its own collection.

Section 50 has been remade. Inter-library loan requests need not be in writing and copying by the supplying library is deemed to have been on behalf of the requesting library which has to make all necessary inquiries and obtain or make the required declarations which it keeps. The supplying library is not required to be supplied with any documentation and is exempted from infringment in respect of such copying with any action being deemed to be against the requesting library.

Certain other recommendations relating to libraries and archives have been incorporated in the Bill. The main provisions of the Bill giving effect to these recommendations are as follows:

  1. A library or archives is to be able to copy an unpublished work for the purpose of preservation, security or research use.
  2. A library or archives is to be able to copy a published work for the purpose of replacement of a copy that is damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen, where an unused copy cannot be obtained within a reasonable time at a normal commercial price.
  3. A library or archives to be able to make one microfilm or microfiche copy of a work where it is intended to destroy the original.

The proposals I have mentioned provide for the making of individual copies only. In addition to those proposals the Franki Committee recommended that provision be made for multiple copying when carried out in non-profit educational establishments. These proposals are possibly the most significant advanced by the Committee. Some provision for multiple copying is already made in section 200 of the Act but the provision in that section is not applicable to photocopying and is regarded by the Committee as unsatisfactory. The Committee was satisfied that multiple copying was taking place in educational establishments and that it was likely that some of that copying was an infringment of copyright under the existing law.

To the extent that there was a demand for the making of multiple copies for use in educational establishments the Committee considered that the copyright law should accommodate that demand. On the other hand, it also considered that where the copying represented a substantial use of the property of a copyright owner it should not be carried out without provision for remuneration to that owner. The Committee pointed out that it is open to an educational establishment to seek permission from a copyright owner to make multiple copies of his work and to pay such royalties as the owner may demand. But the Committee’s view was that in most cases it is not practicable to obtain such specific permission in advance.

In these circumstances the Committee proposed a statutory licence scheme. Under the scheme non-profit educational establishments would be granted a statutory licence to make multiple copies of works subject to recording any such copying and an obligation to pay an appropriate royalty if demanded by the copyright owner within a prescribed time. The precise nature of the provisions for fixing any such remuneration was a matter on which there was a division of opinion between members of the Franki Committee. The approach adopted by the Bill is that the remuneration should be negotiated between the parties concerned but if they are unable to reach agreement the Copyright Tribunal will have the function of arbitrating between them.

The keeping by educational establishments of proper records of the copying they carry out pursuant to this statutory licence will, of course, be a matter of great importance since it will be the basis of claims for remuneration by copyright owners. These may be held by the institution or by a central records authority. In recognition of this need the Bill makes it an offence to carry out such copying and not keep the required records for the prescribed time. In addition there are provisions which will enable the entitlement of an educational establishment to participate in the scheme to be cancelled if it should be convicted more than once of such an offence.

The Bill provides, as was foreshadowed in the Attorney-General’s Press announcement of the Government’s decision to introduce this legislation, that records should be kept in a manner which will enable the person whose works have been copied to obtain details of that copying without having to examine the details of other copying. That provision should ensure that the records are readily examinable by authors without imposing an onerous burden upon institutions.

Before deciding to implement the proposals of the Committee for multiple copying the Government gave close consideration to alternative proposals submitted to it by the Australian Copyright Council. Those proposals envisaged a voluntary licence scheme, which would apply when a collecting agency reached an agreement with an educational establishment. Under that scheme all authors would have to depend on the collecting agency whether they were members of it or not. The Government concluded that it would not be appropriate to place authors in that position. In saying this I wish to make it very clear that the scheme provided for in the Bill in no way precludes parties from entering into voluntary licensing arrangements. Given the increase in the number of categories of copying which will be permitted under the Bill if a copyright owner is to be able to proceed upon discovering a copy, it is necessary that he know certain information.

Accordingly, the Bill provides that where a copy is made in reliance upon one of the provisions a note must be made on the copy stating the name of the institution making the copy and the date upon which it was made. Failure to note the copy will prevent the copier from relying upon any of those provisions to gain immunity from infringement proceedings.

Copyright for Handicapped Readers

In announcing the Government’s decision to introduce this legislation, I stated that the Bill would include provisions to alleviate the copyright problems at present confronting educational establishments assisting visually handicapped people. There is a simple need, imperative in a modern community, for the blind to be able to study and to learn. As was stated more than a century ago by Louis Braille, himself blind, ‘Without books the blind simply cannot learn’.

The Government has received representations, as did the Franki Committee, although they were outside its terms of reference, regarding difficulties experienced by institutions in obtaining the permission of copyright owners to reproduce published works for the use of handicapped readers. The point of complaint was not that permission had been refused but that there have been troublesome delays which impose difficulty upon students. Students have to comply with the demands of their courses and undergo great hardship if, at the time of classroom instruction or examination upon a particular work, they have not been able to obtain the copyright owner’s permission for it to be reproduced in a form which they can use. Such a student is, by reason of his handicap, in the unique position of being unable to ‘read’ a work even though it has already been made available to the general public.

The scheme proposed and included in the Bill is a logical extension of that provided to permit educational institutions to make multiple copies of works for teaching purposes. It also recognises the needs of handicapped readers to have access to informational material. A statutory licensing scheme is established under which an institution assisting handicapped readers will be able to make a sound recording or large print, braille or photographic version of published copyright material for the research, study or informational purposes of a reader, without the permission of the copyright owner, and without being at risk as to infringement.

Handicapped readers who will benefit from the scheme comprise the blind- and those suffering severe visual impairment. Also included are the physically handicapped who cannot hold or manipulate books, or focus or move their eyes, and those suffering from perceptual handicaps. The institutions entitled to the statutory licence are educational institutions and institutions specified by regulation. The statutory licence will not allow the making of a sound recording or large print, braille or photographic version of a work if such a version is commercially available.

The copyright owner will be entitled to receive fair remuneration for reproduction of his work. To this end the institution must keep appropriate copying records which will form the basis for a copyright owner’s claim for remuneration. The Copyright Tribunal may determine this if the owner and the institution cannot reach agreement. Copyright will not vest in the maker of the handicapped readers copy by reason of the making of that copy. As a result institutions assisting handicapped readers will be able to copy handicapped readers’ copies made by each other unless to do so would involve infringement of the copyright in the original work.

The Government is aware that certain institutions assisting the blind and the visually restricted have already come to satisfactory arrangements with publishers regarding reproduction of copyright works. The provisions introduced by the Bill need not affect those arrangements; indeed, the right of a copyright owner and an institution to make arrangements alternative to those of the statutory scheme is specifically preserved.

Record and Film Piracy

I now leave the matter of the photocopying and copying for handicapped readers for a different but very important subject dealt with by the Bill, namely provisions which will increase substantially the penalties for record and film piracy. Under section 132 of the Act, it is an offence to sell, exhibit in public by way of trade, or import into Australia for such purposes, articles which the person engaging in those acts knows to infringe copyright material. The penalties provided were satisfactory when piracy was a relatively rare event undertaken by isolated individuals. Today it is a highly organised business facilitated by the spread of cheap, fast copying equipment. Recordings are often manufactured in, and exported from, countries with inadequate copyright laws where no primary recording costs are borne and no royalties are paid to the artists or composers.

Australian record industry sources estimate the value of retail sales lost to cheaper pirated tapes to be in the region of $ 10m annually, and rapidly increasing. Film and television production sources have indicated that the situation is equally serious in the case of films and have requested that a separate and higher penalty apply in that case to reflect the higher value of film prints. To meet these problems maximum penalties for offences will be substantially increased and the Federal

Court of Australia is to be invested with jurisdiction. For example, the penalty for importing an infringing article will be increased from $10 to $1 50 per article, $1,500 in the case of a cinematograph film, with a limit of $1,500 for articles in the same transaction- $10,000 in the Federal Court. Provisions are also added to permit confiscation of equipment used to make pirated recordings.

Conclusion

As the Bill is a long one, I do not propose to detain honourable members at this stage by describing the provisions of the Bill in greater detail. The detailed explanation of the provisions is set out in the explanatory memorandum which I have distributed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1014

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1980-81

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– The people of Australia need ask themselves only one question about the economic proposals outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. That question is this: How is it possible for anyone with a sense of responsibility and real concern for this country’s welfare to promise further tax cuts and, simultaneously, massive spending increases? This is the act of a political charlatan, a conjurer. It is what can be expected, I suppose, from a man who was Treasurer during the most appalling period of economic blundering that this country has known. The thing that will disappear in this sleight of hand is economic responsibility, the kind of responsibility that is essential if the real interests of the Australian people are to be looked after. The real interests of the Australian people lie in keeping a firm hand on inflation, and that is what the Labor Party simply will not do. It takes the easy way out. It promises all sorts of things that will cost a lot of money, and then it promises to reduce the amount of money it will have available to meet these promises. Only the Leader of the Opposition would try to have people believe that they can pay less and get more. Any party that thinks it can promise higher spending and lower taxes without printing money that will water down the worth of everyone’s income and savings and put more people out of work is fooling itself and trying to fool the whole country.

What worries me and many other people about the Labor Party’s policies is their deceptiveness. Labor’s promises on fuel prices are the worst examples of this deceptiveness. The Leader of the Opposition continually tells the nation that Labor will reduce fuel prices. The impression he seeks to create, and he does it deliberately, is that Labor will put an end to import parity pricing and abolish the oil levy. He tells us how dreadful import parity pricing is and seeks to convince people that Labor will abandon import parity pricing and the levy and will reduce the price of petrol. We all know that that is just an election swindle. I urge everyone to look at the Labor Party’s official policy statements and not to listen to the words of the so-called Leader of the Opposition. Labor’s official policy statements do not say anything about abandoning import parity pricing. All they say is that Labor would freeze the price of oil for 12 months. After that, there would be sixmonthly increases in line with either the consumer price index or import parity, whichever is the lower. Certainly the consumer price index will not be lower with the increase in inflation caused by Labor’s policies, so we can disregard that. What Labor is really saying, therefore, is that it would delay for six months longer than we would any increase in the price of oil and then would raise it twice a year, as is the case with the present Government’s policy. Yet the Leader of the Opposition keeps on saying that Labor will reduce the price of petrol. I think that it is about time we really tried to raise the standard of political honesty.

Let us look at some of the other parts of Labor’s deceptive promises on fuel in its so-called policy for agriculture. This is the policy that the Primary Industry newsletter described last week as ‘A mish-mash of warmed over’ ideas lacking original thinking, without much enterprise and no electoral courage. The Labor policy states that, to help farmers, Labor mieht- it does not really know what it is going to do; it has not made up its mind- reduce the excise on petrol by 3c a litre. What an enormous help that would be to farmers, most of whom run their farm machinery on distillate, on which they do not pay any excise. They already get an exemption on the excise on distillate. This is just another Labor trick, designed to con people into thinking that Labor really cares about them and that Labor knows what it is doing.

The Labor Party also says it will ensure that the fuel freight subsidy is passed on to country users. What a cheek! Here we have the party that abolished the fuel freight subsidy when it was in office now saying that it will make sure the subsidy is passed on to the consumer. It knows very well that the Commonwealth Government does not have the constitutional power to control retail prices. The Labor Party’s policy document goes on to talk about the increased costs of operating farms as a result of higher fuel prices. Then it tries to say that these costs will fall under Labor’s policies. That is just not true. Fuel prices will continue to rise, no matter whether a LiberalNational Country Party government or a Labor government is in office. Labor’s own policies make that quite clear. Yet the Leader of the Opposition continues to talk about reducing petrol prices. Labor will not reduce the price of petrol and it will not abandon import parity pricing.

The Labor Party is trying to pull another deception. It claims that this Government has reduced the living standard of Australians. As the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has already clearly shown, that claim is false. Real household disposable income is higher now than it was five years ago. The real enemy of living standards in this country is inflation. The Labor Party’s record on inflation when it was in office, its abandonment of the fight against inflation in its official conference policy decision, and its commitment to massive inflationary increases in spending brand it as the arch enemy of living standards. Of course taxes are high in this country. Why? They are high because people continue to increase their demands for government services and assistance. Nobody but the Labor Party believes that we can demand more and more from the Government and still allow the people to pay less taxes. It terrifies me that the Labor Party really believes that we can spend more and more money and pay less taxes. How incredibly stupid can it be?

What really wins the prize for deceptiveness and political dishonesty is the Labor Party’s campaign based on the alleged fall in living standards. We already know that Australians enjoy one of the best living standards in the world. Our work force gets very high wages and enjoys very good working conditions. The vast majority of Australians enjoy life in ways that people in few, if any, other countries can and we have the potential to lift those standards even higher. If the Labor Party were prepared to raise the standard of political honesty it would admit that what it is really saying about living standards is that no matter what the rate of growth in the economy, no matter what the profitability of business, no matter how much industrial disruption there may be in the coal, power and petrol industries, no matter how much productivity suffers because of those strikes, no matter what the cost, the living standards of every wage and salary earner must be raised automatically. That is the deceptive and dangerous doctrine that the Labor Party preaches. It is a doctrine that holds the most serious implications for the future of this nation.

But it is even worse than that. Not only is this a deceptive and dangerous doctrine but it is a cruel and callous one as well. Not only does the Labor Party say that wages and living standards must rise continually, no matter what the state of the economy and no matter what harm wage rises might cause. Labor also says that, no matter how many people are out of work, no matter how many people cannot find jobs and no matter how many young people face the soul-destroying search for employment, those who have jobs, high incomes and some of the best working conditions in the world are entitled to constantly rising incomes and constantly rising living standards, no matter how much harder it makes it for the unemployed to get work. Nothing exposes the real heartlessness, the callousness and the political opportunism of the Labor Party more than this deceptive campaign about living standards. The Labor Party’s alleged concern for the unemployed is exposed as utterly false when it says that, no matter how much the unemployed get hurt, those who have jobs should continue to receive pay rises, no matter what the economic conditions.

I referred a moment ago to the Labor Party’s rural policies, or lack of them. Let me say something about my party’s attitude to the primary industries and about the Government’s policies for those industries and for the people in them. The Fraser-Anthony Government, in sharp contrast with what happend under the Labor Government, has continued to follow policies designed to respond to the needs of primary industries. We must not forget that the strong primary industries are the real foundation of strong country cities and towns, and of the small businesses, of the factories, and of the shops that make up those centres. I must say that I was disappointed with the suggestion that the Government had forgotten the agricultural sector in the Budget. That is not true; neither is the claim that rural assistance in the Budget fell this year. In fact, assistance to the rural sector in the Budget shows an increase of 1 6.7 per cent - not a decrease. This is quite clear from an examination of the figures. It is to be deplored that such a misleading statement was made by people who did not look closely at the figures.

I think it is worth reminding the House of some of the things that this Government has done to assist the rural sector. We have put an enormous amount of work into developing and making secure overseas markets, which are so vital to farmers. Our market opportunities, through good and successful trade relations, have been a major factor in bringing about improved prices for many of our rural commodities. Our efforts are well known, and they are continuing at the moment in regard to trade with the European Economic Community in particular. These efforts, coupled with a reduction in the inflation rate, which soared under Labor, sensible economic policies and fortuitously good seasons, have placed the primary producers of this country in a better position than they have been in for a long time. We set up the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. We introduced income equalisation deposits and improved the tax averaging system. We applied an investment allowance to plant and equipment. We introduced major tax concessions by allowing the immediate and full write-off of expenditure on water conservation measures. We raised the floor price of wool for this season to 365c per kilo. We increased the dairy underwriting level in 1980-81 by 20 per cent. We have completely abolished estate and gift duty. We have continued to support stabilisation schemes for a range of commodities. We have greatly improved the marketing and pricing arrangements for wheat and for the domestic marketing of sugar. We gave $ 1 1 7m to beef producers to help them to battle with the disastrous collapse in prices of a couple of years ago. We have made, and are still making, most important improvements in telephone services in country areas with very important reductions in call charges. We have continued the bounties on phosphoric and nitrogenous fertilisers. We are building an animal health and quarantine station at Geelong. We are providing a subsidy on bottled gas to help country consumers.

We fully recognise the impact on farmers of higher fuel prices and we have sought to reduce the impact to some extent by providing SI 23m this year to subsidise the freight of fuel. We have embarked on a program to develop Australia’s water resources. We have not been able to go as far as we would like to go with this program, but important progress is being made. We are providing substantial funds for decentralisation, both in growth centres and more generally. We are providing funds for wool promotion and research and for rural adjustment. We are providing more funds for fisheries and for cattle disease eradication, with new tax concessions on yards and fencing that form part of this eradication campaign. The new provision for self-employed people who want to cover themselves for superannuation will be of great benefit to primary producers. There is increased help for isolated children and for people who are caring for sick relatives at home. There is also more help for people in isolated areas to seek medical treatment. Our special grants to local government, consisting of almost $ 1,000m since we came to office, have been the saviour of many country councils.

Mr Lusher:

– How much money did you say?

Mr ANTHONY:

– It is $ 1,000m since we came . to office. Country people will realise that the most important and valuable thing we can do for them is to keep a firm check on inflation. That is what we have done. There is no magic way of finding the money required for social welfare services, for health, for education, for housing and so on. I remind the House that almost half of this Budget will go to meeting people’s ordinary, everyday human needs. That money can come only from a strong and productive economy. People who accuse the Government of favouring the business sector display a complete lack of understanding of the simple fact that it is the business sector - the business sector alone - and all its facets that basically provide the financial resources for the Government’s programs. Very much the same can be said in respect of employment. This country, or any other country, can resolve its unemployment problems on a long term and lasting basis only by making sure that it has a strong, vigorous and growing private sector. In this regard our great prospects for mineral and energy development will be of tremendous importance. The creation of temporary, artificial jobs is not the answer. It might be the short term answer but it is no more than that. What is more, the short term answer will make the long term problem worse and harder to solve.

We have growth in employment. In July this year there were 212,400 more people working in Australia than there were a year earlier. That fact - the growth of employment - is never widely publicised. The number of people working in Australia is increasing all the time. The number of jobs available is increasing all the time. The problem is that new jobs are not becoming available fast enough to allow the unemployment rate to be significantly reduced. In the meantime, we are making very real efforts to help people to equip themselves to take their place in an expanding work force. But I repeat: The spending of vast sums of money to create temporary artificial jobs - probably non-productive jobs - is not the way to obtain a lasting solution to the problem. The only way to do that is to build up a strong, expanding and productive economy.

Mr Young:

– What about the rural relief scheme that you introduced in 1 971 ?

Mr ANTHONY:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide is the man who claims that for $ 1 80m he will create jobs for 100,000 people. Yet six years ago the Australian Labor Party spent $ 1 20m to create 20,000 jobs. This is the deception and the falsity of the Labor Party and its promises. Those promises cannot be accepted. The only way to build up employment is to control inflation. The Labor Party would abandon control and we would be in the same mess that we were in a few years ago. This Budget has put Australia well and truly back on the rails and this Government will keep it there.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– This Budget maintains the trend followed by the Government in deflating the economy. Total receipts in this Budget are up by 16.2 per cent and outlays are increased by only 13.7 per cent. Therein lies the story of the Budget. Over the past two years this Government has reduced the domestic deficit by $2,258m. There is now a surplus of $40m, and the contractionary line that has been this Government’s economic policy is continued. The Budget admits that there will be a rise in unemployment over the next year. Since this Government came to office unemployment has increased by 180,000. The Budget admits also that inflation and interest rates will rise. Everyone in Australia knows that the Government is merely waiting until after the election, hoping against hope that it will be returned to office, before it puts up interest rates by at least one per cent to 1 i per cent. Therein lies a message of warning and impending disaster for all the home purchasers and for all the people throughout Australia who are hoping to acquire their own homes. If this Government is re-elected we can expect interest rates to rise by one per cent to 1 i per cent at the very least. This Budget still rails against workers wage increases as being the prime cause of inflation. On page 63 of Budget Paper No. 1 we find:

The corresponding forecasts for average weekly earnings on a male unit basis, which underlie the Budget estimates for PA YE tax collections, are for a rise of 12 per cent in 1980-81 following rises of 9i per cent in 1979-80 and 71 per cent in 1978-79.

When one considers that over the past two years the increase in real wages has been less than the inflation rate, it is little wonder that this year real wages are expected to rise slightly. Furthermore, the share of the national income going to wages and salaries is now at a record all time low. In 1 966, 45.9 per cent of the national income went to wages and salaries; in 1974, it was 49.5 per cent; and in 1980 a record all time low of 43.5 per cent of the national income will go to wages and salaries, at a time of record company profitability. At the same time that this is going on personal income taxes have never been higher. I ask honourable members to look at the paltry tax cuts offered in the form of half tax indexation this financial year. That is worth 90c each week for four out of five wage and salary earners.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr WEST:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, I was saying that this Government is the highest tax government in Australia’s history. For the four out of five income earners who earn less than $300 a week and have no dependent spouse, the much publicised tax cuts of 1 July were worth only 90c a week. These are small potatoes indeed when compared with the cost of filling a six cylinder car with petrol. A family whose six cylinder car uses one tank of petrol a week now pays $12 a week more for petrol than it did when the Fraser Government took office. This Government has promised full tax indexation and the people got 90c a week.

The record of this tax indexation promise is a very sorry one. In 1976-77 the Government delivered 93 per cent tax indexation. In 1977-78 indexation was down to 80 per cent; in 1978-79 it got down to 35 per cent and in 1979-80 there was no tax indexation at all. This year the Government has got it back to 39 per cent tax indexation. Pay-as-you-earn income tax collections now represent 50 per cent of all Federal revenues in the Budget. They represented a 33 per cent increase in the last two years. But at the top end of the income scale a person earning, say, $82,000 a year is $60 a week better off now than he was when the Fraser Government took office. In addition, at least $ 1,000m is being lost to Federal revenues through tax avoidance schemes such as family trusts and so on.

The ordinary wage and salary earner is being ripped off even further by the iniquitous oil levy. The Government said that it introduced import parity pricing on oil to conserve oil and to boost oil exploration. It certainly has not been successful in achieving either of those aims to any substantial extent. The true reason, of course, for the implementation of import parity pricing was to collect revenues. The Government has been highly successful in doing that. An amount of $3, 157m is expected to be received as a result of import parity pricing this financial year. Further, another $924m will be collected as a result of the old petrol sales tax being levied at the pump.

The Government is ripping off motorists in two ways: Firstly, through the oil levy on the price of crude oil to refineries; and secondly, through the sales tax imposed on petrol at the pump. The first measure has resulted in the price of petrol increasing from 1 5.5c a litre in 1 975 to 36c a litre today or $1.60 a gallon, up from 70.8c a gallon in 1975. It is an enormous rip-off of the Australian motorist. What is more, further increases are likely. Bass Strait oil that costs $1 a barrel to produce is currently being sold at SA27.50 a barrel. The true price of oil produced by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries is $US32 a barrel. The $A27.50 a barrel charge for Australian oil is set at the Saudi Arabian light crude price. But there is every indication that the Saudis will do two things: They will cut back their oil production by at least a million barrels a day and lift their price to the full OPEC price. As every dollar a barrel increase on Australian oil means a 4c a gallon increase in the Australian petrol price, we can expect that if the Fraser Government is returned to office later this year, on 1 January petrol prices will go up by another 16c a gallon for certain. What is more, it will be an even greater increase if OPEC increases its oil prices in November at its half-yearly meeting. The Australian Labor Party pledges that it will end this nonsense and not price Australian oil at the import parity price. It will freeze the price of Australian oil for at least one year at whatever the price is when we attain office.

The Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) are basing their main election strategy, to solve unemployment, upon resource development and a minerals processing program. The cost of that program has risen from $17 billion a few months ago to a proposed $29 billion now. The program includes new coal exporting developments, the North West Shelf natural gas development for export purposes and aluminium smelters. Between $4.5 billion to $5 billion worth of capital investment is required for the aluminium smelting industry. I want to make the point that if we were to rely upon those measures alone to solve unemployment, 900,000 more people would be unemployed in 10 years time because these projects all up will produce only 100,000 permanent job’s whereas the potential labour force over the next 10 years will increase by at least one million. How does this Government propose to provide the other 900,000 jobs?

I might add that this program has caused further economic complications for the Treasury, this Government and the State governments because of the necessity for huge borrowing programs for State government infrastructures. I ask honourable members to look at some of these figures: The ordinary borrowing programs for the

State authorities now stand at $ 1,297m over the next few years. The special infrastructure borrowing program stands at $5 billion. An amount of $700m of that is to be borrowed this year. At the Premiers Conference recently a further $l,734m was authorised to be borrowed and SI, 490m of that was allocated for the construction of power stations in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. Over the next few years $ 10,000m will be required for the construction of power stations. Private capital inflow, of course, will increase as a result. I might note that that amount is now $2.6 billion for the last financial year. For this sort of capital inflow we can add the cost of the actual developments proposed. Even though I think the Government is stretching the imagination in talking about a figure of $29 billion, the figure may be close to $20 billion. That, of course, will add tremendous pressure to capital inflow payments.

Export earnings, as a result of some of these earnings, will be enormous also. About $ 1,740m will be earned from aluminium exports by about 1986, over $3 billion from coal exports and over $1 billion will be earned from liquefied natural gas. The Labor Party is not anti-development. We stand for balanced development not only in mining and mineral processing. That will have its place in the Labor Party’s economic program. We also stand committed to the maintenance and development of manufacturing industry and the service sector. I draw attention to the economic effects of an unbalanced development as proposed by this Government. Firstly, we can expect interest rates to rise by at least 1.5 per cent if the present Government wins the election. This would mean that an average housing loan of say $30,000 will incur increased repayments of over $30 a month. So we can expect interest rates to rise as a result of obsession with unbalanced development. We can expect, because there is only so much money floating in the economic washbasin, so to speak, that manufacturing industry will be squeezed. Real wages will be depressed. The dollar will possibly be revalued, with a corresponding increase in imports and a deleterious effect on manufacturing industry.

Already we have seen the cuts in the Budget outlays that are necessary to keep down the money supply increase if we are to go ahead with the sort of bullish development and massive capital inflow resulting from State infrastructure programs. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) who is trying to interject, should not argue with me about this. Even the Treasury is saying it in the Budget Papers. Even the Australian Financial Review is running editorials saying that it is time to rein in the semis. There will be no money left for anyone else or for any other industry in Australia if the Government continues on the way it is going. Even the Treasury is telling the Government this. That is why the Prime Minister and the Government were in a dilemma with regard to the framing of this year’s Budget. That is why outlays are so tight. The Government needs to keep down the money supply increase. That is why outlays to the States for public housing are only one-eighth of what they were five years ago in real terms, when we take into account repayments of previous borrowings by the States. That is why there has been no increase in the family allowance. That is why families will still have to pay over $50 a month for comprehensive health insurance. It is the reason why the unemployment benefit for people over 18 years of age without dependants has been increased by only $2 a week. The family allowance, for instance, for three children is down by almost $7 a week.

I come now to the cuts in Aboriginal programs, and I point out that the Aboriginal housing and health situation is a national disgrace. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs estimates the current need for houses for Aborigines to be 10,000. The Aboriginal population increases by 2.18 per cent each year, and we would need to construct at least 1,400 dwellings a year for approximately 10 years to meet present and future needs. A Labor government would be committed to such a program, but this Government obviously is not. There is a crisis in Aboriginal health which is evident in the mortality rates, the life expectancy rates, and the incidence of trachoma, leprosy and other infectious diseases. We need to see improvements in their environment, including housing, water supplies, waste and sewage disposal systems, and food supplies. We need to encourage healthier life styles, with Aboriginal participation in the development and operation of health services.

The present Government’s national employment strategy for Aborigines is not working. We hear much about the numbers of Aborigines placed in employment since the strategy’s inception, but after three full years the overall Aboriginal unemployment rate has remained at over 50 per cent. The Government claims that it has appropriated a total of $138m for expenditure in Aboriginal affairs, representing an increase of 19 per cent. The reality is that $ 13.8m of this appropriation is allocated to the Aboriginal Development Commission for funding the projects previously administered by the Aboriginal Loans

Commission, the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, and enterprise projects, and $10m is allocated to the Aboriginal Development Commission Capital Fund. When the $10m which cannot be used on Aboriginal programs this year is subtracted from the total appropriation of $1 38m, in fact only $128m is available this year for Aboriginal programs. When the $6.6m for programs transferred to the Northern Territory Government is added to the 1979-80 expenditure of $1 21m, we can see that last year $128m was spent on Aboriginal programs and this year too the amount will be $128m. That is a cut in real terms equal to the inflation rate.

The Aboriginal Development Commission funding is disappointing when one considers that this body replaces the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, the Aboriginal Loans Commission and the enterprises fund. The overall $3.4m increase is really only a $1.2m increase when we consider the transfer to the Commission of financial responsibility for staff and so on. This arrangement allows no real scope to initiate projects or acquire land on the scale envisaged. If the Government is serious about self-determination for Aboriginals, the role of the Aboriginal Development Commission to purchase land and acquire leases on the open market must be improved, and it will require a lot more than the $800,000 that was available to it for these purposes last year.

I want to conclude by pointing out that a Federal Labor government will confront any conservative State’s reluctance to transfer leases to the Aboriginal Development Commission and State Aboriginal land trusts, and we will use section 51 of the Constitution if necessary to assert Commonwealth responsibilities. Both the Queensland Government and the Western Australian Government now have a clear policy of obstructing the granting of traditional land rights and opposing the transfer of pastoral leases which the Aboriginal Development Commission wishes to acquire for Aboriginal communities. The disgraceful behaviour of the Court Government in Western Australia has been an international embarrassment to Australians, while the Federal Government’s pathetic plea of sadness at the invasion and desecration of sacred sites at Noonkanbah has made a mockery of its land rights policy. A Federal Labor government will not tolerate actions by racist State governments such as that of Sir Charles Court.

What has happened to the Government’s commitment to Aboriginal self-management and to improvement in Aboriginal health and environment conditions? Budget allocations to the areas of most urgent need for Aboriginal Australians are a bitter disappointment. There can be no real improvement in the Aboriginal condition until funding is substantially increased to Aboriginal housing associations, to community-based Aboriginal medical services, and to the Aboriginal Development Commission for increased emphasis on enterprise projects to provide employment. The Government has refused to do this. It hides its cuts in real terms in the Aboriginal appropriation behind a few juggled figures. It is quite apparent that the Government is not interested in improving the critical situation of Aborigines in the areas of health, housing and employment, nor is it serious about implementing its own selfmanagement policy. I know that there will be an election in the coming months, and I pledge to the Aboriginal communities and to the Aboriginal people throughout Australia that they will not be failed by a Labor government.

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Burr) adjourned.

page 1020

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

Report

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

– The Committee has considered the following proposed expenditures:

The Parliament

Department of Foreign Affairs

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Department of Administrative Services

Attorney-General’s Department

Department of Defence.

The following resolution was agreed to in relation to the proposed expenditure for the Parliament:

That the Speaker be requested early in the 32nd Parliament to convene a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee or such other group of Parliamentarians as may be determined in consultation with the respective Party Leaders - (a) to review (i) the sessional orders of the House with respect to legislation and estimates committees, and (ii) the role and efficacy of those sessional orders and (b) to make recommendations as to their role, function and structure in the 32nd Parliament.

Motion (by Mr Garland) agreed to:

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

page 1020

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

Report

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

– The Committee has considered the following proposed expenditures:

Department of Social Security

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Department of the Capital Territory

Department of Home Affairs

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Department of Health.

Motion (by Mr Garland) agreed to:

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

page 1021

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE C

Report

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

– The Committee has considered the proposed expenditures for the following departments:

Department of Employment and Youth Affairs

Department of Education

Department of Industrial Relations

Department of Science and the Environment

Department of Primary Industry

Department of Housing and Construction

Department of Transport

Motion (by Mr Garland) agreed to:

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

page 1021

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE D

Report

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– The Committee has considered the following proposed expenditures:

Department of Industry and Commerce

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Department of Productivity

Department of the Treasury

Department of Finance

Advance to the Minister for Finance

Department of National Development and Energy

Department of Trade and Resources

Department of the Special Trade Representative

Motion (by Mr Garland) agreed to:

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

page 1021

PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING FRANCHISE BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill and its companion Bill, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill, which I will introduce shortly, is to implement the legislative elements, three in all, of the Government’s policies for the petroleum retail marketing industry. First, this Bill, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill provides certain basic protection of tenure for lessee service station operators - called franchisees in the Bill - and requires disclosure of relevant information by oil companies to prospective franchisees. Secondly, the Bill prohibits, except in limited circumstances, discrimination in price in the sale of motor fuel by oil companies to their franchisees. Thirdly, the companion Bill provides for a reduction of about 50 per cent in the number of oil company operated retail sites.

The fourth element of the Government’s policies is an inquiry by the Prices Justification Tribunal. This inquiry now forms part of a more wide-ranging reference into wholesale petrol pricing which, on behalf of the Government, I have recently given to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been asked in particular to advise whether the maximum wholesale price of petrol now includes a component compensating oil companies for investment in service stations, to establish the amount of any such component and to advise the Government whether it should continue to be. included in wholesale prices.

The measures in this Bill, the companion sites Bill, and the inquiry by the PJT constitute an integrated policy which the Government has developed to deal with the serious problems that have arisen in the petroleum retail marketing industry over a number of years. These problems have not appeared overnight. There has been a long history of discontent and a great deal of criticism of certain practices in the industry.

Following the highlighting of serious problems in the industry by the Royal Commission on Petroleum, as stated in its fourth report in 1976, the Government, while rejecting the Royal Commission’s recommendations to establish a regulatory agency was not unconcerned at many of the facts uncovered by the Royal Commission. It believed however, that it was primarily for interested groups within the industry to develop practical solutions to the industry’s problems. The Government was prepared to assist parties to find solutions rather than to impose solutions on the industry.

Following continued sustained criticism of marketing practices the Government established the Oil Industry Marketing Consultative Committee which comprised representatives of all sectors of the industry. The purpose of the Committee was to provide the Government with a source of information on the marketing aspects of the industry. Subsequently, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced in November 1 977 that he would take steps to bring suppliers and retailers together in conference under the auspices of the Government to examine how more equitable distribution and marketing policies could be developed. This Conference, the

National Oil Industry Conference, had a far broader representation than the Consultative Committee and was asked to focus its attention on possible industry solutions to problems. The Government sought to help the industry to solve its own difficulties.

When announcing the first meeting of the Oil Industry Conference, on 1 December 1977, the Prime Minister drew attention to the seriousness which the Government attached to the problems in this most important industry. He reminded the parties that if agreed solutions could not be arrived at through the Conference mechanism the Government could legislate to achieve a fair solution. Meetings of the Conference highlighted the problems of the industry and served to crystallise some of the issues. Some of the problems and issues had emerged or changed in degree since the Royal Commission’s report but unfortunately there was very little agreement between participants at the Conference. The Conference failed to find an agreed industry solution. The difficulties which were freely acknowledged within the industry and outlined in the final Conference report related particularly to alleged unfair price discrimination, vertical integration and allegations of unfair leasing arrangements between the oil companies and their lessee dealers.

I would like at this point to acknowledge the tireless and valuable work of my predecessor and colleague, the Honourable Wal Fife, now Minister for Education. He had throughout a close interest in these problems. He chaired sessions of the Conference, and followed up with discussions and correspondence with all interested parties, including representatives of dealer groups, oil companies, independent wholesalers and other transport and consumer organisations. As a result, on 30 October 1978 he announced a package of possible measures which it was thought might overcome the industry’s problems. Following further detailed examinations, this Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill are largely based on that package. Other suggested solutions have been subjected to thorough analysis but have been found to be inadequate.

During the period of policy formation the Government actively sought views and comment on the October 1978 proposals. In addition the Government commissioned a study group, led by the Honourable Sir Robert Cotton, K.C.M.G., Australian Consul-General in New York, to examine and report on retail petroleum marketing in the United States of America. Whilst there are many differences between the United States and the Australian situation the report provided valuable comparative information.

For the purpose of obtaining further information on some aspects the Government then decided, in October 1979, first, to have the Trade Practices Commission conduct a survey into price discrimination in the industry, and secondly, to expose for public comment a draft Bill dealing with the franchising element of the package. In February of this year the Government released the draft Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill for public comment and discussion. An invitation was issued to all interested persons to submit their views. On 30 May 1980, the Government received the Trade Practices Commission report which covered the period October 1979 to May 1980. This was tabled in this Parliament on 21 August 1980. The Government’s decision has followed a period of extensive and painstaking examination of the industry and its ills. There have been, over a period of almost three years, extensive discussions with organisations having an interest in the matter.

This Government is opposed to any unnecessary regulation of business. It believes that if there is a private way of fairly and properly dealing with a situation, and if there are not overriding public interest considerations requiring another course, industry should have every opportunity of finding such a way. But this Government is not a laissez-faire government. Where there are serious ills which the parties themselves cannot, or will not, resolve the Government has intervened and will intervene. In the petroleum retailing industry the Government has found it necessary to intervene to correct certain marketing practices and to maintain fair competition. The measures are necessary to maintain a vigorous and effective small business sector and for the long term competitiveness of the industry as a whole.

There is widespread support for action to deal with marketing practices and franchise relationships in this industry. Numerous representations have been received from both Government and Opposition senators and members. Strong support for legislation has also come from Ministers of State governments. Some State governments have indicated that should the Commonwealth not see fit to legislate they would consider taking unilateral action to deal with the industry in their respective States. I should add also that many individuals and business groups, from both within and outside the industry, have written to support legislation broadly along these lines. The Government’s policies contain certain modifications and refinements of the 1978 proposals, which were, of course, put forward as an outline only.

The Bill I now introduce is, in general terms, similar to the draft Bill circulated earlier this year on the major issues of disclosure of relevant information and the grounds for termination and nonrenewal. There are, however, a number of substantial amendments and many amendments of a drafting or technical nature. This Bill takes account of submissions received on the draft Bill and of further consideration of the issues, including legal issues. The amendments which have been made could not have been achieved without a great deal of co-operation from the industry and from interested parties, and I wish to thank all those who prepared submissions and were willing to give their valuable time to discuss the draft Bill.

I would like to deal at this stage with two criticisms that have been made of this Bill and of the Government’s decisions. First, I have heard it is said that there are doubts about the constitutionality of this Bill. Of course anyone who says that has not yet seen the Bill. Despite the criticisms I am advised that it is constitutionally well based.

Mr Baillieu:

– By whom?

Mr GARLAND:

– The Government advisers. The second criticism is that the Government’s decisions seem contrary to the findings of the Trade Practices Commission. The Commission was asked and did provide valuable information on price discrimination and on pricing practices in the industry. Its report gave a picture of the market over a particular period. It is a matter of inference and opinion as to how the market got that way, and the views of the Commission that price discrimination was not the problem in the industry are not inconsistent with the Government’s decisions. The Bill does not prohibit all price discrimination. Because franchisees are in a special relationship with their oil company suppliers, the Bill seeks a prohibition to prevent the possibility of unjustified price discrimination between the franchisees of an oil company. Having gone through the process I have outlined, the Government believes the Bills should become law without delay.

I now turn to some of the more important provisions of the Bill. The Bill applies, notwithstanding anything in a particular agreement, to agreements which contain all of the following three elements. First, a provision by which a corporation, the franchisor, permits another party, the franchisee, to use in connection with the retail sale of motor fuel an identifying or commonly associated mark or symbol; secondly, a provision by which the franchisor permits the franchisee to possess, occupy or use premises for the retail sale of motor fuel; and thirdly, a provision by which the franchisor agrees to supply motor fuel to the franchisee for retail sale by the franchisee or whereby the franchisee agrees with the franchisor to acquire motor fuel for retail sale from another person. It is not necessary that all elements be included in the one agreement. Pursuant to clause 6 the Bill will apply where several agreements together contain these elements.

The Bill provides in clause 3 for reasonable security of tenure for franchisees. Unless the franchisee breaches a condition of the franchise agreement, or otherwise engages in conduct which would constitute, under the Bill, a ground for termination of the agreement, the minimum term of an agreement is to be three years. The franchisee would, in most circumstances, be entitled to renewals of the franchise agreement up to a total period - the original agreement plus renewals - of not less than nine years. A franchisor may grant however an interim agreement, for a period up to ohe year, which does not carry renewal rights. An interim agreement may be granted where the prospective franchisee does not meet the experience qualifications prescribed in the Bill.

The Government has reluctantly decided that these Bills are to operate only from the date of royal assent. Although the Government indicated in the October 1978 package that if it decided to enact any measures they would be retrospective of that date, it is now considered that, if the provisions of the Bill were to operate retrospectively, they would give rise to uncertainty and likely undesirable consequences in the legal relationships between dealers and oil companies, particularly in the light of the 1979 High Court of Australia decision in the Trades Practices Commission v. Tooths & Co. Ltd, which was decided after the Government’s statement. The provisions limiting termination of franchises will pursuant to clause 6 apply only to agreements, including renewals, entered into after commencement of the Act. Most importantly however, a franchisee under an existing agreement will become entitled to a renewal on the expiration of his current agreement. At the end of each three-year period, under clause 17, the franchisor will have the option of not renewing an agreement if it wishes to sell the site or to lease it for a purpose other than the retail sale of motor fuel. In the case of a sale of a site, the franchisee will have an opportunity to buy it.

The Bill is not intended to stop, and will not stop, the process of rationalisation in this industry which all parties agree is necessary. Oil companies will be able to close a site at the end of each franchise period, or with the consent of the franchisee at any time, just like any other lessor of commercial premises. The intention of the Bill is that the operation of the industry, including rationalisation, should take place on a more equitable basis. The Bill provides, in clause 1 1 , a statutory right to assign the franchise. It is likely that the combination of these provisions will encourage franchisees to look to developing greater efficiencies in their business operations. A franchisee will be encouraged to invest in his site with the knowledge that he will be able to recover his investment, in the usual circumstances, over a period of nine years and that should the franchisor decide to dispose of the site he will have an opportunity to buy it. The right to assign will similarly encourage investment to achieve maximum efficiency as the franchisee who improves the efficiency of his site should be better able to recover his investment on assignment. Importantly, clause 1 5 of the Bill will require disclosure to a prospective franchisee of information known to the franchisor or related corporations which is material and relevant to the operation and profitability of the site.

The Bill provides private rights for franchisees to bring actions for compensation, to challenge a purported termination and to prevent a contravention of the Bill - for example, clauses 21, 22 and 17. I emphasise that the Government has deliberately chosen not to set up a regulatory agency. It believes the best course is to provide rights as between the parties and to provide machinery for parties to protect those rights.

One of the areas in which complaints have been received over a long period is that of alleged discrimination in supply in times of supply shortage or following an industrial dispute which has disrupted normal supply patterns. Clause 10 of this Bill requires the franchisor, subject to the operation of any emergency law, to supply the franchisee with his reasonable requirements of motor fuel, provided of course the franchisee complies with the terms of the agreement as to payment.

The draft Bill exposed in February this year included a rigid formula to determine allocation of supplies to franchisees in times of shortage. The Government recognises that a rigid formula can be inefficient and in particular situations counterproductive. What is needed in times of shortage or disruption to distribution is for each oil company, in good faith and in the circumstances of the particular situation, to allocate and distribute supplies in a fair and efficient manner, having regard to the needs of its customers, including franchisees, and the public. In times of shortage of supplies, an industrial dispute or circumstances beyond its control under sub-clause 10 (5), the franchisor will be required to use its best endeavours to allocate available supplies fairly as between franchisees, and between franchisees and other customers.

The Government understands that oil companies have taken steps to devise and operate fair and efficient allocations systems to apply when normal supplies cannot be maintained. It is also understood that some companies have invited dealer representatives to observe allocations following industrial disputes and that the dealer representatives have been satisfied as to the fairness of these operations. The Government welcomes these developments; however, should problems re-emerge in this area then it may be necessary for the legislation to be amended and for a rigid formula, with all its difficulties, to be imposed.

The Bill prohibits, in clause 20, certain forms of price discrimination. Some pricing practices and price differences in this industry have long been a source of complaint. Clause 20 prohibits a franchisor discriminating between its franchisees in the price of motor fuel which it supplies to them, or in any discounts, allowances, rebates or credits given or allowed to franchisees in respect of such fuel. The prohibition will not apply where the discrimination makes only reasonable allowances for differences in cost of raw materials, refining, distribution, sale or delivery; is done in good faith to meet a price or benefit offered by a competitor of the franchisor; or is done in good faith to assist a franchisee to meet a price or benefit offered by a competitor of the franchisee.

The first exception recognises that there may be circumstances in which a lower price can be justified in terms of actual cost savings. The second exception recognises the need for a franchisor to be able to meet competition from another supplier who has offered to supply at a lower price to the franchisee. The final exception recognises the need in some market conditions for oil companies to give price support to their franchisees to enable them to meet retail competition. This provision recognises the special relationship that exists between a franchisor and its franchisees, and the need for a franchisor to act fairly as between its franchisees. It attacks the favouring of one franchisee to the detriment of others without any fair justification. These provisions will not impede competition at the retail or wholesale levels.

It has been claimed in some quarters that price discrimination provisions are not required because there is no price discrimination in the industry, and the Trade Practices Commission’s report is cited as evidence. The short answer to this criticism is that if there is no price discrimination then no oil company will have any problems with the legislation.

The Government has no desire to arrest free and fair competition at any level in the petroleum industry, and this Bill in no way does so. It does, however, give effect to a separate marketing policy of the oil industry and is not a matter of general competition law. What is of concern is that, particularly having regard to the further rationalisation that will take place in the industry, franchisees should succeed or fail according to their own efforts, and not due to a possibly arbitrary or mistaken action on the part of the franchisor on whom they are so dependent.

The Government believes that this Bill will go a long way towards providing better long term relationships between oil companies and franchisees in this troubled industry, will provide greater security and independence for small business in the industry and will promote fair and effective competition. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr West) adjourned.

page 1025

PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING SITES BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to effect a reduction in the number of retail petrol stations operated by major oil companies in Australia- a reduction of about 50 per cent compared with the number operated as at 30 May 1980, disregarding certain types of special purpose sites. This Bill forms part of an integrated policy for the petroleum retail marketing industry. In my speech on the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill I have explained in some detail the background to the Government’s policies and the reasons that have led the Government to take these initiatives.

There has in recent years been an increasing trend on the part of some oil companies to move away from marketing motor fuel through independent service station operators, in favour of direct selling of motor fuel to the public. Generally these stations are operated for the oil company by a commission agent. This trend has been accelerating over recent months. Figures provided to the Government indicate that total company operated site numbers increased from 578 at 30 June 1978, to 670 at 30 June 1979, and to over 800 - not counting special purpose sites - at 30 May 1980. In the same period total service station numbers excluding independents declined from 14,281 to 12,411. Company operated sites moreover are more significant in the market than their numbers would indicate. On June 1979 figures their market share was over 17 per cent, from only about 5 per cent of total site numbers.

This trend has caused concern in the community because of its effect on independent small business in the industry, and has given rise to claims that it provides a means of unfair competition, and fears that, if the trend continues and other oil companies join in adopting this technique, the increased vertical integration which results will have long term, anti-competitive effects.

The Government believes that, in the particular and unique circumstances of this industry, the time has come to call a halt to vertical integration, and to reduce it.

A combination of factors has created a unique situation in the industry - a proliferation of sites; the impact of significant and frequent rises in the cost of crude oil; the effects of new technology and changes in consumer preference; fall in consumer demand; and resulting from all these, the need for substantial rationalisation in the industry.

Three of the major oil companies which operate in Australia have indicated that they would support total divorcement - a complete ban on major oil companies engaging in direct retailing - as a solution to the problem of the industry, whilst two others have proposed some reduction in the number of their companies’ and other companies’ direct operated sites. The Government considers that total divorcement is not necessary to achieve its objectives in this area. It believes that a reduction of about 50 per cent in the number of sites will be adequate. A reduction of this extent takes proper account of the commitment which some companies have made to this form of marketing. The Government is also conscious that a possible, though I believe unjustified, reaction on the part of some oil companies to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill could be to seek to increase vertical integration. As I have said, the Government’s current information is that at the end of May there were, disregarding special purpose sites, just over 800 company operated service stations in Australia. The Bill will achieve a reduction to 401. This reduction will be phased in over a period of two years.

The Bill implements the Government’s objectives by prohibiting, by clause 10, the operation by certain corporations of sites for the retail sale of motor fuel to motorists, except in accordance with the Bill. The corporations subject to the prohibitions are those listed in the Schedule to the Bill - the holding companies of the nine integrated oil company groups in Australia, and any company associated with the companies listed in the Schedule. The Bill, through the combined operation of clause 10 and the definition of a prescribed corporation in clause 3, also provides for a prohibition on any other corporation which refines petroleum, and/or its associated corporations. The listed corporations are given a quota of site numbers. Each of these corporations, or other corporations in the same corporate group as denned in the Bill, will be entitled to operate up to the number of retail sites allocated to it.

As I mentioned earlier, there will be a phase-in period of two years. Companies now operating more than their quota number will have two years to reduce their sites to that number. They may not increase operation over their present number during that period and must reach an interim quota - as provided for in the Schedule in the Bill - by the end of the first year after the commencement of the Act. The quotas allocated must to some extent be arbitrary. In view of the proposals by some of the companies that agreement on a partial divorcement formula could be possible within the industry, I held consultations with the companies to see whether agreement could be reached with them on a 50 per cent divorcement formula. I believed this was the fairest and most reasonable approach to take and could result in a less arbitrary allocation. As it turned out, agreement was not possible partly because of concern on the part of some companies at the implications of an agreement under the laws of other countries, even though the agreement would have been embodied in Australian legislation.

The Government has therefore had to devise an allocation formula. This allocation seeks to be equitable. It recognises the role of each company in the market; the needs of smaller companies; and the needs at least in the short term, of those companies which are at present heavily committed to direct retail site operation. The Government intends to review and, if appropriate, to revise the allocation as between companies after the Act has been in force for five years. If a company elects not to operate its full quota entitlement in that five years it will not thereby suffer a reduction in its quota. I emphasise that failure to use a quota fully will not lead to a reduction in that quota.

The information on which the Government has calculated the allocation formula was provided by the oil companies. 1 am confident that the oil companies provided these figures in good faith. Nevertheless, some errors in the figures initially provided were noted and were corrected. If it should eventuate that there were any other inac-curacies in the figures, the Government will take such action as may be appropriate to amend the allocation - which can be effected by regulation.

Certain special purpose sites are not subject to the prohibition on company operation in clause 10. Each group of corporations will be able, in addition to its quota, to operate up to one training site in each State or Territory and up to one market research site in each State. Diesel fuel sites are not subject to the prohibition. These are sites which are principally used for the sale of diesel fuel for trucks. Provision is also made in clause 8 of the Bill for temporary operation of sites in special circumstances for a period not exceeding 90 days.

The Government is aware that a number of commission agents were formerly lessees of the sites they now operate as agents, and in some cases were most reluctant to change to agency operation. Under clause 1 6 of the Bill these people will be given a first option of a franchise where the site they operate on behalf of the company is converted back to lessee operation within the two year phase-in period. If in that period an oil company proposes to convert a site from company operation then, unless it decides to sell it or to lease it for a use other than the retail sale of motor fuel, it must first offer a franchise on reasonable terms to the agent. It may not enter into a franchise agreement with another person on terms more favourable than the terms on which it was offered to the agent.

Under clause 1 1 of the Bill, returns providing details of site operation will be required in order to facilitate enforcement and monitoring of the operation of the legislation. Prescribed corporations are required to lodge a return within 30 days of the commencement of the Act. When there is a change these returns must be updated, on a monthly basis. Clause 12 provides that the Minister, or any other person, may seek an order from the Court to restrain contravention of the prohibition on retail site operation.

These Bills before the House provide a means to assist the continuance of a viable, vigorous and competitive small business sector in the petroleum retail industry. They will lead to greater fairness and ensure that future rationalisation in the industry, having regard to the history of that industry, will take place on a more equitable basis. At the same time, by encouraging diversity at the retail level they will promote competition both in the long and short term. I commend the Bills to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1027

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Busi ness and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 17 (1980)

The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966 as a result of the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Temporary Assistance Authority in its report on certain works trucks and stackers. The Temporary Assistance Authority found that temporary assistance is necessary for this industry and recommended that assistance in the form of import licensing be given. The Authority recommended that licensing should apply from 1 April 1980, with imports limited to a value of $3m f.o.b., for 12 months.

The Government has accepted the recommendations and notes that any later commencement date for the licensing period would considerably reduce the effectiveness of the assistance measures. The Government has not accepted the suggestion by the Authority that the 12.5 per cent special additional customs duty not be applied to the goods under reference. Works trucks are considered to be an aid to manufacture and other such aids, when subject to quota controls, are also subject to the additional duty. The additional duty will apply only to those trucks and stackers entered for home consumption on or after tomorrow, although debits against import licences will take account of clearances effected on or after 1 April 1980.

Other suggestions or recommendations made by the Authority and not accepted by the Government concern the transfer of quota entitlements between importers and the exemption of New Zealand goods from licensing controls. These proposals were not accepted as they are inconsistent with Government policy, which is to allow transfer of quotas between importers and apply import quota measures to goods from New Zealand unless satisfactory reciprocal arrangements are agreed under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Controls will not apply to goods from Papua New Guinea as they are covered under the provisions of the Papua New Guinea-Australia Trade and Commercial Relations Agreement. A summary setting out the nature of the duty changes contained in these Tariff Proposals has been prepared and is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1027

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on certain works trucks and stackers.

page 1027

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1980-81

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– Before I commence my contribution to this debate, I wish to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on the Budget he presented to the House. Secondly, I congratulate both him and his wife on the new addition to their family. I am sure that all honourable members join with me in wishing the Treasurer, his wife and their new addition all the best. As my colleague the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) has said, we hope that this is not the final addition to the Howard family.

I should like to make my contribution to this debate tonight in two stages. Firstly, I wish to inform the House of those things the Treasurer has included in the Budget that will be of great assistance to Tasmania. Following that, I should like to make some comments on the effect of the Budget on Australia as a whole. There is no question but that this Government has been extremely generous to Tasmania, the most southerly State of Australia. I can assure the Treasurer, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), and other Ministers of the Government that the people in Tasmania who are affected by this Budget are extremely grateful for the generosity that has been shown to them. I think it is not unfair to say that without doubt the Fraser Government has recognised the special needs of Tasmania and has done more than any other Federal government to correct the imbalances the State has suffered for years. I am sure that I am joined by my colleagues from Tasmania in saying a very hearty thank you to this most generous and understanding Federal Government.

I wish to make a few comments about some of the Budget provisions, and particularly the freight equalisation program introduced by the Fraser Government in 1977. That decision has done more to stabilise the economy in Tasmania and to promote both primary and manufacturing industries than any other single decision made by this or any other Federal Government. I strongly urge the Federal Government to maintain that program. I have spoken to primary producers and factory managers around Tasmania, and all are in singular agreement that that program has done more to stabilise employment opportunities and to develop market opportunities than any other decision made by any government, State or Federal. To give some idea of the contribution that is making to the economy of Tasmania, I tell honourable members that this year $30,250,000 will be allocated for the freight equalisation program in Tasmania. We must always bear in mind that the program is open ended, so the figure could ultimately exceed that amount.

To give the House some indication of the effects of this program, I cite the example of one of the largest manufacturers in my electorate, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, which has a plant at Wesley Vale and employs about 500 people. I am reliably informed by the management of that firm that had it not been for the freight equalisation program during the bad period of 1977-78, that plant would have been forced to close, thus forcing about 500 people out of their jobs. Because of freight equalisation alone that plant was able to remain open. In addition, we have seen an enormous development in the processed vegetable industry in Tasmania. It has entered into mainland markets as well as export markets largely because of the contribution made by the freight equalisation program, which has allowed our Tasmanian products to enter those markets on a fair and reasonable basis in competition with similar products produced on the mainland.

One of the disappointing features of the assistance given to Tasmania by the Commonwealth Government is the way in which the Government in Tasmania has treated the generosity of the Federal Government in providing the funds and grants. We constantly hear from the Premier, Mr Lowe, and other State Government Ministers about the measly, mingy Federal Government they are confronted with when trying to get money from Canberra. To give some indication of the Federal Government’s generosity, in this year alone direct grants to the State of Tasmania will increase by 1 2.2 per cent, which is far greater than the rate of inflation. It leaves no room for the State Premier, Mr Lowe, or any of his Ministers to claim that they are receiving a raw deal from Canberra. I have prepared a table of the grants that have been made to Tasmania, and I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Mr BURR:

– I thank the House, and I thank the Opposition for its consideration. To give some indication of the increases in funds allocated to Tasmania, the tax sharing contribution will increase by 10.5 per cent, or roughly in line with the rate of inflation. The share going to local government in Tasmania, however, will increase by 35.9 per cent, which is an indication of the preparedness of this Government to accept its responsibilities in relation to the role of local government in our three-tiered system of government. For too long local government has been the tail-end Charlie, the one that has been forgotten in our system of government. But because of guarantees this Government has given to local government, not only in Tasmania but all over Australia, to refund 2 per cent of tax collections to local government, it can now be assured that it will have a guaranteed source of income from the Commonwealth Government. In this year alone, that has resulted in a 35.9 per cent increase to local government in Tasmania. Some of the other figures relating to the Tasmanian Government include a 16.1 per cent increase in borrowings by government authorities, an increase of 13.8 per cent in specific purpose grants for recurrent purposes, and an increase of 19.9 per cent in specific purpose grants for capital development.

All those increases are far greater than the increase in the rate of inflation, yet we constantly hear the tale of woe from Mr Lowe and his Ministers that they are receiving a raw deal from the Federal Government. In fact, already Mr Lowe has given notice that, because of his financial predicament, he will be forced to increase State taxes. He has given notice that he may even be prepared to introduce new taxes. I claim that that would not be necessary had Mr Lowe and his Ministers been able to manage the finances available to them in a more diligent manner than they have. In fact, we have only to look at the amount of money that they have wasted on Electrona - in excess of $13m - and on other such irresponsible projects to find the reasons that the State Government is in financial difficulty. It is not because it has received a raw deal from the Commonwealth but because it has wasted the money that has been made available to it. I think the people of Tasmania will need to be reminded of those things when the State Treasurer brings down his Budget.

I turn to some of the other aspects of the Budget introduced by the Treasurer. In looking at the Budget we need to bear in mind that since the Government was elected in December 1975 it has not deviated from its economic policy. It was said at the time of the election that the first priority for any government would be to reduce the rate of inflation, and this Government has not deviated from that major objective. Whilst Opposition members may claim that the rate of inflation is still too high - I think all of us in this chamber would agree with that - we see that the effect of the Government’s policies has still been very marked when Australia is compared with similar trading nations.

The effect of that success is being felt by our export industries. I cite some of the figures. In 1977 Australia’s inflation rate was 9.3 per cent. In the 12 months to May 1980 the inflation rate rose to 10.5 per cent, which is an increase of just over one percentage point. In the United States, in 1977, the rate of inflation rose from 6.8 per cent to 14.4 per cent; it more than doubled. In West Germany the rate of inflation rose from 3.5 per cent to 6 per cent, again about double. In the United Kingdom it rose from 12.1 per cent to 21.9 per cent - an incredible increase. But Australia’s inflation rate has risen by only about one percentage point. Australia, by comparison with similar countries, is doing particularly well in containing the rate of inflation. That has meant that our exporting industries - our primary products, our mining products and our manufactured products - are able to be far more competitive on world markets. Despite what the Opposition might say, that is having an enormous impact on sustaining employment in those industries.

On the other hand, the Opposition has given notice to everyone in Australia that, given the opportunity of again being on the treasury bench, it will repeat the mistakes that it made during the period from 1972 to 1975 under Mr Whitlam of spending money willy-nilly, regardless of the long term impact that that would have on the economy. I fail to understand the thinking behind the Opposition’s policies. The policies that have already been enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and by other of his spokesmen are simply a repeat of what was proposed and enacted during those disastrous three years of Labor Government. They were proven to be disastrous. Yet we find that those policies have simply been rehashed and put forward again to the Australian electorate. I would have thought that those members on the Opposition bench would have learned from their mistakes and at least done something to try to correct their mistakes in the policies that they are putting forward. That is certainly not the case.

Already the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) has elucidated on some of those propositions and has pointed to the fact that over $2,000m has been committed by the Australian Labor Party to only five areas of government responsibility. Over $l,000m is to go for manpower planning. But what the Opposition is proposing is simply a rehash of the Regional Employment and Development Scheme. It is committing $ 1,000m to that discredited scheme. Surely it would have learned that that scheme did not work last time. So why rehash it? Why does it not learn from its mistakes? If the Opposition is to put forward propositions, it should put forward substantial propositions that may have some chance of being positively considered. In the health area $380m is to be provided. That amount is just for institutional costs and does not take account of the $600m that the Leader of the Opposition has already committed towards the reintroduction of Medibank or the introduction of a full government health insurance scheme. Over $600m has been committed simply to have a national health scheme that obviously the country cannot afford.

What else does the Opposition have in store for us? It has in mind $264m for education. No one doubts that education needs more money. But the question we have to ask is: Where is the money coming from? Obviously the money must come from the taxpayers. In addition to those figures, the Leader of the Opposition has committed a future Labor Government to increasing the rate of pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. That is a fine commitment! I do not think anyone in this House would dispute that we would like to give more money to those needy pensioners, but the cost of that particular proposal is another $500m. All of this money is being committed by the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesmen without due regard to where the money is to come from. While they are committing all this extra money they also claim that taxes would be reduced under a Labor government. How on earth do they expect to expend more money and yet reduce taxes? There is only one way that governments can raise money- that is to raise it from the taxpayers. It is just plain logical thinking that if the Labor Party is proposing to spend more money it is proposing also to raise more money from the taxpayers. There can be no other logical conclusion.

We saw the disastrous policies of a previous Treasurer, Dr Cairns. When he was on the treasury bench he attempted not to raise additional taxes but simply to roll money off the printing presses. That proved to be disastrous when we looked at the rate of inflation, because all it did was to devalue our currency and to force inflation through the roof. I am not sure whether the Labor Party has that sort of thing in mind. It has not said. Obviously what it has said simply does not add up to common sense, because it cannot spend more money and at the same time reduce taxes. Either the Labor Party will break the commitments it has made or very simply it will con the electorate into thinking it can spend money which is obviously not there. I do not know.

One other matter I would like to comment on is the Government’s fuel pricing policy. A lot has been said by various politicians and by the media about this particular policy. In this year alone, according to the Budget, the Government expects to receive about $3,1 50m from this one scheme- the levy on fuel oil. We all agree that that is a lot of money. Some of us would agree that it is a well worthwhile and necessary policy. I know that members of the Opposition bench would dispute that, but the effect of that policy is twofold. Firstly, it is preserving our vital fuel resources and encouraging development of other fuel resources that have not yet been discovered. Already we have had the announcement of the development of the Rundle shale oil deposits in Queensland which will substantially add to our self-sufficiency in vital fuel oil resources. But we have found also that the policy of world parity pricing of our fuel oil has had the effect of raising a substantial amount of money for taxation purposes. I am sure that the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) will agree that that is in effect an indirect form of taxation which allows for a reduction in the actual rate of personal income tax. All honourable members in this House will agree that it should be a major objective of any government, despite its political persuasion, to reduce the amount of personal income taxation that is imposed on working people throughout Australia. That is coming to pass with the bringing into effect of the secondary part of the Government’s world parity pricing policy.

The Opposition has made a lot of political capital out of that policy and has said that it is all wrong, that we should not have such high fuel prices. But it has not said at any stage that it would reduce the price of fuel. All that the Opposition has said is that it would increase it. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) said that he would introduce a tax on oil companies that would raise more money than is being raised by the present Government through the fuel oil levy. What he would be doing is charging the same levy by back door methods through the oil companies. It would have the same effect but it would push up prices even further. If the Opposition agrees that in government it would not reduce the price of fuel oil, or the price of petrol, all it is saying is that the present policy is the correct one, and I agree with that.

I commend the Budget brought down by the Treasurer. The economic strategy that has been followed by this Government since 1975 is the correct policy. It is bringing Australia out of a mire that this Government inherited from the previous Whitlam Government. I believe that this House should give its full suport to the Treasurer and to this Government for pursuing that policy in this Budget. Encouragement should be given to pursue that policy in the next Budget that is brought down by the Fraser Government.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I am pleased to be able to participate in this rather short debate on the fifth and final Fraser Budget. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) in his contribution to this debate asked where the money to implement Labor’s policies would come from. Let me tell him: ‘Yes, it is true that we would increase taxes in some areas’. I will delineate what some of those areas would be. We would have a much tougher approach to artificial tax avoidance schemes than has been undertaken by this Government. Despite all its frantic activity, this Government is still tolerating vast amounts of tax avoidance. Indeed, this is demonstrated by the fact that the tax avoidance provision this year is higher than it was last year. By retrospective legislation we would expect to achieve far more than this Government has achieved and to deal a tremendous blow to the tax dodgers who are engaging in artificial tax avoidance schemes. We would introduce also a foreign tax credit scheme to close off the use of overseas tax havens. This was something that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) proposed to do some time ago. But he caved in to pressure from his supporters and decided not to go ahead with the proposal. This means that companies and individuals - more particularly companies - can still use overseas tax havens to avoid paying tax.

We would also amend section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act which is a nominal provision to prevent multinational companies avoiding tax in Australia by the use of transfer pricing arrangements to make their profits in countries, other than Australia, where taxes are lower and by charging artificially low prices for their exports from this country. We would prevent that from happening by amending section 1 36 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Apparently this Government is not concerned about the enormous losses to revenue through transfer pricing by multinationals.

We would also have a much tougher approach to taxation of trust income. This Government has improved that aspect to some degree but has not gone as far as it originally intended. It backed off considerably from the original proposals brought in by the Treasurer last year. We would go on with those proposals. Indeed, we would take them a little further and ensure that tax avoidance through trust would not be possible in the future. We would take action also against internal superannuation fund schemes, which is a rampant form of tax avoidance at present. This Government has known about it for a long time but has done absolutely nothing about it. Many small businesses or companies in this country are using internal superannuation funds in a way which is enabling them to avoid tax.

We would abolish the investment allowance which we believe is a rather indiscriminate handout of funds to businesses by enabling them to write off much more of their investment than would be possible with normal depreciation allowances. At present they can write off 120 per cent instead of the 100 per cent which would normally be allowed. That is a totally indiscriminate thing. There may be a case for an investment allowance in particular circumstances, but as an across the board measure at a time of high unemployment it seems to us to be a rather absurd and costly measure, costing over $250m.

We would introduce a resource tax which would be a form of super profits tax on mining companies to ensure that they paid proper taxes to the Australian Government so that the people of Australia shared fully in the benefits of resource development in this country. This would ensure that the benefits did not flow in an undesirable fashion to foreigners- mainly the owners of these resource development projects - rather than to the people of Australia. In the report of the interdepartmental committee on economic strategy we saw that even the economic advisers to the Government are advocating the adoption of a resource tax. This Government, for whatever reasons - presumably to protect its followers, supporters, and backers- is refusing to introduce a resource tax which is absolutely essential for tax equity in this country.

All of those measures would involve the imposition of increased taxes but not on the ordinary people of Australia. They would involve increases in taxation on those people who can afford to pay- those people and organisations who are dodging tax at an enormous rate at present. We would close off* all those loopholes and make sure that companies and individuals who are now avoiding the payment of a lot of tax pay their full measure of taxation. I wish to move an amendment to the motion that Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) be read a second time. I move:

I move this amendment because after almost five years of Fraser government it is clear beyond doubt that that Government has failed dismally to achieve economic recovery. It is clear that no such recovery is around the corner and that this Government has no answers to our economic malaise. As the realisation of that failure has dawned, the Government has pinned its hopes increasingly on a panacea in the form of resource development. It is behaving increasingly like the government of a banana republic, suppressing and impoverishing its work force, seeking foreign investment at any price, encouraging foreign ownership and control of our industries and resources, and relying almost totally on exploitation of our natural and physical resources for any semblance of economic growth.

What a difference all this is from the promises that were made in years gone by. Where now are the jobs for all who want to work as was promised in 1975? Where now is the economic growth of 6 per cent to 7 per cent that in 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said was attainable? Where now is the 5 per cent inflation rate that the Prime Minister promised us in 1977? Where now is the 2 per cent fall in interest rates promised us in 1977? Where now is the fall in unemployment that the Prime Minister promised us in 1977? Where now are the tax cuts that the Prime Minister promised us in 1977? Where now, indeed, is the credibility of this Government? Quite obviously there is no such credibility. Clearly, this Government has had its credibility shot to pieces by an extraordinary failure to fulfil a vast array of promises made to the Australian people at the last two elections. That, of course, is something for the Australian people to bear in mind with another election coming up and, presumably, with further promises to be made.

I want to look more closely at the evidence of failure because this is a Government which has failed abysmally on the economic front. Firstly, economic growth is a fundamental measure of economic achievement. Economic growth is obviously basic to employment growth and to an increase in the overall living standards of the nation. If economic growth is low, employment growth will be low and may be so low that unemployment will continue to increase. Indeed, that is what has been happening under this Government. We have had a low growth of employment and therefore considerable growth in unemployment. In fact, economic growth under the Fraser Government has been far below our historical level and below the level of comparable countris

In the period 1975-76 to 1979-80, the last four full financial years under this Government, we (ave had an average rate of real growth in gross domestic product of 2.4 per cent per annum or on a per capita basis 1.2 per cent, which is less than half the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average growth rate of 3 per cent per capita over this period. So here we have an abysmally low economic growth rate compared to the average rate for the rest of the Western capitalist world. This Government is happy to make comparisons with the OECD rates when it suits it. For example, it sometimes comparEs inflation rates and at the moment it is true that our inflation rate is slightly below the OECD average. But in regard to economic growth, of course, the Government is loath to make such comparisons because its record is absolutely abysmal. Furthermore, if we take out exports and look at the domestic economy - the non-export part of the economy which is roughly four-fifths of the total economy - we find that has grown in the four years of the Fraser Government by 1.5 per cent per annum or on a per capita basis by only 0.3 per cent per annum; that is, it has been almost completely stationary. So apart from the export sector, we have had virtually no growth per head of population at all.

Furthermore in 1979-80, real gross domestic product increased by only 2.2 per cent. That is below the average for the past four years. Gross domestic product, minus exports, actually fell in 1979-80. If we look at what happened to economic growth of the non-export part of the economy for the last financial year, we find that there was absolutely none, not in per capita terms, but in total growth terms. In fact, it fell by 0.3 per cent. So obviously on a per capita basis it fell by about 1.5 per cent. One must compare this with the sort of arrogance that comes through in Statement No. 2 of the Budget Papers where it is boasted that there is increasing private sector activity and all this shows that one does not need stimulus from the public sector to get growth in private. sector activity. The reality is that outside the export sector, there is no growth occurring in the private sector. It is only export growth which is occurring. Of course, in this financial year when the world economic situation will be rather more grim, we can expect rather less in the way of export growth. So we believe that the assumptions that are made in regard to growth in the Budget Papers are highly optimistic. A proper analysis of what has been happening in the economy shows that we have had virtually no growth occurring in the non-export sector. This augurs very badly for this current financial year. It is obvious that all this is tremendously important. But it is important also because the Government has put so much stake on economic growth. This is the Government which said that it is tremendously important to achieve economic growth. Just a little over a month ago, the Prime Minister said:

The justification for our claim to government is our capacity to secure sustainable economic growth.

What does he say when the reality is that economic growth rates have been far below the rates of other countries, far below our historical rate and, in the non-export sector, virtually non-existent. It seems to us that he has forfeited the right to govern on his own terms. If achieving a secure, sustainable economic growth is the test of the right to govern then this Government has no right to govern. That is something which all Government members would do well to bear in mind.

Unemployment is also another important area for testing the degree of success or failure of the Government’s economic policy. A concomitant of low economic growth is low employment growth and higher unemployment. Thus unemployment now is something like 180,000 higher than it was when the Fraser Government took office. It would be much higher still if the hidden unemployed and the underemployed figures were added to the official levels of unemployment. From Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys we can see that something like 200,000 or more persons can be regarded as hidden unemployed - those not seeking a job, really wanting a job but not really feeling that there is any chance of getting one. These people include discouraged workers, students who have gone back to school because there is no hope of getting a job, women prevented from getting a job because of the lack of child care facilities and so on. There are also the underemployed - those who are working part time and who would like to work full time. Recent surveys showed that there are 144,000 of them. So we can certainly add 200,000 or 300,000 more to the official unemployment figures to get something like the real rate of unemployment. It is a much more serious problem than the 6 per cent rate which is continuously mentioned as the official unemployment figure.

The Government sought to distract attention from such detail by pointing to the rise in employment over the last year. That rise was said to be more than 200,000 on the basis of employed persons recorded by the monthly labour force survey. But there is reason to regard this as a highly dubious figure. There were, until recently, two sets of employment figures - one published from the labour force monthly survey and one published from the wage and salary earners in civilian employment taken from payroll statistics. Both of them are published by the Bureau of Statistics. They showed enormous differences in employment trends. The civilian wage and salary earners series showed a rise to April of this year of 52,000. On the other hand, the employed wage and salary earners figure published by the labour force survey increased over the year to May by 176,000. There are 1 76,000 unemployed on one series and 52,000 unemployed on the other. There is a fantastic disparity. Obviously something is terribly wrong somewhere. Clearly they cannot both be right. According to Statement No. 2 of the Budget Papers both figures are unreliable. Statement No. 2 on page 1 8 of the Budget Papers states that both of the series certainly are not perfect. The last paragraph states:

Because of the widening divergence in the growth rates of the two employment series, the Statistician is investigating the payroll tax based series and has withheld publication of the series until revised figures are available. He is also investigating the methods and procedures of the monthly labour force survey.

So they are both being investigated but the Government has suspended the civilian employment series which is the one showing the lower rate of employment growth. Although both series are said to be rather dubious, one gets suspended while it is being looked at and the other, while it is being looked at, continues to be published. It happens to show a much higher rate of employment growth.

Mr Porter:

– Whose decision is that?

Mr WILLIS:

– I would love to know whose decision it was.

Mr Porter:

– You asked that question during the Estimates Committee last night and you were told it was the Statistician’s decision.

Mr WILLIS:

– It is true it was said that it was the decision of the Australian Government Statistician. That is exactly right. But I do not know whether the Statistician might have been acting under instructions in giving that decision. I think it is very likely that that was the case. I will tell the honourable member why. The fact is that the person who is in charge of the series which produces these figures, Mr Max Griffiths, the Director of the Labour Force Section, said in March this year:

There’s something funny in the Labour Force Series at the end of the period. It seems there’s a violent fluctuation between August and November.

You can’t place too much reliance on short-term movements in the Labour Force surveys.

That is what the man in charge of that series said. He went on to say that he preferred to use the civilian employment series, the one that has now been suspended, for measuring short term movements in employment. I say that something is rotten in the state of Denmark when this Government has cancelled an employment series, which the man in charge of the section says is the best one to use, because it is showing a much lower rate of employment growth. I think that is the reason why it has been suspended. I believe that it is a particularly nasty episode to come up before an election.

I now turn to living standards. This also is a tremendously important indicator of how a government is going with its economic policy. The fact is that there has been a dramatic decline in living standards for low and middle income earners under the Fraser Government. The great majority of them are poorer than when this Government came to office. That is because of the wages policy pursued by this Government, its tax policy, its family allowance policy and its health insurance policy. They have combined to reduce the real disposable income of the great majority of the Australian people. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the fall in living standards for low and middle income earners under the Fraser Government.

Mr Ellicott:

– Where did this come from?

Mr WILLIS:

– I produced it.

Mr Ellicott:

– Why didn’t you show it to me a bit earlier?

Mr WILLIS:

– Is the Minister going to allow me to incorporate this table?

Mr Ellicott:

– Give me time to read it.

Mr WILLIS:

– While the Minister is perusing the table I will discuss what it is in it. The table shows movements between 1975-76 and 1979-80 for taxpayers without dependants and taxpayers with a dependent spouse and two children. It shows what happens if one takes account of the increase in the income tax burden, the increase in the cost of medical insurance, the fact that the family allowance has been decreased and, of course, the movement in inflation. A wage earner on the average award rate- about $170 a week in the last financial year - would have been 6 per cent, or $8.75 a week worse off in terms of real disposable income in 1979-80 compared to 1975-76. He would need an increase of $13 in his total wage before tax to have the same real income now as he had after tax in 1975-76. A taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children would have been $1 5.50 or 9.3 per cent worse off, and he would need an increase of $23.15 in pretax terms to be as well off now as he was in 1975. A taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children who is in receipt of average weekly earnings would have been $10.40 worse off, and he would need a pre-tax increase of $1 5.55, or almost $16 a week, to be in the same position now as he was in 1975. So in our view there is without doubt a decline in the living standard of the great majority of the Australian people, when one does the sums properly. These calculations do not include double counting for medical insurance, as the Treasurer has suggested. They are quite clear and above board, and we stand by these figures.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! Leave has been granted to the honourable member for Gellibrand for the incorporation of the table in Hansard.

The table read as follows -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Cohen:

– Yes, I second the amendment.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

– I follow what was a fascinating speech by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), and I am sure that some valuable quotes from that speech will be used in the election campaign. I find it absolutely incredible that he can say that the new taxes his party would introduce if it were in government - thank goodness it will not be - will not have any effect on people. He says that his party’s tax will not be on people. I do not know how the removal of the investment allowance, for example will not affect people. In my electorate people are increasing their expenditure on plant and equipment. The investment allowance is increasing expenditure on products which otherwise may not have been bought. That expenditure is increasing the demand for equipment which leads to an increase in production, and so it is creating jobs. The investment allowance is therefore creating extra income. How the argument of the honourable member for Gellibrand can stand up is absolutely beyond me. A little later I shall deal with some of the other arguments he put forward. Before I do that, however, I should like to refer to a report which states:

The management of the Australian economy has remained broadly unchanged since late 1975, when the authorities embarked on a steady policy approach which, through relatively restrictive fiscal and monetary policies, aimed at removing the imbalances impeding a return to sustained noninflationary growth over the medium term.

The report continues:

The level of competitiveness is now much higher and real unit labour costs slightly lower than in 1975, and these conditions seem to be reflected in the recent strengthening of manufacturing output, investment and employment over the last 18 months or so.

That report does not agree with what was said by the previous speaker. It is not a report from Treasury. It is not a report by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or the Treasurer (Mr Howard). It is the independent economic survey of Australia by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD supports what we are doing in Australia, as do most of the industrialised nations. I think it is worth bearing in mind what has happened in the rest of the world and comparing the world economic outlook to that of Australia. Clearly, when we came to Government nearly every economic fundamental in this country was heading in the wrong direction. There was an increasing deficit, the money supply was increasing, we had increasing interest rates, increasing unemployment, increasing inflation, and so on. Our job was to turn the economy around, and this Budget aims to keep the economy on that corrected path.

As the OECD has said, after five years of sensible economic management we are now in a much better position to meet the problems of the 1980s. In fact, compared to countries like the United Kingdom and the United States of America, we are in a better position than most of our industrialised partners. What has happened over the last year? Whilst inflation accelerated during the year, Australia’s inflation rate of 10.7 per cent remained about three percentage points below the average of the OECD countries, and I am glad that the honourable member for Gellibrand admitted that that figure is correct. In other words, our battle to regain international competitiveness, our battle to sell more goods overseas, our battle to create more jobs for the increased production for those markets, is being won. The balance of payments improved dramatically. Exports grew by almost 1 5 per cent in real terms - that is, over and above the rate of inflation. For the first time since 1972-73 private external transactions produced a substantial surplus. Growth in the manufacturing sector, or the non-farming sector, was higher than in the previous two years. Output from the farm sector declined from record levels of the previous year but was still nearly 18 per cent above the average for the three years to 1977-78. There was a rise of 2.4 per cent in employment, the largest increse in employment since 1973-74.

The honourable member for Gellibrand criticised the Government, saying that it had not happened fast enough. I quite agree, we would like it to have happened much faster, but I do not think that a government anywhere else in the world has come into a situation where the economy was as devastated as this one was when Labor left office. Labor could not have done a better job of mucking up the economy if it had tried. That is why it has taken us so long to improve things. Instead of having a growing unemployment situation, as was the case when Labor left office, we have started to turn the situation around. Clearly, the prospects of improvement in the job market must depend on companies being able to make profits and those profits, thank goodness, have started to increase. They are starting to get back to the levels they had reached before the Labor Government took office. It is, of course, impossible for more jobs to be created by businesses which are earning less and less. Similarly, people will not invest in companies if they do not see the likelihood of achieving a fair return on their investment.

In 1 97 5 and 1 977 we said that we would restore confidence in Australia, restore confidence in the economy, reduce the deficit and control the size of government growth. We believe that if governments get bigger and bigger and takes a larger and larger share of the economic cake in Australia, the people who produce the wealth - that is, the private sector, the sector that employs three out of four people - will have trouble in surviving. What have we done about it? When we came to government the domestic Budget deficit was $2,873m. That is, we were spending $2,873m more in Australia than we were raising in taxes and other revenue. This sort of deficit was adding to inflation, to interest rates and to pressures for increases in interest rates and was indicative of a government’s economic policy which was out of control.

We said we would bring the economy under control and we have. We have turned that Hayden domestic Budget deficit of $2,873m around to a surplus of $39m. It is the first time in seven years that we have had a domestic surplus in Australia. That has not been easy. We have had to control government spending and control the size of government while maintaining government assistance to those in most need and providing a stimulus to people and industry through tax incentives and other means. Those are the sorts of tax incentives that the honourable member for Gellibrand has said a Labor Government will get rid of.

Not only have we reduced the deficit but also the size of Government spending on outlays, compared with the whole of the economy, has fallen. The table at page 265 of Budget Paper No. 1 shows Budget outlays as a percentage of the whole of the wealth of the economy in Australia, in other words, as a proportion of the gross domestic product. It shows that in 1970-71, Budget outlays were 24 per cent of GDP while in 1975-76 they were 30 per cent of GDP. There had been an enormous increase in the percentage of the economic cake taken by the Commonwealth Government. We said that we would do something about it. We do not believe in big Commonwealth governments and we have reduced that proportion of GDP to an estimate this year of 27.9 per cent. That is a fall of about 2 per cent of GDP. It grew by about 6 per cent while the Labor Party was in power - three small years or in fact, what they were for the Australian public, three long years. We have been in power for five years and we have reduced the percentage of GDP taken by the Commonwealth Government by about 2 per cent. I hope we can reduce it further.

I will now briefly outline some of the initiatives undertaken in the Budget. Firstly, I refer to the new superannuation benefits for the selfemployed and for those employees who do not participate in a superannuation scheme funded by another person. There has clearly been an anomaly in Australia where tax concessions were given to employers who contributed to superannuation funds for their employees and yet the selfemployed small businessman did not have access to similar tax concessions. I believe that was unfair. I am therefore delighted that the Government has now been able because of improved economic circumstances to provide a benefit to these people who previously were disadvantaged. The full year cost of the scheme is estimated to be about $100m and it will allow for an income tax deduction of SI, 200 for contributions to qualifying superannuation funds.

Some of the other significant Budget measures include an increase in defence expenditure. The changed strategic circumstances in which Australia now finds herself require a much greater commitment to defence spending. Accordingly, the Government is providing $533m more than last year - an increase of 1 7.7 per cent. In regard to benefits for veterans, eligibility for pensioner health benefits cards will be liberalised. The maximum loan available through the Defence Service Homes Scheme will be increased from $15,000 to $25,000. In the health area the domiciliary health care benefit will be increased. The Budget also provides an increase of 30 per cent for medical research. In the social security area a number of benefits for those in most need will be increased. As well, the income test on eligibility for unemployment and sickness benefits will be relaxed to give greater encouragement to those out of work to undertake temporary part time or casual work. And surely, for many people that is the way to get a job. If they do not have the opportunity for part time work where on earth will they get the job experience required by so many employers who want to take on full time employees?

In the housing area the value limits for the home savings grant will be increased from $45,000 to $55,000. As well, there have been increases in some education allowances. More money will be spent on training programs for the unemployed and for those who wish to increase their skills or perhaps learn new skills. Assistance will be given to industry through increased depreciation rates in recognition of the speed of technical change. Those are the sorts of allowances that the honourable member for Gellibrand has just promised the Labor Party would disallow. More money will be provided for export expansion and market development. The rural sector will be assisted through an increased contribution to wool promotion. So, while we have turned the massive domestic deficit left to us by the Labor Government into a surplus and have controlled the growth in the government sector we have still managed to provide assistance where it is most needed.

I now turn to the revenue from the oil parity pricing decision because I am often asked what we are doing with the money. People understand that we must have a parity pricing policy in order to ensure that we reduce our use of fuel, to encourage exploration, to encourage the use of alternative energy sources and to ensure adequate energy supplies for the future. I might add that this is extremely important for rural areas where, for example, there are no alternative energy sources, as we know them now, to run tractors. Farmers are particularly interested in an assured supply of liquid fuels for the future. The policy, people agree, is right, but they ask where the money is going. Whilst it has not been general policy to try to link revenue from a specific source of expenditure it can be seen that the domestic deficit between the financial year ended 1979 and the financial year just ended dropped by about $ 1,700m. That was clearly aided by the increase in oil revenue of about $1 ,000m together with the income tax surcharge. So, one could say that the oil revenue has helped to ensure that the Government reduces its deficit rather than irresponsibly increases its expenditure.

This year the further increase of about $886m in the oil revenue will assist in offsetting the reduction in personal income tax which took effect from 1 July this year. It will be recalled that taxes have been indexed by 3.8 per cent so that the tax free zone is now $4,041; that is, anyone earning less than $4,041 pays no tax whatsoever. The dependent rebates have been increased by 34 per cent with a rebate, for example, of the dependent spouse rising to $800. These changes will cost about $636m. The oil revenue will grow by about $886m. So it could be considered that most of the increase in oil revenue is being returned to the taxpayer in the form of reduced taxation. Let me just mention that to turn last year’s deficit into a surplus will cost about $600m and the increase in defence expenditure will be about $533m. So, if those figures are added together, the cost to revenue of the reduction in income tax, the increased defence expenditure and the reduction in the deficit, totals about $ 1,770m. But the oil revenue is increasing by only $886m. So clearly, the oil revenue has been used to assist our fundamental endeavours to ensure sound and responsible economic management in this country while reducing taxes and the relative size of government expenditure where possible.

Finally, I want to deal very briefly with the Opposition’s proposals as to how it thinks the country should be run. The honourable member for Gellibrand does not think, as I do, that there should be small governments. He said on 30 June 1978:

If Labor does not gain office next election then by 1983 . . . we would face a mammoth task in re-building the public sector - and maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us to do so.

More recently, he asserted that the standard of living in Australia had fallen. Unfortunately from a table presented to the Parliament on 1 7 April it appears he has fallen into the old trap of double counting. The figures in fact show that a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children on average weekly earnings is about $3.27 a week better off since we came to power. By the end of the financial year families are likely to be about $5 better off, not $16 or $20, as the honourable member for Gellibrand suggested, or $22 as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) suggested. We are not quite sure of the figure they have decided on but I cannot understand their method of accounting. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the table setting out this increase of disposable income.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Mr PORTER:

– I thank the House. This Government abolished gift duties and death duties. What would a Labor Government do?

Mr Cohen:

– We would abolish death. Everyone would live forever under Labor.

Mr PORTER:

– That is about as relevant as the Labor Party policies. There is only one thing certain, and that is death. The honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), referring to a wealth tax, stated:

Whether this will be done by the reimposition of death duty, the reintroduction of a wealth tax or a combination of all these is something to be determined in the years ahead.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in a Press statement on 3 July stated:

Labor remains firmly committed to a resources tax.

Whereas we believe in small government, the Labor Party platform commits the ALP to expanded interventionist role by government and a responsible development of the public sector to satisfy social needs and provide employment’, whatever that might mean.

The ALP’s list of economic policy instruments includes ‘intervention where necessary on both the demand and supply side of the economy to achieve national objectives’. The economic policy instrument also includes ‘nationalisation’ and establishing or extending public enterprise’. I think the difference between the ALP’s platform and the Federal Liberal-Country Party coalition’s platform is clear. The Labor Party platform is big government, big taxation and further imposts on the people of Australia; ours is the reverse.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– Usually most honourable members who speak in the Budget debate speak on economic matters but tonight I want to speak specifically in my role as Opposition spokesman on sport. Unfortunately sport and recreation usually receive very little attention in this Parliament. However the Olympic Games in Moscow and the unbelievable display of bullying and bad sportsmanship by the Fraser Government has elevated sport to the front pages in a way unprecedented since the controversy over the Springbok rugby tour of 1971. I suspect that the desire of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to put sport back on the front pages as he stated in 1975 has not exactly worked out as he would have liked. The bad sportsmanship displayed by the Prime Minister was not restricted to doing everything possible to try to stop our athletes going to the Olympic Games. It was the vicious arm-twisting and bribery of sports officials, media executives and business interests that went on behind the scenes up to and including the Games that were the most nauseating part about the performance. The Prime Minister’s attempt to wreck the Olympic Games, the greatest sporting event in the world, will not be forgotten by the Australian people; nor will his miserable refusal to congratulate the victorious athletes after their victories in the Games be forgotten.

However we saw another display of bad sportsmanship when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and I released the Australian Labor Party’s policy on sport and recreation. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) must have been really put out by the overwhelmingly warm response by the public, sporting organisations and the’ media to the policy because it resulted in a very mean, nasty and dishonest paper being released from his office purporting to be a critical analysis of our policy. I shall come back to that matter later.

First of all I would like to outline the policy to show just what it is we propose. The philosophy behind the policy is quite simple. Australia has a health bill in excess of $8 billion. The Government’s experts in the Department of Health believe that any significant improvement in the nation’s health will occur not from any major new breakthrough in medicine but through a change in lifestyle - drinking, smoking and eating less and exercising more. The majority of people are aware of the benefits of changing their bad habits, but unfortunately they tend not to make personal sacrifices now for some vaguely perceived benefit 20 or 30 years from now. As a nation we should try to encourage people to pay more attention to keeping themselves fit, but the real breakthrough in improving the health and physical fitness of the nation will occur when we develop a new generation of young people to whom these things are second nature.

There is ample evidence to show that Australia’s youth are not as fit as their compatriots in other countries with a similar standard of living to Australia. As the drop-out from regular sport accelerates once they leave school, it is therefore not surprising that the recent news that 45 per cent of Australians suffer from a chronic illness caused barely a ripple of interest in the Australian media. The fact is that Australias’ selfimage of ‘big bronzed Anzacs’ is a myth. The Life. Be in it.’ character such as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter), with the beer gut, the tinnie and the television set is much closer to the average Australian’s level of physical fitness.

Mr Cotter:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take objection to that remark. I ask that it be withdrawn

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

– I do not know whether the honourable member for Kalgoorlie is serious but if he does object perhaps the honourable member for Robertson will not reflect on him.

Mr COHEN:

– I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is very sensitive about his stomach; I do not blame him. The question is: How do we change the average Australian? On the assumption that we do want a fitter and healthier nation, there are two ways we can go about it. One is to encourage the more mature person to change his lifestyle and the other is to develop a new generation of people who are made more aware of their early years that physical fitness is something that we pay attention to all our lives and is not something we forget about once we leave school.

One does not have to admire the political system of a country to admire particular aspects of it. I think the whole world can learn from the example set by East Germany. For its population, East Germany is overwhelmingly the best sporting nation in the world. It has a population not much bigger than Australia’s - 17 million to 18 million people. At the recent Moscow Olympics it was clear second placegetter to the Soviet Union in the gold medal tally. The Russians won 80 gold medals, the East Germans 47, and then came Bulgaria and Cuba with eight each.

Mr Cotter:

– Some competition!

Mr COHEN:

– A country can only beat the others present and East Germany still finished in front of everybody else - that is the point- except for the Soviet Union.

Mr Cotter:

– How many were there?

Mr COHEN:

– There were some 80-odd nations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the tally of gold medals won in the Olympic Games. The honourable member can read it.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Mr COHEN:

– Incidentally, those who love to denigrate the East Germans’ sporting performance use as their weapon a sneering reference to the fact that East Germany is a communist country and that it is easy for it to turn out world champions with authoritarian methods that turns out athletes like automatons. One factor however seems to be overlooked. Apart from the Soviet Union and East Germany, the other communist countries, with similar populations and authoritarian regimes, produce nothing like the results of

East Germany. I will give the total of gold medals won by communist countries so that honourable members can see why this assertion is so absurd. The Soviet Union won 80 gold medals, East Germany 47. Look where all the other communist countries with just as totalitarian regimes came. Bulgaria won eight, Cuba eight, Hungary seven, Romania six, Poland only two, Czechoslovakia two, Yugoslavia two, North Korea and Mongolia nil. The answer lies not in the political system but in the sporting system. The East Germans provide the sporting facilities, the coaching and the encouragement at a very young age and they follow it through by national sporting–

Mr O’Keefe:

– They are professionals.

Mr COHEN:

– Yes, and so are the others; but why do East Germans do better than the Poles? They both have the same sorts of regimes. They are all professionals. The East Germans are better than the others.

Mr Cotter:

– They have a sharp bayonet up their backside.

Mr COHEN:

– The policy of the Australian Labor Party is based on providing sporting facilities for the community that will enable everyone in Australia the opportunity to get himself fit and stay fit. I wish the honourable member would get his brain and his mouth into gear at the same time.

Mr Cotter:

– The honourable member for Robertson would run if he had a bayonet in his back.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

– Order! This has gone far enough. I ask honourable members to limit interjections, and I suggest that the honourable member for Robertson address his remarks to the Chair and not to other honourable members.

Mr COHEN:

– I would like some protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Australians will not get fit, as the Prime Minister seems to think, by hoping that everyone will go out jogging every day. It takes a fairly strongly disciplined character to put up with the rather hard grind of daily jogging. The pattern in the United Kingdom and Europe is for the development of family leisure centres which provide all the facilities of a gymnasium without the austere, spartan atmosphere. Leisure centres are usually more relaxed, with facilities suitable for all the indoor sports - basketball, volleyball, badminton, squash, table tennis, karate, judo, gymnastics, weight lifting and all the other types of indoor sports. But, as well, they often contain such amenities as licensed restaurants, coffee lounges, spas, saunas and free form indoor swimming pools.

The Australian Labor Party proposes to provide $6m per annum on a $1 for $2 basis with State and local government to build approximately 75 family leisure centres during a three-year period. The object of the leisure centres - this concept is working supremely well overseas - is to encourage families to become involved in sport together. At present the tendency is for parents to drop their children at gymnasiums at a set time for a particular event, go off to the pub and pick them up afterwards. British and European experience is that the far more relaxed atmosphere encourages the parents to stay at the centre and eventually become involved themselves.

Another important factor is to locate the centres near schools. At present, about 2,000 of Australia’s 9,000 schools have gymnasiums. The problem is that they are inevitably closed from 3.30 p.m. onwards every weekday, and they are closed on weekends and during school holidays. There is no incentive or directive from departments of education for the headmasters to keep them open. By locating them near the schools or on land leased from schools and having local government run them it is possible to have the best of both worlds. They will be available during school hours to the school children as well as to some members of the public such as women and shiftworkers, and available to everybody after school hours. More importantly, they will be run by local government.

Members of the Liberal and National Country parties have turned themselves inside out trying to rubbish the Labor proposals. The family leisure centre concept has been very well received by both the media and sporting organisations, which are well aware of the fact that it was the Fraser Government which wound up Frank Stewart’s scheme that provided capital grants from the Federal Government for sporting facilities. In the incredible Press release I mentioned earlier from the Minister for Home Affairs, it was stated:

Mr Ellicott said the provision of 75 family leisure centres, attractive at first sight, was a somewhat illusory promise. ‘The Labor Party’s statement does not indicate how or in which of Australia’s 862 Local Government areas the 75 centres will be located. This proposal will see a return to the Whitlam era of selective assistance being provided to communities by a centralist Government in Canberra.’

That is a quite priceless statement. In the traditional double-speak of the Fraser Government, on the one hand it criticises the Labor Party for not saying where the leisure centres will be located and on the other hand gives this as an example of Canberra centralism. We have not indicated where the centres will go for very good reasons. Firstly, rather than having a Canberra bureaucracy determining where they will be sited, we ask that the initiative come from the local communities. They must determine whether they want a family leisure centre and whether they - that is, the local community organisations and local government - would be prepared to make a one-third contribution.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– They will all want one.

Mr COHEN:

– The next step would be for the State governments to sort out the priorities in terms of need before sending their recommendations to Canberra. The States also would have to be prepared to contribute one-third of the capital cost. The Federal Labor Government’s only role will be to monitor the recommendations to ensure that the areas of need are being attended to. What we are proposing is exactly what this Government does in relation to other similar States grants projects, such as senior citizens’ centres, aged persons’ accommodation, nursing homes, nursing hostels and so on. What the Minister says is absolure rubbish, and he knows it. The honourable member for Diamond Valley said: They will all want one’. If they all want one then obviously they need one, but they have to make a contribution.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– Will you pay for one?

Mr COHEN:

– We will pay one-third of the capital cost.

Mr Groom:

– For every one?

Mr COHEN:

– Up to 25 per annum. What honourable members opposite are saying is that they are needed but it is better to build none than to satisfy 75 different communities. That shows the stupidity of that statement: It is better to build nothing than to satisfy some. What was done in East Germany and West Germany was very simple. Those countries had a 20-year program, and that is how long it will take for Australia to catch up. If we do not start now, we will never get it done.

Mr Cotter:

– You won’t be around, that’s for sure.

Mr COHEN:

– I have been in this place longer than the honourable member and I will remain here longer than he will. I wish also to go through some more of the Minister’s dishonest claims in his statements. The Minister stated that Labor had offered $600,000 for sports administration but that the Government had granted $604,535 for administration in 1979-80 and expected that to rise in 1980-81. What the Minister did not say was that the $600,000 we were talking about represented an increase in funds. There is the same dishonesty in the next part of the statement which claims that Labor had offered $500,000 to finance the participation of Australian athletes internationally. The statement says that the Government has spent $850,000, but again whoever drafted the statement deliberately ignored the fact that the Labor Party was talking about extra funds. I would like now to have incorporated in Hansard the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald of Thursday, 7 August 1980.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

SPORTING POLICY

The Federal Labor Opposition has shown a shrewd sense of timing with the announcement of its sport and recreation policy. The policy embraces ideas from a number of countries but the obvious model for the central pillars of it is East Germany. Australia’s Olympic performance at Moscow, as in 1976 at Montreal, was disappointing. How many of the few medals won this year (nine in all) would have remained if the United States, West Germany and other boycotting nations had competed? By way of comparison, East Germany, comparatively small in size and population, was the spectacular success of the Moscow Games. It would be facile to dismiss this success as somehow being mainly linked with an authoritarian society with the power to subordinate the interests of individuals to those of the State. This argument ignores the fact that none of the other communist countries (aside from the Soviet Union) enjoyed anywhere near the same medal successes as East Germany. East Germany won 47 gold medals. In third place behind it on the medal table were Bulgaria and Cuba with eight medals each.

If we are to learn from the East Germans we need to look at their sports system rather than their political system. The Labor policy does this by committing the party when it is in government to sponsoring a national sports competition modelled on the East German Spartarkaid. These competitions, concentrating on Olympic sports, are pyramid-type contest with the best athletes advancing from suburban competitions to regional, State and finally national level. In East Germany 4.5 million people out of a population of 17 million compete in the Spartarkaid. The Labor spokesman on sport and recreation, Mr Cohen, M.P., hopes that an Australian competition would stimulate ‘enormous interest and encouragement for more people to participate in sports’. He is undoubtedly right. The National Games concept is an exciting one. If one judges from the reaction to - for example- The Sun’s Citytosurf run, public response should be overwhelming.

Labor’s positive response to our fall from sporting grace is a pleasant contrast to the do-nothing reaction of the Federal Government. Mr Fraser was so confused and embarrassed after the Montreal Games that he set up an inquiry into what had gone wrong. The inquiry predictably fizzled out. Committees are not known for their ability to win medals. At present, the Federal Government has a national sports lottery under consideration. It also has before it a ‘Master Plan for Sports’, submitted to Mr Ellicott, Minister for Home Affairs, by the Confederation of Australian sport. The plan, which in many details is similar to Labor’s policy, calls for a significant increase in funding to sport from the Federal Government. It is hardly remiss to doing this for, as Mr Hayden has pointed out, Australia spends 9 cents a head of population on sporting facilities and support for sporting teams and associations, while Britain spends 47 cents and Canada $ 1 .46.

The Labor plan would mean a large increase in Government spending, probably up to the Canadian level. The policy budgets $200,000 for the National Games. The 75 family leisure centres to be built near or on existing school sites would cost an estimated $ 1 8m over three years. The other policy commitments to sports medicine research, assistance to coaches and so on would probably equal the $1.3m that the Federal Government spent last year on its sports development program. Despite this, the Labor program is not expensive. After all, the Federal Government receives $35m each year from sales tax on sporting goods. The merit of the Labor policy is that it is comprehensive, benefits flow from it to enthusiasts and champions and there is no reason why it cannot be implemented without the creation of a bureaucratic empire. The Government’s policy, by comparison, is as lacklustre as the performance of our Olympic representatives.

Mr COHEN:

– A section of that editorial states:

Despite this, the Labor program is not expensive. After all, the Federal Government receives $35m each year from sales tax on sporting goods. The merit of the Labor policy is that it is comprehensive, benefits flow from it to enthusiasts and champions and there is no reason why it cannot be implemented without the creation of a bureaucratic empire. The Government’s policy, by comparison, is as lacklustre as the performance of our Olympic representatives.

That was the conservative Sydney Morning Herald speaking.

Mr Cotter:

– Big deal.

Mr COHEN:

– What a brilliant comment from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie - ‘Big deal’. I mention that as well as providing for family leisure centres, we will provide $2m for other sporting facilities. We want to maintain the ‘Life. Be In It’ program and create an Australian fitness awards system for people of all ages. We want to contribute $200,000 for the funding of a biennial national games based on mass participation and co-operation with State and local governments.

Before I conclude I want to deal with the Minister’s constant statements and boasting about the setting up the Australian Institute of Sport. Whilst the Opposition is delighted that this is occurring, I would like to go very briefly into the history of it. I refer to page 1548 of Hansard of 19 September 1972. I am quoting a very good speaker - myself. I was speaking on the States Grants Bill (No. 2) and was talking about sport. I said:

I also suggest that we should build a national sports institute for the training and educating of coaches and instructors and the awarding of diplomas and degrees in physical education, associated sciences and sports education. Associated with the institute should be a fully Federal Government financed sports medical research unit with adequate facilities for postgraduate work; the provision of a sports training centre for Australian athletes to train and be coached for international, national and intra-national sporting events; each national sporting association to submit a program for the promotion and extension of its sporting activities on a State or regional basis; . . .

In 1972 I wrote the Labor Party’s sports policy and that policy was carried by the late Frank Stewart.

Mr Cotter:

– What did the Labor Government do about it? Nothing.

Mr COHEN:

– If the honourable member will contain himself, he will hear. A letter appeared in Soccer World on 28 August this year. It stated in part:

You can lie in many different ways. One of the more subtle forms is through omission. You simply don’t tell the whole truth - or any of it.

This is what the Federal Government is doing now, with the help of the daily newspapers.

In recent weeks, there has been quite a bit of publicity given to the Australian Institute of Sport which will open in Canberra in about four months.

Quite a few eulogies have been written about the plan and what marvellous results this will bring.

Only last Sunday former St George player Geoff Bird - himself an applicant for the post of Administrator - was quoted in a newspaper:

The concept is great. Mr Ellicott must take a bow as he has done a lot on his own bat . . .’

As they say, the early bird gets the worm; perhaps Geoff will get the job, if Bob Ellicott is suitably impressed.

The trouble is that neither Ellicott nor the present Government had anything to do with the original idea, concept and plan - yet, through a compliant Press, cynically takes credit for it.

Let’s see the facts which can be proved.

On September 25, 1974, the then Minister for Tourism and Recreation in the Whitlam Government, Frank Stewart, appointed a study group to report on the feasibility of establishing a National Sports Institute in Australia.

I might add that I wrote that into the Australian Labor Party policy in 1972. The letter continues:

The study group had eight members including Rale Rasic, then the coach of the national soccer team and myself, then press secretary to Frank Stewart.

The group’s chairman was Dr Allan Coles, then head of the Department of Human Movement Studies at the University of Queensland- and today head of the NSW Department of Sport and Recreation.

In November-December 1974, six members of the study group, Rasic and myself included, went on a long overseas tour for the Government to examine the best examples of sports institutes.

It states further:

Later, after months of painstaking work, the Report on the feasibility of the Sports Institute was duly written .. . and published (in November 1975) in book form.

However, before the Report could be presented to Parliament, having already received Cabinet approval, came the historic events which led to the controversial dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor General.

The Report contained 30 recommendations- including, naturally, the establishment of the Sports Institute, in Canberra, as a semi-autonomous body.

Indeed, the Report was the most comprehensive study ever undertaken on the structure and future of Australian sport.

For years, the idea (and Report) gathered dust somewhere in the labyrinths of Canberra’s bureaucracy- and now it has been revived.

Needless to say I’m delighted that the concept, which was actually born during endless nights of discussions between Frank Stewart (who died last year) and myself, is becoming a reality.

But to attribute the concept and plan to the present Government is somewhat disturbing.

So far I have not seen one honest tribute by Bob Ellicott to Frank Stewart’s pioneering work.

The letter was signed by Andrew Dettre. That is the sort of dishonesty we have had over this Institute. This idea was conceived and proposed by the Labor Party and it was about to be implemented by the Labor Government. The Minister has not had the decency to mention Frank Stewart’s name or the Labor Party in all the publicity. We welcome the establishment of the Institute. It is our idea. We are delighted that finally after five years the Government has had the decency to go ahead with what was a magnificent plan of the late Frank Stewart.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cotter) adjourned.

page 1043

UPGRADING OF TOWNSVILLE AIRPORT

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Upgrading for international services of Townsville Airport, Qld.

Before explaining the reasons why this work is urgent I want to indicate to the House the nature of the work to be carried out. It will comprise widening the runway by providing 7.5 metre shoulders for its full length; the provision of a 23 metre wide taxiway link between the runway and the airport apron; extending the aircraft parking apron; the provision of a new international terminal building incorporating health, Customs, immigration and security screening facilities; and also the construction of associated engineering services, roads and car parks. The estimated cost of this work is $5m.

The Government appreciates the most valuable work undertaken by the Public Works Committee and acknowledges that only in exceptional cases of very real urgency should this step be taken to proceed without reference to and examination by the Committee. This particular work is urgently required and there is therefore good reason for it to proceed without reference to the Committee.

The position is that in January of next year, Qantas Airways Ltd will conclude the purchase of a special Boeing 747SP aircraft to use on the New Zealand-Brisbane-Townsville and also the

Townsville-Honolulu-Los Angeles routes. For obvious economic reasons it is necessary for this aircraft to be put into service as soon as is physically possible. This will also facilitate the provision of appropriate airline services for the expanding tourist industry in north Queensland. The existing facilities at Townsville are not capable of accommodating an aircraft of the size of the Boeing 747SP because of existing deficiencies in the runway and taxiway widths, the apron area and also passenger processing facilities including Customs, health and immigration. To complete sufficient of this work to enable international operations to be under way by February next year, fast track design and construction procedures must be adopted in this instance. To meet the February 1981 target, it is proposed that the first tenders will be called by mid-September, that is, by or about the thirteenth of this Month. The first tenders will involve the runway, taxiway and apron works and are planned to commence as early as possible in October so that as much work as possible can be completed before the commencement of the wet season. Tenders for the site works and building shell should be invited on 20 September.

This is a most important project not merely for Townsville and surrounding districts but indeed also for the whole of north Queensland. The region is widely acknowledged as having potential for great development as an outstanding attraction for foreign tourists and as a major contributor to the growth of Australia’s tourist industry. The Government therefore considers it is most essential that there be an early start to this project. It is confident that with the use of accelerated procedures for design and construction sufficient progress will be achieved by 1981 to enable the Queensland project to commence during that month. The balance of works will be completed progressively thereafter and as quickly as possible. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning and construction can proceed in accordance with the program I have outlined. I trust that honourable members will appreciate that this is an exceptional case and one where, in the public interest, it is necessary to obtain authority to commence work pursuant to section 18 (8) (b) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969. It is an important project for the people of north Queensland and for the tourist industry. I trust therefore that honourable members will agree that work should proceed at the earliest opportunity.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, when in office, recognised the importance of an international airport to the north Queensland region of Australia. Prior to the 1972 elections, he committed an Australian Labor Party government to the construction of an international airport at Townsville. In 1973 the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), the then Minister for Transport, commissioned the Bureau of Transport Economics to carry out an economic evaluation of the construction of an international airport at Townsville. That report was completed in mid- 1976 and presented to the Parliament in September 1976. Under successive Fraser governments, the report has remained in a pigeon-hole to gather dust. Bill Hayden, as Leader of the Opposition, on a number of occasions has reaffirmed the Australian Labor Party’s commitment to an international airport at Townsville. Accordingly, the Opposition welcomes and supports the decision of the Government to upgrade the Townsville Airport and the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) a few minutes ago. The works to be carried out are of an urgent nature and must be completed to enable the inaugural flight of Qantas Airways Ltd to operate into Townsville from Honolulu on 5 February 1981.

Mr Haslem:

– It will go out empty.

Mr MORRIS:

– Did the honourable member for Canberra say that it would go out empty?

Mr Haslem:

– Yes. It will go out empty. It is a disgrace.

Mr MORRIS:

– What is a disgrace?

Mr Haslem:

– The whole thing is a disgrace.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

– Order! The honourable member for Canberra is entitled to make his opinion known later. I call the honourable member for Shortland.

Mr MORRIS:

– The Opposition has reservations about the procedures being followed in that the Government, with all the resources at its command, should have been able to arrange a work schedule that would have enabled proper, responsible and public scrutiny of the proposed expenditure to be carried out by the Joint Committee on Public Works in time to meet the Qantas deadline of 5 February 1981. This Government has established a reputation of treating the Public Works Committee and its responsible analysis of spending the taxpayers’ money with contempt. I refer to its bludgeoning through this chamber a decision overruling the Public Works Committee’s recommendations against the establishment of Casey University and to its squandering of millions of dollars on VIP aircraft travel.

The upgrading of Townsville Airport into an international gateway will be a milestone in the development of north Queensland. Giving north Queensland direct access to the international tourist market will provide opportunities for increased development, new jobs and greater commercial activity. It will give north Queenslanders direct access to international travel. It is appropriate that in discussing Townsville airport tribute be paid to Alderman Ted Lindsay, the Vice-Chairman–

Debate interrupted.

page 1044

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Groom:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1044

UPGRADING OF TOWNSVILLE AIRPORT

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

Debate resumed.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– It is appropriate that in discussing Townsville airport tribute be paid to Alderman Ted Lindsay, the Vice-Chairman and initiator of the North Queensland Airports Development Council, and to the valuable work of all members of that Council in recent times. It was Alderman Ted Lindsay’s initiative in the Townsville City Council in October 1979 which resulted in the holding of a public meeting in the Townsville City Council Chambers, attended by Federal and State parliamentarians, tourist operators, airline executives, the Queensland regional director of the Department of Transport and his officers, Qantas Airways Ltd, domestic airlines and Air Niugini representatives. That meeting formed the North Queensland Airports Development Council, of which Alderman Lindsay became ViceChairman. The Council’s charter was twofold: Firstly, to establish an international airport in north Queensland; and secondly, to upgrade airport facilities at Townsville. Alderman Lindsay and his colleagues engaged in a long, hard fight for Townsville, and the many square feet of newspaper coverage is testimony to that fact.

Following the Ansett Airlines of Australia flight to Singapore earlier this year, Qantas reversed its previous attitude towards Townsville and offered to provide direct flights to Townsville with its new Boeing 747SP aircraft when they came into service. Until recently, the Minister for

Transport (Mr Hunt) opposed Townsville as an international gateway port. Even my colleague on the other side of the chamber, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean), was reported in the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 19 May 1980 as saying that the Government’s confirmation of Qantas as Australia’s international carrier was not the right decision. I quote from the report, which I assume is accurate, in which he said: I was quite angry and disappointed about it.

I am disappointed that he is reported in the same article as making the spurious claim that the Australian Labor Party was not prepared to support designation of Townsville as an international airport. I have already outlined the record of the Opposition, both in this Parliament and when in government, towards this important facility. I have outlined also that the Labor Party for almost nine years has supported the development of Townsville as an international gateway. More recently, the Minister for Transport, the Government, and local conservative activists about-faced when they realised that the majority of public support, fostered by an effective campaign conducted by the Townsville Daily Bulletin, was behind the idea of an international airport for Townsville. Suddenly the North Queensland Airports Development Council was disbanded and Alderman Ted Lindsay was put to one side. Liberal and National Party supporters then became members of a new committee, and I think I have said enough about that. The fact is now that the decision to proceed with the Townsville airport, despite that background, is a good decision and a welcome one. The immediate task at hand is for the private sector and State and local governments to ensure that adequate facilities of an appropriate international standard and at competitive prices are available to visitors if Townsville is to maximise the potential its new role as an international gateway port offers.

Before concluding, I want to compare the Government’s sudden haste in policy reversal to the treatment being accorded the people of Cairns region on exactly the same kind of issue. Whereas Federal funds have quickly been made available to upgrade Townsville airport, the ratepayers of Cairns are virtually having a gun held at their heads by the Minister for Transport. Cairns Airport urgently needs upgrading and its facilities need to be improved. However, the Minister has told the people of Cairns that the improvements to Cairns airport will be carried out only if the ratepayers accept financial responsibility for the airport and the shares of expenditure attributable under the local ownership aerodrome scheme. If Cairns airport is to be as financially successful as the Minister for Transport and the Government seek to indicate, then there is no reason to dispense with Commonwealth ownership of it. The question of ownership of the airport is a matter that can be resolved at a later date. Meanwhile, planning, design studies and preliminary works should proceed and the ratepayers of Cairns should not be discriminated against by this or any other government. The Government has announced a $370m program for airport expansion- notably, Cairns has been omitted. The decision to make Townsville airport an international gateway is good news for north Queensland. It will provide new and long overdue opportunities for the people of the area. The Opposition supports the motion.

Mr DEAN:
Herbert

– I support the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) in this motion, but in so doing I must firstly refer to some of the grossly one-sided statements that have been made by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). The honourable member said that since 1972 the Australian Labor Party has actively supported the designation of a north Queensland international airport. As the honourable member for Shortland said, we had a Bureau of Transport Economics investigation. What he did not say was that the BTE report brought down in 1976 stated that such designation could be justified by 1985, and the Labor Party has done nothing and has said nothing to alter that point of view. That was put as recently as March this year by the Labor Party’s own spokesman on tourism, who said that he saw no reason to revise the BTE estimate. Let the Labor Party not come in here and start making claims that it has been behind the proposal all the time and that it is behind it right now. Rubbish! The Labor Party has said that it would not be done before 1985.

Let us move on to the Hayden commitment, which does not alter the tourism spokesman’s commitment, which is simply that the designation of the airport has to be looked at and could be justified by 1985. We then get down to the events of this year. It is quite true that in May this year I was bitterly disappointed that the Government of the day did not allow Ansett Airlines of Australia an international connection between Townsville and Singapore which Ansett had proposed. I said that and I made no secret of it to the Government, but the decision was made. At the same time, let it be remembered that morning after morning, for weeks before I made that statement, Opposition members, including the honourable member for

Shortland, stood up in this House and asked questions, pooh-poohing the economics, the very rightfulness of the Ansett proposal. The Labor Party did nothing to support that proposal. For it to turn around and try to quote my words against me is absolute rot - spuriousness of the highest order. Members of the Labor Party did not agree with it. Why blame me for agreeing with it? I thought that it was right.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are big enough.

Mr DEAN:

– Thank you. I agree with that. Let us get on to the North Queensland Airports Development Council. It is interesting to note that the Townsville City Council sponsored a meeting in October 1978 at which the North Queensland Airports Development Council was formed. On whose motion was that Council formed? Mine! On whose motion was the working sub-committee of that Council formed? Mine!

Mr Bryant:

– Who was at the meeting?

Mr DEAN:

– Yes, I was indeed. Thank you. I am glad you remembered that important point. What happened to the North Queensland Airports Development Council? That Council finally came down with a report stating that a further study was needed, which was precisely in line with the BTE report of 1976 to which I referred earlier. That is all the North Queensland Airports Development Council could come down to. The great weakness with the Council–

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Was you.

Mr DEAN:

– It was not indeed. I supported its formation and the work that it did. It came down to this point–

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was different.

Mr DEAN:

– No. It came to this point. The great weakness was that, because it tried to get support from the Mackay and Cairns areas as well as the Townsville area, it could not say where that north Queensland international airport should be. It could not say where, just as the Labor Party has never said where. It followed from that that after the North Queensland Airports Development Council had put its report in to the Minister for Transport through me - 1 was happy to do that - we then had a Qantas proposal to start using Townsville airport from February 1981 . Because it was Qantas proposing to use Townsville airport for international services, it followed that the North Queensland Airports Development Council, which could not specify a place, was not able to support a Townsville cause. It is for that reason that I was also keen to support a local Townsville group which was prepared to support the Townsville case. All the stuff that the honourable member for Shortland brought out about the disbandment of the Council for political reasons is garbage. I did not seek its disbandment. It had done valuable work as far as it could go. But I also saw the need for a local concern. It was because of that need that I was happy to support the formation of a different group to support the Townsville case. That is what happened. Those are the facts which the honourable member for Shortland so grossly distorted and glossed over.

I am also grossly disappointed that the Opposition, whilst it espouses support for this concept, still shows negative reservations. This goes to the urgency of the matter, which I support. The Opposition is saying that there is still time for the Public Works Committee to look into it and to report to the Parliament. By Christmas the wet season could have started. We do not have time; we do not have even a spare week. Can the Opposition not see that? Of course, it cannot because it knows nothing about the north. It knows nothing about remote Australia and is not interested in remote Australia. It has no idea. It says: ‘Forget about the north; follow the procedures’.

This matter is urgent for two reasons which I will draw out from the comments of the Minister for Housing and Construction and expand upon briefly. The first is that the urgency is to meet the requirements of Qantas’s scheduling. Qantas, with the purchase of the new aircraft, the first of which it will take delivery of in January 1981, wants to start using this airport in February 1981. If we cannot have this work done by that date, what will happen to its proposals? For the sake of not only Townsville and north Queensland but also of northern Australia we cannot afford a disruption to those plans. That is the first point. The second point, which the Labor Party seems to be so ignorant of, is that we cannot delay the work until the very last minute, if at all, because of what will happen with the onset of the wet season. We cannot afford to have the works put back and then disrupted by the onset of the wet season. I can see that the Opposition does not know anything about the north. I can see that it does not know anything about the wet season. It is about time it did a bit of boning up on northern Australia and came to understand what it is all about. Until it does understand, it will never come to power in this country; I am sure of that. The onset of the wet season is an important consideration and must be taken into account.

Thirdly, on the urgency aspect, let me make the point, which I make not from a parochial, Townsville or Herbert electorate point of view, which I make quite seriously and which I am quite happy to talk about afterwards, that this move is important for the whole of northern Australia from Mackay northwards and west from Mackay right across to Western Australia because it will add to the access into and out of northern Australia. That region hitherto has been neglected and underutilised from the point of view of international movements. At the same lime, it is an area which has a tremendous amount to offer, which provides direct access to the Great Barrier Reef, which feeds directly into the Red Centre, which leads to the great parts of the Kimberleys and of northern Queensland and which contains some of the most beautiful wilderness areas left in Australia which can be seen in safety and free from tropical diseases. It is a great part of the nation which so far has not been well catered for in international access. This work is important for the whole of the northern region. The use of Townsville airport as an international gateway will allow international visitors to have access to the whole of north Queensland and to the whole of northern Australia.

It is important to note with respect to the Australian economy that at the same time northern Australia, by virtue of being able to offer direct access to some of the great attractions of Australia, will be able to add to the tourist attractions that Australia as a whole offers to the world. I have no doubt at all that this move of providing an international gateway at Townsville airport will bring benefit ultimately to the whole of Australia, not just to a particular region of Australia. Quite obviously it will have direct benefits for my area. Equally obviously it will have direct benefits for northern Australia and for north Queensland, but it is of significance to Australia as a whole.

Let me return to some of the scurrilous comments made by the honourable member for Shortland. I supported the formation of the Townsville Airport Committee because we needed to support the Townsville case when Qantas announced that it wanted to use Townsville airport. Let us bear in mind the steps that were taken after that. They involved deputations by me, with the assistance of the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson), to the Minister for Transport. They involved deputations to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) from the Townsville Airport Committee. It was a community response involving community support. I was totally involved in that support from the beginning. It has resulted in a Budget decision which the Opposition, to its credit, ultimately must say will be of benefit to northern Australia and to this country as a whole.

Mr MORRIS (Shortland)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

– Does the honourable member for Shortland claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MORRIS:

– I do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr MORRIS:

– The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean), said that I had pooh-poohed the proposal by Ansett Airlines of Australia. That statement is untrue. He said also that my comments were negative and that I had said that there was still time to examine the proposal. My explicit words were: ‘There should have been time for the Government to arrange a timetable that would meet the Qantas deadline of 5 February’. The statement which was made by the honourable member and to which I referred earlier is also untrue. His statements are spuriousness of the highest order, to quote his own words.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has made his point.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

– I also support the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom), which was supported by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) and well supported by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean). Contrary to the idea held by the honourable member for Herbert about what the Opposition knows about north Queensland, I know all about north Queensland. I also know all about Australia as a whole - more than the honourable member for Herbert knows. The honourable member for Herbert said that the Government knows all about the oncoming wet season. Let me say that the Opposition knows all about the oncoming elections; that is all that is this is about. It is hypocritical of the Minister and the honourable member for Herbert–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member used an unparliamentary term.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Bourchier:

– That is one of his normal habits.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– Jack the Knife is having his say too tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member for Griffith will proceed. The honourable member for Bendigo will remain silent.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– May I resume, Mr Deputy Speaker? The honourable member for Herbert said that the people of Townsville will be well rewarded by the updating of Townsville airport. I say that too. But I point out to the House that the Liberal and National Country parties have had control of the treasury bench for 28 years and did nothing–

Mr Bourchier:

– Tell us what the Labor Party did for Townsville.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will remain silent.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– The honourable member for Bendigo has interjected. Let me tell him–

Mr Bourchier:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Griffith said that I interjected. I did. I merely asked: ‘What did the Labor Party ever do for Towsville?’ It did nothing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member must not take specious points of order.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I point out that the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate for the seat of Herbert has been working arduously for many years to have the Townsville airport updated. Government members are now saying in this House that he did not do anything. The famous Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, also promised the people of Townsville that he would upgrade the Townsville airport, but he was sacked.

Mr Bourchier:

– Gough Whitlam was never a famous Prime Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! 1 warn the honourable member for Bendigo.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– The truth always hurts. The Government does not like the truth and does not tell the truth. I am taking part in the debate tonight to tell the truth. The Labor Townsville City Council worked for many years to get this Government to update the Townsville airport.

Mr Bourchier:

– You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– The honourable member for Bendigo does not know what he is talking about. Alderman Lindsay, the late Mayor, Perc Tucker, all the other aldermen on the Council, Senator Keeffe’s wife and Senator Keeffe have all worked very hard to try to force this Government to update the Townsville airport. The

Government Minister and the honourable member for Herbert come into this House and say that the Labor Party did nothing and know nothing about it. That is a lot of hogwash. I point that out to the Committee. I support the upgrading of the Townsville airport. I do not support the Minister and the Government overriding the recommendations of the Public Works Committee.

Mr Dean:

– Then you are against it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair can understand the House being unanimously jubilant about this announcement but the decorum of the House must be maintained. I ask honourable members to be reasonable in their behaviour.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– Many witnesses appeared before the Public Works Committee at its hearings into the upgrading of the Brisbane airport. The list of witnesses extends over three pages. Some of the major witnesses were the air traffic controllers who, with the coming into operation of the Boeing 747 aircraft, will be subjected to much more overtime than they are today. The Confederation of Air Pilots gave evidence. None of these people had been asked to give evidence to say why we should upgrade the airport or whether they would be able to handle the traffic that will be coming into Townsville. Where is the environmental impact study on the upgrading of the Townsville airport? The Minister for Housing and Construction sits at the table and frowns. The Government does not even know what it is doing. For the Government to override the Public Works Committee is a disgrace. The Minister has learnt from the Premier of Queensland. He is rubber stamping legislation, just as the Premier of Queensland has done.

Mr Dean:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point or order. I want clarification as to whether the honourable member supports or opposes the motion. He is not saying why the proposal should not go through. He is opposing it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order, as the honourable member for Herbert well knows.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I will not take much more of the time of the House. I know that the Chairman of the Public Works Committee has something to say. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that I am very disappointed with the Minister and the Government. The Government has demonstrated once again that it is prepared to override the Public Works Committee and to rubber stamp the proposal to upgrade the Townsville airport without asking the people of Townsville whether they can accommodate the expected influx of tourists. The jets will be flying in and no one will be organised to handle the tourists. Yet we are trying to sell Australia. This is a political plot. The Government is not concerned about upgrading the Townsville airport in a hurry because of the wet season. All it is worried about is having the honourable member for Herbert reelected. I think it is a disgrace.

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

– We should put one thing in perspective. The last time that section 18 (8) (b) of the Public Works Committee Act was used - that provision exempts works on the ground of urgency - was in 1974 by the previous Labor Government. In fact, it was used on the day that the House rose for the May 1974 elections. On 10 April 1974 the Labor Government moved an urgency motion to provide an international terminal at Brisbane airport. If ever any government can be accused of using this provision for political purposes it is the Labor Government. That was the clearest and most demonstrated case of that.

I support the works that are proposed. I regret very much that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works has not had a chance to examine this proposal. I gather some solace from the fact that the urgency of the proposal clearly has been pointed out by a number of speakers in the debate. The work has to proceed if it is to meet the timetable. Of course, Public Works Committee hearings do take some time. Obviously, we do not have that time because of the forthcoming elections and the impending wet season. Therefore, I express regret that the Committee has not had a chance to examine this proposal. On reading the Bureau of Transport Economics report of 1976, 1 think a whole range of areas should have been opened to public scrutiny. There are environmental aspects which are mentioned quite clearly. The noise level, noise effects and operational limitations caused by the site are mentioned. Two different proposals were considered in the report of the Bureau of Transport Economics. Customs, health and police and quarantine provisions at the airport and so on also should be considered at a public inquiry. Those are the reasons that I regret that the proposal will not be examined by the Committee.

I realise that this is a special case. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) has assured me privately - I think he referred to it in passing in his speech - that the Government sees this as a special case, that it will not be a general occurrence. Wherever possible the Government has used fully the Public Works Committee. There are two exemption provisions under the Public Works Committee Act. One is on the grounds of urgency and the other is on the grounds of defence and secrecy requirements. In the last three years of this Government there have been only three exemptions on the basis of defence. In the period from 1962 to 1965 there were something like 14 exemptions. At least this Government has shown a very clear readiness to refer matters to the Public Works Committee. I appreciate that. I regret the fact that the Public Works Committee has not had the opportunity to examine this proposal but I accept the reasons that have been put forward so clearly by the Minister.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

– I enter this debate very briefly. I am sorry that the debate has degenerated into a slanging match because indeed this is a red letter day for north Queensland. One of the principal proposals of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism, in its report to this House in 1978, was that Townsville airport should be designated an international airport. It also made proposals and recommendations that we introduce a circuit-type system for international travellers around Australia. The announcement made tonight by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) introduces into fact both these recommendations. I do not think people realise the total implications for north Queensland - indeed, the whole of Queensland - of this decision of the Minister. At the moment $1 33m worth of hotel development is hanging in Queensland. Much of that development was hanging on the go ahead for this north Queensland service. Because of the moves by the Government in the tourist area at the moment we have two 10-storey hotels under construction in Cairns. A major hotel is under consideration for Townsville, a major resort development is under way on one of the reef islands, and another one coming up. Already we have had the Hilton Hotel group, the Western International Hotel group and the Sheraton Hotel group waiting for decisions such as this in relation to Queensland.

Mr Bryant:

– Any Australian?

Mr JULL:

– Australia will have very great equity in some of those developments. Just this week the Australian Mutual Provident Society has been in Brisbane to talk about the development of a Hilton Hotel complex in that capital city. The announcement of the Minister tonight will have some very far reaching implications for Queensland. The amount of development that will happen there by virtue of the Qantas Airways Ltd services- I congratulate Qantas for introducing the direct service from North America and the proposed direct service from Auckland to Townsville- will really open up that part of the world. Overseas tourists coming to Australia want to go to two principal destinations. Prior to this they have been denied this facility. The principal destination was the area of the Great Barrier Reef in north Queensland and the second one was Ayers Rock. Because there were no direct air services and because of the high cost of internal domestic air services to get people from Sydney and the southern ports to the Great Barrier Reef tourists have been denied this experience. It will not be denied them after 5 February next year when those Qantas services are introduced.

For those reasons 1 congratulate the Government. I congratulate also the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean). Over the last two years we have been working very closely on this matter. His leadership in Townsville must be commended. He has certainly led the way in that area. I extend my congratulations also to the Minister and to the Government. What the Minister has done for north Queensland tonight is absolutely tremendous. The implications will be far reaching for the economy, for the work force of north Queensland and, indeed, for the total economy of Australia.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

– I think it is always very strange when the Opposition and the Government agree on a particular measure. On behalf of the people of Canberra, the national capital, I ask why this is happening. What sort of pork-barrelling is going on in Queensland which allows for the upgrading of an airport ahead of the upgrading of the airport of the national capital? It needs a new airport terminal more than any other airport in Australia. One million people pass through our terminal every year. It is grossly inadequate.

We have had the sop from the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) who said that the Government is going to build a new airport terminal in Canberra but it has allowed no funding for this project in this financial year. What is happening in Australia when tourism in northern Queensland, the area which is always kicking Canberra to death, is placed ahead of the national capital? I would like the Minister to give some undertaking to the House tonight that when he appears before the Joint Committee on Public Works inquiry into the upgrading of the terminal building at Canberra airport, the project will be rushed through with the same indecent haste.

Mr DEAN (Herbert)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DEAN:

– I do. If I heard the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) correctly, he claimed that I said of Alderman Lindsay of Townsville that ‘he had never done anything’. He will see from the Hansard record tomorrow morning that in fact I never said that. Indeed, I would not wish to be ungenerous. Alderman Lindsay, as a member of the Townsville City Council which called the initial meeting that the honourable member referred to in October 1978, certainly was involved. All I did was point out that so was I. Then, when it actually came to supporting the Townsville case, from May or thereabouts of this year, I was totally involved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1050

ADJOURNMENT

Bankruptcy Laws - Uranium Mining - Languages on Official Forms - Alleged Misrepresentation of Labor Party Policy

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

– I move:

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to raise a matter in the House–

Mr Bourchier:

– Bob Hawke’s predecessor.

Mr BRYANT:

– I think the people of Australian can be gratified that the distinguished member for Wills is being succeeded by an equally distinguished Australian. I want to place before the House a case of grave injustice as I see it that is occurring to a lady by the name of Sylvia Margaret Faulkiner Sage. Some 12 years ago she traded as Tri Cell Industries. She had the patents for a clip called the Tri Cell clip. There were great negotiations going on with the Army at the time. This case has been going on since 1967. In the course of it all, there were some misrepresentations and some misdoings inside the Army which required eventually the resignation of a very senior Army officer. This deprived the woman of her business and, in many ways, completely crippled her life. The original misdoings led to investigations throughout the world leading to the resignation of a brigadier - the man concerned. Honourable members will find mention of this in the Press of 9 June 1973 and in Hansard. I want to bring before the House how this lady has been delayed in attempting to obtain justice by the very processes, or lack of them, of the law relating to bankruptcy.

She sued the Government and the brigadier for $ 1 .4m. That occurred in 1 974. On 1 5 March 1 978, for various reasons and for a small sum that she owed the National Roads and Motorists Association she was made bankrupt, despite every effort to avoid this. There was a sequestration order made against her and this effectively prevented her from taking legal proceedings. Earlier this year, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) gave approval for legal assistance under the provision of the Bankruptcy Act. I believe, he believes and the people acting for her believe that this assistance was proceeding. For some mysterious reason, the Commonwealth continues to delay and hedge on this matter. Only in the last day or so the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor has refused permission for the trustee in bankruptcy who is her representative to proceed with the case on some technical point. This is a serious injustice. It means that a lady who has had a lot of her privileges and rights denied her because she is in a state of bankruptcy is now being denied access to the law. I do now know the reason for this. I am interested in this case because in 1973-74 when I was the Minister for the Capital Territory, I was approached about this matter. We raised the matter with various other members of the Ministry and steps were put in train to try to bring the case to a satisfactory conclusion. I am convinced that this woman has been subjected to a grave injustice. I do not understand all of the intricacies of the law involved in this case. It includes patents law and tenders that were presumed to be negotiated with the Army. Finally, intricacies of the Bankruptcy Act are involved. I hope that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will intervene, overcome the technical difficulties that exist, whatever they are, and let it proceed. I place that matter before the House. I have not notified the Attorney-General that I would be speaking on this matter because he is not a member of this House and he would not be able to answer on this matter.

There is one other final point I would like to make on a totally different matter. A couple of months ago I wrote to every honourable member in this House asking them to gather some information about their predecessors in their electorates in preparation of the Parliamentary Library’s publication program for the Australian bicentennial celebration for a dictionary of parliamentary biographies which it is proposed to produce. A lot of honourable members do not understand what we are about. We know that there are certain records of most former members but there are not many details about a large number of the 1,500 or 1,600 members and senators who have served in this Parliament. I would like honourable members to go back beyond the 1930s or 1940s and try to find obituaries or something of this nature from local sources which would allow a start to be made on the program of writing biographies about these members. We want to do justice to everybody who was a member of this Parliament. We want to produce a book of some significance placing the record of members of this Parliament on record. We want to give a picture of these former members as they were to show the kind of people who have been members of the Parliament and what they did. I ask honourable members to examine the request and see what they can do about it. I have received some quaint answers but I will keep some of the more distinguished honourable members’ failure to do anything about this to myself for the time being in the hope that they will get on with the job.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

– I draw the attention of the House to an article which appeared in the Lilydale and Yarra Valley Express on Tuesday, 2 September. It contained a statement by a Dr Joe Camilleri, convenor of the Movement Against Uranium Mining in which he said that the Movement would be campaigning in the electorates of La Trobe and Hotham during the coming federal election campaign. The general drift of his statement was that the Movement Against Uranium Mining would be ascertaining the views of candidates in those electorates on the uranium issue and would campaign against particular candidates whose views did not accord with those of the Movement Against Uranium Mining.

I want to point out to honourable members the danger to many candidates in answering such questionnaires in view of the manner in which the information will then be treated. In 1974 when I was campaigning in the electorate of Casey I received a questionnaire from an Aboriginal affairs sub-committee of the Victorian Council of Churches. That questionnaire stated that candidates in certain electorates including my own, Casey, were being canvassed for their views and that the views expressed would then be published and made available to anyone interested in them. The questionnaires were to be returned to a Dr J. Camilleri. I naively answered the questionnaire honestly and returned it to that gentleman.

Subsequently, certain members of local churches who were members of an organisation called Action for World Development handed out leaflets outside churches on a Sunday during the campaign, shortly before polling day. Quotes from what I said were carefully selected and edited; even half sentences were quoted. These quotes were set beside quotes of my Labor opponent, Mr Mathews, and obviously were designed to show me in a poor light. The leaflet was authorised by Dr Camilleri. Subsequent inquiry by me and other local people who were interested in the matter, with the Victorian Council of Churches, ascertained the following facts: Firstly, I was the only candidate to answer and return the questionnaire; secondly, the organisers of the questionnaire went to my opponent afterwards and obtained from him the suitable quotes they needed to put in that questionnaire. They conceded, when pressed, that they did not actually take him through all the questions in the questionnaire but obtained only certain selected quotes. If they had done what they said they would do they would have praised me for at least having the honesty to answer the questionnaire. But that obviously did not suit their purposes.

During the 1975 election campaign in Casey another leaflet was distributed on behalf of Pax Christi Australia, which is described as an international Christian movement for peace. Once again, this leaflet was authorised by Dr Joseph Camilleri and advocated a vote for the Labor Party. I notice that an article in the August edition of the Labor Star, that well-known publication that has been quoted on a number of occasions in this House, describes Joe Camilleri as a party member, lecturer, MAUM convenor, and anti-nuclear activist. He is reported in the article as talking about the intention of the Movement Against Uranium Mining to campaign heavily in marginal electorates on the uranium issue. He says: ‘We will be pressing hard all Labor candidates to push the issue and state and restate Australian Labor Party policy’. In the same issue of the Labor Star one finds a list of office bearers of Victorian branch policy committees elected in June 1980. One of the committees is the Energy, Science and Technology Committee of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party. The names of two members of that committee are of particular interest. There is a J. Camilleri. Is that the same person whom I have quoted all through my remarks? There is also on that same commitee a P. Milton. Is that the Mr Milton who is the Australian Labor Party candidate for La Trobe?

So here we have an activity which is going to take place in the La Trobe and Hotham electorates in particular and which is being organised by a J. Camilleri, who is on a Labor Party committee with the Labor Party candidate for La Trobe. That shows they are in cahoots with each other. One cannot accept this as being a genuine, honest and disinterested approach from a group of ordinary citizens wanting to interview candidates. What they ought to be doing is explaining why the Whitlam Government entered into a secret deal to use taxpayers’ money to purchase 50 per cent of the Ranger uranium mine. Further, they should explain why their Government included in this secret deal the contractual obligation to use taxpayers’ money to provide 75 per cent of the development capital to bring the mine into production. It is a phoney campaign.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– During the recent parliamentary recess I had the privilege of visiting Japan as a guest of the Japanese Government, and I must say that I had a very enlightening tour of that country. On my return to Australia I had to complete some forms put out by the Australian Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Australian Customs. The first form was entitled ‘Incoming Passenger Card’ and the other was entitled ‘Australian Customs and Quarantine Passenger Statement’. The problem that a number of my constituents must have when they re-enter Australia from trips to the Middle East or Europe was brought home to me most vividly when I filled out these forms.

A number of my constituents have told me that they have been rebuked by the Department of Immigration and Ethic Affairs because they have filled out these forms incorrectly. Some people have even had it put to them that they have deceived the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs because of the manner in which they have filled out the forms. I know of cases of women who have gone to the Middle East and married there and have filled out the forms incorrectly on returning to this country. One is required to tick on form M. 15(10.79)3 whether one is male, female, never married, now married, widowed or divorced. I know of cases in which constituents of mine have been told by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that they cannot nominate their spouse for migration to Australia because they have deceived the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs by the way in which they have filled out these forms.

I put it to the Government that an extremely high number of migrants who have come to Australia over recent years are not particularly literate in the English language, especially in its written form, and we should be giving some consideration to printing these forms in languages which are accepted as community languages in this country. Some explanatory notes should be written in Arabic for flights from the Middle East and in some European languages for flights from Europe. I might say that the Japanese Government recognises the problem because the

Japanese entry forms are printed in English and in Japanese. The Japanese Government does not expect that English-speaking people from Australia will be able to fill out a form written in Japanese.

Unfortunately, the Australian Government, the Australia Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Bureau of Customs believe that people who come here from the Middle East- Australian citizens in some instances and permanent residents in other instances- should be able to fill out these rather complicated forms. I consider that even members of this House may have difficulty in filling out these rather convoluted forms. I put it to the Government and to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) that very urgent consideration should be given to providing some explanatory notes in community languages or to printing the forms in community languages for the assistance of Australian, citizens and Australian permanent residents who are re-entering this country from overseas. I might say that the task is even more difficult for some people because they are required to complete the card in English. I have a number of constituents who are permanent residents of Australia, who have lived in this country for a number of years and who are not very literate in written English. I think it is insulting that those people should be asked to complete such a form, and I believe that assistance should be given to them to ensure that they do not prejudice their rights by filling in these forms incorrectly. I ask the Government to take on board a suggestion that both the Customs form and the incoming passenger card be amended in the way I have outlined.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) on one of the most potent adjournment speeches that has ever been delivered in this House. In those few succinct words tonight the honourable member exposed the Movement Against Uranium Mining as nothing more or less than a phoney front for the Australian Labor Party. The honourable member, in the course of his few remarks, clarified for us all the facts that Dr Joe Camilleri, who has been masquerading as the independent chief of the Movement Against Uranium Mining, is not only a financial member of the Australian Labor Party but is also a senior committee member–

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am sure that Dr Camilleri has never hidden the fact that he is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)There is no point of order.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– I will repeat for the honourable member for Grayndler that Dr Joe Camilleri has been masquerading as an independent chairman or leader of the Movement Against Uranium Mining when he is not only a financial member of the Australian Labor Party but also a member of one of the major policy-making committees of that party, namely, the Energy, Science and Technology Committee. Dr Camilleri and the Movement Against Uranium Mining - that is, that Labor front - have consistently failed to justify to the Australian community why the Government they support entered into the secret deal that was so adequately exposed tonight by the honourable member for Casey. That deal was to commit taxpayers’ funds to providing 75 per cent of the development capital of the Ranger uranium mine and indeed, to take 50 per cent of the profits from that mine. So, the true position is that those members of the Movement Against Uranium Mining, who are also jointly members of the Australian Labor Party, have until exposed tonight in this Parliament, carried on the pretence that their movement is in fact genuine.

I challenge the members of that Movement to answer my allegation that the Australian Labor Party was involved in that secret deal in respect of Ranger for one reason only, and that was its greed for gold. Why else would it enter into a secret deal in the manner that took place? Why would it seek to enter into arrangements to export uranium before any conditions were set as to safeguards, before any international agreements were made in respect of the end use of the products, the treatment of waste products and subsequent sales and so on? Why would it take place before any conditions were set within Australia as to what should take place in respect of mining at Ranger?

Mr Neil:

– Greed!

Mr BAILLIEU:

– As the honourable member interjects, it was the greed of the Australian Labor Party, the desperate greed for gold, that put it into that position. What Dr Camilleri and his colleagues in the Movement Against Australian Mining should be doing is not going around irritating members of the Government at this stage of an election campaign but explaining to the Australian people the duplicity of the Labor Party’s approach.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The organisation is called the Movement Against Uranium Mining not the Movement Against Australian Mining.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)There is no point of order. The honourable member will desist from making interjections.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– I thank the honourable member for his correction. I am sure it is quite clear what I meant to say. The Movement and Dr Camilleri have been exposed in this Parliament tonight and as I said in the beginning, I congratulate the honourable member for Casey for doing so. It has been long overdue and it is very.timely that it be brought to the public’s attention at this stage that the whole Movement is nothing more than a front for the Australian Labor Party.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) put to the Parliament this evening one of the most puerile propositions I have heard in this chamber for a long time. In fact, the honourable member for Casey did not say that the J. Camilleri referred to in the document he was quoting from was Dr Joe Camilleri. He asked the question; he posed that question in the last few words of his contribution. So, for the honourable member for La Trobe to then quote the honourable member for Casey as having said that that J. Camilleri was the same Dr Joe Camilleri is completely false.

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA · LP

– Is he or not?

Mr Neil:

– Is he?

Mr MORRIS:

– I listened to both Government speakers in silence; please extend me the same courtesy. I have not met Dr Camilleri but his political affiliation, I am sure, is well known as is the policy of the Australian Labor Party in respect of uranium. There is nothing secretive about that or about the events that occurred in respect of uranium contracts in 1975. They are all in the parliamentary record. There is nothing hidden about those. It may be that the two honourable gentlemen who spoke on this matter this evening discovered them for the first time and thought that they had come upon something new.

Mr Cohen:

– They are slow learners.

Mr MORRIS:

– Slow learners, certainly. I think the honourable member for La Trobe is graced if one describes him as a slow learner. I would have expected better of the honourable member for Casey. I am surprised at the style of his comments tonight. For the few moments remaining let me just draw the Parliament’s attention to what was in effect one of the most outrageous misrepresentations ever made in parliamentary history in this country and what the Australian Financial Review described as bordering, hairline, on forgery. That was the poaching last year of documents prepared by the advertising consultants of the Australian Labor Party by the National Liberal Party secretariat, the doctoring of those documents and the presentation of those documents in their doctored form to leading media personalities in this building on the basis that they were genuine documents purloined from the Australian Labor Party. The parliamentary record shows that the documents presented to this Parliament were false and that in fact, by hook or by crook, those opposite came into possession of material prepared by Mullins, Clark and Ralph Pty Ltd in Sydney. They then retyped that material, added some other material to it, put the ‘Australian Labor Party’ headings on it, put in 10 paragraph headings and then presented that material to senior members of the Press Gallery- I am thinking of Peter Bowers, Bureau Chief of the Sydney Morning Herald who was absolutely outraged at the wrong perpetrated on him by members of the national Liberal Party secretariat - and then presented those documents to Australia as if they were genuine documents. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the lowest of the low in Australian political history.

I refer the Parliament and those who are interested in propriety in political matters back to the comments of the leader writer of the Australian Financial Review at the end of the spring session last year, to the articles written by Peter Bowers himself who is a very highly regarded and well respected journalist in this country and to the editorials of the Sydney Morning Herald. So do not let anybody on the Government side of the chamber come in here and talk to Australia or to this Parliament about misrepresentation because the Liberal Party and its secretariat, its operatives and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his colleague the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) all participated in a fraudulent misrepresentation of material both to the Liberal Council of Victoria–

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Shortland made a reflection on two members of the House - the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. Not only are they disgraceful statements and untrue but also they are serious reflections on members and should be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George offends himself through taking this point of order. The Chair was giving thought to whether there was a direct reflection. The honourable member for Shortland will exercise caution.

Mr MORRIS:

– I will substitute ‘blatant misrepresentations of fact’, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister quoted from those documents some days before they surfaced here. They were quoted again here by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs as if they were factual documents. They were cooked records, fabricated documents; they were a concoction. Do not let anybody on the Government side ever talk to me or to this Parliament about misrepresentation because Government members are the superb architects of it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1055

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952, and for related purposes.

page 1055

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 9 September 1980, pursuant to statute:

Australian National Railways Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1980, No. 264.

Australian National University Act-

Statutes-

No. 141- Fees Amendment No. 1.

No, 142- Student Organizations (Amenities and Services).

Commonwealth Banks Act-

Appointment certificates-

A. Martini, C. J. Parsons.

Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 265.

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-

Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 254.

Customs Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 255.

Explosives Act- Explosives Areas Regulations- OrderLimits of load.

Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act - Regulation - Statutory Rules 1980, No. 259.

Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Collection ActRegulation Statutory Rules 1980, No. 260.

Homes Savings Grant Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 258.

Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) ActRegulation Statutory Rules 1980, No. 262.

Public Service Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 261.

Seamen’s Compensation Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 253.

Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Regulations- 1980- No. 13- (Health Commission Ordinance).

Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 9 September 1980.

Superannuation Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 257.

Tertiary Education Commission - Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 256.

Trade Commissioners Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 263.

page 1055

REQUEST FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

Parliamentary Departments

  1. How many persons were employed in each of the 5 Parliamentary Departments on 30 August 1980.
  2. How many of these employees were women.
  3. How many supervisory positions existed in each Department on 30 August 1980.
  4. How many of the positions referred to in part (3) were occupied by women and what was the substantive grade of each woman in those positions.
  5. What is the attitude of each Parliamentary Department to the promotion of women to supervisory positions.

page 1055

REPLY TO REQUEST FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

Parliamentary Departments

  1. 1 ) In view of Mr Speaker’s statement to the Parliament on 22 August 1978 (Hansard, page532) on the appointment of the present Parliamentary Librarian, Mr H. G. Weir, and specifically that a major task of Mr Weir will be to review this organisation and to improve its effectiveness still further in the interests of continuing services to Parliament, will Mr

Speaker order the tabling of the Review of Parliamentary Departments, including the Library, recently completed by Urwick International Pty Ltd? If not, will copies of the section relating to the Library be made available to members and senators on the Library Committee.

  1. Can Mr Speaker also inform the House when Part 1 of the ‘Information Systems for Parliament’ Report, prepared by Logica Pty Ltd, will be tabled.

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

  1. The Report by Urwick International Pty Ltd on the Joint Management Review of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department is under consideration by Mr President and me. I shall inform the honourable member of the action we propose to take when we have completed our deliberations.
  2. Volume 1 of the Report from Logica Pty Ltd, on Information Systems and Services of the Parliament was tabled by the Presiding Officers for the information of honourable members and senators in both Houses on Thursday 21 August 1980.

House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.

page 1057

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Migrant Arrivals (Question No. 5561)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 4 March 1980:

  1. How many settlers arrived in Australia in the occupational categories of:

    1. matrons and nurses,
    2. medical practitioners,
    3. social and welfare workers,
    4. teachers,
    5. professors and lecturers,
    6. accountants,
    7. bricklayers,
    8. carpenters, and (j) plumbers in (i) 1978-79, (ii) in the period 1 July to 30 September 1979 and (iii) the period 1 October to 31 December 1979.

  2. How many of these settlers for (a) each occupational category and (b) each period were selected under (i) independent programs and (ii) the Numerical Multi-factor Assessment System (NUMAS) .

Mr Macphee:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Settler arrival statistics in the specified occupational categories for the specified periods are given in Table 1 .
  1. The independent applicant group is a migrant eligibility category whereas NUMAS is a selection process. As from 1 January 1 979 all independent applicants have been assessed under NUMAS. The following table shows settler arrivals in the independent applicant category in the occupations mentioned. Because of lags between migration processing and the arrival of migrants in Australia, many of those shown as arriving in 1979 applied prior to the introduction of the current policy and procedures.

Attorney-General: Galbally Report (Question No. 5632)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) At what stage of (a) development and (b) implementation are the following recommendations made by the Galbally report: 24, 33 for which the Attorney-General’s Department is responsible.
  2. What sum has been spent specifically on each of the recommendations in part (1) in (a) each financial year since acceptance of the report and (b) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  3. How much of the funds recommended in the report for expenditure on each of the recommendations within the Attorney-General’s portfolio has been spent on (a) refugee settlement, (b) refugee programs, (c) refugee organisations, (d) other organisations supporting refugees and (e) employment of staff to help with refugee settlement in (i) each financial year since the report was accepted and (ii) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  4. What happens to funds allocated for the implementation of any recommendations, but not spent, in a specific financial year.
  5. What (a) specific skills and (b) experiences are required of the persons employed on the implementation of the report in dealing with the specific needs of the ethnic communities.
  6. What percentage of those employees are from (a) Italian, (b) Greek, (c) Yugoslav, and (d) Arabic ethnic groups and at what level are they employed.
  7. What mechanisms of (a) consultation and (b) coordination exist between the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
  8. What (a) funds have been provided over and above the recommendations in the report and (b) new programs have been initiated by the Attorney-General’s Department in order to implement the spirit of the report.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Honourable I. Macphee, M.P., to question5637 (see House of Representatives Hansard, page559).

Administrative Services: Galbally Report (Question No. 5634)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. At what stage of (a) development and (b) implementation are the following recommendations made by the Galbally report: 2, 12, (29) for which his Department is responsible.
  2. What sum has been spent specifically on each of the recommendations in part (I) (a) in (a) each financial year since acceptance of the report and (b) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  3. How much of the funds recommended in the report for expenditure on each of the recommendations within his portfolio has been spent on (a) refugee settlement, (b) refugee programs, (c) refugee organisations, (d) other organisations supporting refugees and (e) employment of staff to help with refugee settlement in (i) each financial year since the report was accepted and (ii) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  4. What happens to funds allocated for the implementation of any recommendation, but not spent in a specific financial year.
  5. What (a) specific skills and (b) experiences are required of the persons employed on the implementation of the report in dealing with the specific needs of the ethnic communities.
  6. What percentage of those employees are from the (a) Italian, (b) Greek, (c) Yugoslav and (d) Arabic ethnic groups and at what level are they employed.
  7. What mechanisms of (a) consultation and (b) coordination exist between his Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
  8. What (a) funds have been provided over an above the recommendations in the report and (b) new programs have been initiated by his Department in order to implement the spirit of the report.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I refer the honourable member to the response given by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to Question No. 5637 (Hansard of 20 August 1980, pages 559 to 560).

Education: Galbally Report (Question No. 5639)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. At what stage of (a) development and (b) implementation are the following recommendations made by the Galbally report: 3, 4, 14 and 45-48 for which his Department is responsible.
  2. What sum has been spent specifically on each of the recommendations in part (1) in (a) each financial year since acceptance of the report and (b) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  3. How much of the funds recommended in the report for expenditure on each of the recommendations within his portfolio has been spent on (a) refugee settlement, (b) refugee programs, (c) refugee organisations, (d) other organisations supporting refugees and (e) employment of staff to help with refugee settlement in (i) each financial year since the report was accepted and (ii) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  4. What happens to funds allocated for the implementation of any recommendations, but not spent, in a specific financial year.
  5. What (a) specific skills and (b) experiences are required of the persons employed on the implementation of the report in dealing with the specific needs of the ethnic communities.
  6. What percentage of those employees are from the. (a) Italian, (b) Greek, (c) Yugoslav and (d) Arabic ethnic groups and at what level are they employed.
  7. What mechanisms of (a) consultation and (b) coordination exist between his Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
  8. What (a) funds have been provided over and above the recommendations in the report and (b) new programs have been initialled by his Department in order to implement the spirit of the report.
Mr Fife:
Minister for Education · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

I draw the honourable member’s attention to answer to Question 5637, Hansard, page 559, 20 August 1980.

Home Affairs: Galbally Report (Question No. 5640)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. At what stage of (a) development and (b) implementation are the following recommendations made by the Galbally report: 50, (43) for which his Department is responsible.
  2. What sum has been spent specifically on each of the recommendations in part ( 1 ) in (a) each financial year since acceptance of the report and (b) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  3. How much of the funds recommended in the report for expenditure on each of the recommendations within his portfolio has been spent on (a) refugee settlement, (b) refugee programs, (c) refugee organisations, (d) other organisations supporting refugees and (e) employment of staff to help with refugee settlement in (i) each financial year since the report was accepted and (ii) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  4. What happens to funds allocated for the implementation of any recommendation, but not spent, in a specific financial year.
  5. What (a) specific skills and (b) experiences are required of the persons employed on the implementation of the report in dealing with the specific needs of the ethnic communities.
  6. What percentage of those employees are from the (a) Italian, (b) Greek, (c) Yugoslav and (d) Arabic ethnic groups and at what level are they employed.
  7. What mechanisms of (a) consultation and (b) coordination exist between his Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
  8. What (a) funds have been provided over and above the recommendations in the report and (b) new programs have been initiated by his Department in order to implement the spirit of the report.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the reply provided by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in respect of question 5637, Hansard of 20 August 1980, page nos 559-60.

Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (Question No. 5761)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did he make a commitment in July 1 979 that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation would be sold to private enterprise interests.
  2. Has the Corporation from the time of its inception been able to (a) keep premiums at a minimum and (b) provide a service in country areas which the private sector is not prepared to underwrite.
  3. Has his commitment attracted strong opposition from both the Real Estate Institute of Australia and the permanent building societies.
  4. Is there any (a) division of opinion within the Government or (b) strong industry opposition to the sale of the Corporation; if so, is he still committed to the sale.
Mr John Howard:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) The Press statement I issued jointly with the Minister for Housing and Construction on 17 July 1979 announced the Government’s decision to sell the assets and business of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. That statement also indicated that it was the Government’s aim to see that the mortgage insurance industry remain on a competitive footing and that the business be taken over as a going concern by interests with the necessary strong financial backing. The Government recognises that the Corporation has been highly successful in serving as a catalyst for the development of a mortgage insurance industry in Australia. Since the Corporation’s establishment in 1965 a vigorously competitive market has developed providing a wide range of mortgage insurance services at relatively low cost to consumers.
  2. and (4) A number of interested bodies have made representations to the Government on various aspects of the sale. The matters raised cover a variety of issues and the Govern-, ment is currently examining them with a view to determining the substance of the points of concern.

Attorney-General’s Department: Mr K. V. Shelley (Question No. 5794)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 April 1980:

  1. Was a Kenneth Vernon Shelley employed in his Department’s Melbourne, Victoria, Office; if so, (a) in what capacity and (b) for what period was he employed.
  2. Did Mr Shelley resign from the Australian Public Service indicating the nature of any associated determination or circumstances.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) An extensive search of my Department’s records has failed to locate any files relating to an officer named Kenneth Vernon Shelley. Several officers remember a person of that name being employed in Sydney and Melbourne many years ago but they cannot recall the circumstances of his severance.

An examination of various issues of the Commonwealth Gazette discloses that a person of that name was promoted as Clerk in the then Investigation Branch of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department in Sydney in 1948, was again promoted as Clerk in the Investigation Branch in Perth in 1951 and as Accounts Clerk in the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Melbourne in 1953.

Inquiries of the Superannuation Board reveal that Mr Shelley’s service ended in early 1956 hut their file was transferred to Archives where it was destroyed in 1962. This suggests that Mr Shelley resigned from the Service.

No other information concerning Mr Shelley has been found as a result of my Department’s inquiries but if any further information comes to hand it will be supplied to the honourable member.

Mr Renzo di Piramo (Question No. 5865)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. Have any authorities for which he is ministerially responsible had inquiries from (a) Switzerland or (b) any other country about the (i) operations of Weisscredit Bank of Lugano Switzerland, or (ii) whereabouts of Mr Renzo di Piramo since the answer to question No. 554 (Hansard, 2 June 1977, page 2571).
  2. Did he state in answer to question No. 3533 (Hansard, 7 June 1979, page 3139) that he had no information that would enable him to answer my question concerning a conviction imposed in Switzerland on Mr di Piramo.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to a letter of 1 5 June 1979 from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to me indicating that the Minister had received information that Mr di Piramo was found guilty of fraud by the Court of Lugano and sentenced on 27 February 1 979 to 5 years’ imprisonment.
  4. Has Mr di Piramo since returned to Australia; if so, (a) have inquiries been made or (b) will they be made into Mr di Piramo’s civil and/or criminal liabilities in this country.
Mr John Howard:
LP

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

  1. The Liquidator of Weisscredit Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) called on the Treasury in May 1978 and reported progress on the liquidation of the company’s Australian operations. He was accompanied by an examining judge in the liquidation of Weisscredits Liechtenstein Anstalt and an accountant in the liquidation of Weisscredit Trade and Investment Bank, Lugano. These gentlemen as part of their inquiries were examining whether there had been breaches of criminal or civil law by the company or its officers and directors.
  2. Yes.
  3. A copy of that letter was not received at the time, but has recently been obtained and brought to my notice.
  4. I am informed that Mr di Piramo returned to Australia on 21 September 1979. As to parts (a) and (b) of this question I am not aware of any. See my answer to question No. 3533.

Electoral Enrolment Card (Question No. 5908)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. ) Has he received complaints that the electoral roll enrolment (or transfer of enrolment) card refers exclusively to ‘he’, and therefore can be considered discriminatory.
  2. Did one 72 year old lady refuse to accept any further insults of this nature until a suitable card was produced.
  3. Was she advised, following a visit to the Electoral Office to lodge her complaint, that legal proceedings could be instigated against her if she continued to refuse to sign the form.
  4. In an answer to her written complaint, did he reply that it did not seem possible to remedy her grievance at this stage because of the length of time taken by basically machinery consultations with all concerned on the text of the claim card.
  5. If so, when does he anticipate that this matter of the claim form text can be settled and that a card using ‘my’,’I’ and ‘you’, therefore avoiding any implication of gender, can be mass produced.
  6. In view of 1980 being an election year, will he seek to have this matter expedited.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) I have received a complaint from a lady who objected to an exclusive use of the words ‘he’ and ‘his’ in the Instructions on the back of the electoral enrolment claim card, as she considered this to be discriminatory. As a result, she has refused to complete the card in its present form.
  2. Under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, legal proceedings may be instituted against any person who fails to enrol in accordance with the compulsory enrolment provision. However, I am informed that at no stage of this lady’s dealings with the Australian Electoral Office has she been advised that legal proceedings could or would be instituted against her if she continued to refuse to complete the card.
  3. , (5) and (6) In answering the lady’s complaint I advised her that the Australian Electoral Office was completely revising the electoral enrolment claim card and that it is proposed, inter alia, to incorporate the words, ‘my’,’I’ and ‘you’ in place of any reference to gender in order to overcome the kind of problem that she identified. However, I did state that her grievance could not be subject to immediate remedy since the process of revising the card involves both Commonwealth and State authorities.

The revision of the electoral enrolment claim card is still proceeding. Our legal advice is that amendment to both Commonwealth and State legislation may be required before a revised card can be introduced.

Commonwealth Youth Program (Question No. 6011)

Mr Shack:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

  1. Does the Government contribute financially to the Commonwealth Youth Program.
  2. If so, (a) in what year did this contribution commence, (b) what sum was contributed in that financial year and (c) what sums have been contributed by Australia to the program in each subsequent financial year.
  3. Will Australia (a) decrease, (b) maintain or (c) increase its financial support to the program in 1 980-8 1 .
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) 1973-74; (b) $60,000; (c) 1974-75 $60,000, 1975-76 $60,000, 1976-77 $60,000, 1977-78 $60,000, 1978-79 $120,000, 1979-80$120,000.
  3. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Budget, Australia will increase its support to the program in 1980-81 to $131,000.

Department of Home Affairs: Employees Born Overseas (Question No. 6035)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

  1. How many persons born overseas (indicating country of birth) are employed by his Department.
  2. How many of these persons are employed on a (a) temporary, and (b) permanent basis and in what classifications are they employed.
  3. How many bi-lingual and multi-lingual staff members are employed by his Department in counter situations and/or in close contact with members of the public.
  4. Does his Department have translating facilities; if so, (a) what languages are involved, and (b) how many persons are working in the area and what are their classifications.
  5. If his Department does not have interpreting and translating facilities, what arrangements are made for performing these tasks.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I am informed by my Department that collective statistics on employees’ countries of birth are not maintained and I am not prepared to authorise the use of the extensive resources which would be involved in manually extracting the information required from appointment records. (3), (4) and (5) The Office of Women’s Affairs within my Department has significant contact with the public through its Shopfront Information Service. Other areas of the Department which deal directly with the public include the Sport and Recreation Branch and Artbank. A number of staff within the Department are bi-lingual and multi-lingual. Staff dealing directly with the public call on their colleagues as necessary and also make use of the services of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular their Telephone Interpreter Service. There have also been occasions where Embassies have provided their own translators for meetings with the Department.

Off-shore Industry Mobile Units (Question No. 6084)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 3 May 1 980:

  1. What powers are possessed by (a) him and (b) the responsible State authorities to deter ships’ masters from permitting their vessels from passing within the (a) restricted 8 kilometre zone and (b) prohibited 500 metre zone, surrounding offshore industry mobile units stationed in Australian waters.
  2. What penalties may be imposed on ships’ masters whose vessels have entered restricted and prohibited zones,
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department has established a restricted area which surrounds the main group of offshore fixed platforms. It has no legal status under International, Commonwealth or State law.

Safety zones of 500 metre radius have been gazetted by the Victorian authorities and these are legally enforceable.

  1. No penalties may be imposed for violations of the restricted area. Fines not exceeding $10,000 may be imposed for violation of the 500 metre safety zones.

Answers to Questions

Question No. 6101)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

When can I expect an answer to (a) question No. 5336, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 19 February 1980 and (b) question No. 5532 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 27 February 1980.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

The reply to (a) question No. 5336 appeared in Hansard of 1 3 May 1980, page No. 2684 and the reply to (b) question No. 5532 appeared in Hansard of 1 9 August 1 980, page No. 401 .

Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Question No. 6132)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 May 1980:

  1. Can he say whether any arrangements (a) have been made or (b) are proposed for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel produced in Finland.
  2. If arrangements have been made, what are they.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) The Government has been informed that the present situation for Finnish uranium supplies of non-Soviet origin, including those which we provide, is that spent fuel deriving from this material will be stored. The Government has also been informed that the Finnish Government has developed no plans for reprocessing of spent fuel derived from uranium supplies of non-Soviet origin.

Spent fuel derived from uranium supplied by the USSR for use in reactors supplied by them, is repatriated to the USSR by Finland. There is no reprocessing of the spent fuel on behalf of Finland.

Korea: Nuclear Fuel Supplies and Reprocessing (Question No. 6133)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 May 1980:

  1. Can he say what are the present and proposed arrangements for (a) conversion, (b) enrichment and (c) fabrication into fuel rods of the Republic of Korea’s uranium fuel supplies. 1(a) (b) and 2 (a) (b):
  2. Can he also say where is it proposed that Australian uranium under contract for sale to the Republic of Korea shall be (a) converted to uranium hexafluoride, (b) enriched and (c) fabricated into fuel rods.
  3. Can he also say whether arrangements have been made for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel produced in Republic of Korea; if so, what are the arrangements.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) (b) (c) Information available to the Government shows that currently ROK has arrangements for conversion with Eldorado (Canada) or Allied Chemicals (US) and for enrichment with US Department of Energy. Details concerning arrangements for fuel fabrication are not available but it should be emphasised that once material has been processed in the US or Canada it is subject also to their strict nonproliferation requirements. Proposed arrangements, where known, are commercial-in-confidence.
  2. (a) (b) (c) Information concerning arrangements for the conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication of Australian origin nuclear material supplied to ROK under new sales contracts is commercial-in-confidence. Deliveries under the contract will be subject at all times to the bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement between Australia and ROK, which ensures that these services take place in accordance with the requirements of Australia’s stringent nuclear safeguards policy.
  3. The Australian Government has no knowledge of any arrangements made for the reprocessing of spent fuel produced in the ROK.

Uranium Conversion Services (Question No. 6134)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 May 1980:

  1. Can he say (a) what commercial scale uranium hexafluoride conversion plants are in operation throughout the world and (b) what is each plant’s capacity.
  2. Is he also able to say what uranium conversion plants are (a) under construction and (b) planned and, in each case, what is the projected capacity and start-up date.
  3. Can he also say from what country and in what proportion does (a) France, (b) the United Kingdom, (c) Japan, (d) the Federal Republic of Germany, (e) Italy, (f) Sweden, (g) Switzerland, (h) Canada, (i) the United States of America and (j) Finland obtain uranium conversion services.
  4. Can he also say, for each commercial-scale uranium hexafluoride conversion plant, whether uranium feedstock is processed (a) in discrete batches according to source and destination and (b) as a mixture from various sources and bound for various destinations.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) (b) Commercial conversion plants normally operate on a continuous basis, with no attempt being made to segregate uranium from different sources, or according to its destination.

Spent Nuclear Fuel (Question No. 6135)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 May 1980:

  1. Can he say what is the (a) volume of unreprocessed commercial spent nuclear fuel in storage and (b) estimated future production of commercial spent nuclear fuel in (i) the United States of America, (ii) the United Kingdom, (iii) France, (iv) the Federal Republic of Germany, (v) Japan, (vi) Italy, (vii) Sweden, (viii) Finland, (ix) Canada, (x) Switzerland and (xi) Spain.
  2. Can he also say in each case (a) how much commercial spent nuclear fuel iscovered by contracts for reprocessing, (b) what is the period over which any contracts operate and (c) where it is proposed that the reprocessing be carried out.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) (b) Detailed figures, on a country basis, extracted from documents submitted to the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation are set out below:
  1. (a) (b) (c) The detailed contractual information requested is either not available to the Australian Government or is confidential.

Clivus Multrum Disposal Unit (Question No. 6188)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 22 May 1980:

  1. ) Has his attention been drawn to the Swedish invention known as the Clivus Multrum, a disposal unit for human excrement and organic kitchen waste.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the 4-volume report The Selective Conserver Society commissioned by the Canadian Government from the GAMMA research group of Montreal and McGill Universities; if so, can he state whether the paper The Conserver Society and Environmental Damage by Mr Mac Dunbar, Director, Marine Sciences Centre, McGill University (Volume 2, Study 4, pages 62-65), argues that the Clivus Multum is well suited for use in country districts or small towns and makes valuable savings in water and in eliminating possible sources of pollution.
  3. Will he examine the Clivus Multrum and advise whether the invention is (a) available in Australia and (b) considered to be appropriate for Australian conditions.
Mr Newman:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. My attention has been drawn to the paper.

  3. I have had the Clivus Multrum examined, and-

    1. I am advised that one Clivus Multrum has been imported into Australia for test purposes, and that
    2. the Victorian Health Commission has carried out a number of tests and is considering the results.

Department of Trade and Resources: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 6195)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 2 May 1980:

Have any positions in his Department remained unfilled due to the imposition of the Government’s staff ceilings policy in each of the last three years; if so, how many have remained unfilled in each year.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the reply given by the Prime Minister in answer to Question No. 6194 (Hansard, page 3266 of 22 May 1980.

Department of Primary Industry: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 6197)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 May 1980:

Have any positions in his Department remained unfilled due to the imposition of the Government’s staff ceilings policy in each of the last 3 years; if so, how many have remained unfilled in each year.

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

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question on Notice No. 6194 (see Hansard, 22 May 1 980, page 3263).

Department of Foreign Affairs: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 6201)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 1980:

Have any positions in his Department remained unfilled due to the imposition of the Government’s staff ceilings policy in each of the last 3 years; if so, how many have remained unfilled in each year.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a question on notice, 6194, asked by Mr McLeay on 22 May 1980 (House of Representatives Hansard, 22 May 1980, page 3263 refers).

Defence: Article in ‘San Antonio Light’ (Question No. 6220)

Mr Holding:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the article in the San Antonio Light (published in Texas, USA), dated 26 February 1980, and headlined ‘Australia Pledges “Absolute” Support for US’.
  2. Is he able to state whether this report was the result of an exclusive interview he gave to Mr William Randolph Hearst, Jr., and Mr Kingsbury Smith, of Hearst Newspapers as alleged in the article.
  3. If so, did he state, during that interview that (a) Australian defence forces in the Indian Ocean already (i) maintain close liaison with United States of America naval forces and (ii) exchange surveillance information with them, (b) the communications base at North West Cape, Western Australia, relays VHF signals to US nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean and (c) the most important contribution made by Australia to the defence of the United States and itself is made by the top secret, chiefly American-manned satellite communications base at Pine Gap, Northern Territory.
  4. Is there any substance in indications in the article that (a) Pine Gap has the world’s largest radar installation for tracking, and receiving information from, America’s spy satellites which maintain constant surveillance of the Soviet Union, (b) Pine Gap could receive the first indication of a Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile nuclear attack on the United States, (c) the base is operated mainly by about 225 Americans including the largest concentration of Central Intelligence Agency experts outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, USA, (d) other Americans operating the base include a few National Security Agency and US Air Force specialists and (e) Pine Gap would undoubtedly be one of the first targets of Soviet nuclear missiles in the event of war between Russia and the USA.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I understand that several American newspapers published on 26 February 1980 reports based on an interview which I gave to Mr W. R. Hearst and Mr Kingsbury Smith in Canberra on 20 February 1980.
  2. (a) (i) Yes, although in the interview I referred to cooperation, not to liaison. As I indicated in my statement to Parliament on Afganistan on 1 9 February:

Our involvement in Indian Ocean operations will be essentially an independent, national effort. But we will also be supporting the operations of our United States ally by co-ordinating our operations with theirs.’

  1. Yes.

    1. No. I did not refer specifically to the Naval Communications Station at North West Cape during the interview.
    2. No. The interviewers asked whether they would be correct in assuming that one of the most important contributions, if not the most important, that Australia makes to the defence of itself, and to the United States, is the Joint Defence Space Research Facilities near Alice Springs. I replied:

Well, there are a number of joint facilities in Australia. Your assumption would be correct.’

I then went on to say I had always regarded the joint defence facilities in Australia as of great and fundamental importance.

  1. It is the practice of the Government, as it has been the practice of successive governments of Australia, neither to confirm nor deny speculation or assertion about the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap.

Oil Company Profits (Question No. 6239)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report in the Bulletin of 17 June 1980, which stated that in 1979 Delhi International Oil made a net profit of $US3.6m, of which $US2.95m (82 per cent) was due to Australian operations, but that of the company’s exploration and development budget of $US25.5m this year,54.5 per cent will be spent in the United States of America and only 45.5 per cent in Australia.
  2. Can he state whether other oil companies are using profits from oil and gas exploitation in Australia to expand their activities in other countries.
  3. Will the Government ensure that a fair share of ‘windfall profits are retained for exploration in Australia; if so, how will this be achieved.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) It is commonplace for exploration funds to move in to or out of Australia. It must be remembered that much of the petroleum exploration in Australia to date has been funded from profits made in other countries.

It is relevant however that over the last few years between 70 and 80 per cent of the funds used in petroleum exploration and development in Australia have come from companies retained profits. The Government recognises the important part played by these funds in the exploration for and development of Australia’s petroleum resources and expects that the incentives offered by its policies will encourage the industry to continue to plough back a large proportion of the profits achieved into further much needed exploration in the coming years.

The recently revised A PEA forecasts for exploration and development activity and expenditure for 1980 are a clear indication that the Government’s policies are working.

Tax on Export Goods Produced in Australia (Question No. 6240)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports that some multinational and Australian companies are invoicing goods or raw materials, produced in Australia, to subsidiaries or associates in low-tax countries, such as Hong Kong, at prices which result in little or no tax being paid in Australia.
  2. If so, can he state whether the exports in question are subsequently invoiced to the genuine importer, for instance in Japan, at prices which result in a substantial profit being reaped ostensibly in the low-tax country.
  3. Under the existing law is the Commissioner of Taxation unable to take any effective action to prevent any resultant loss of revenue; if so, is any action being taken by the Government to prevent the use of this scheme.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) My attention has been drawn to the decision of the Full High Court in the case of F.C. of T. v. Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Limited which was handed down on 12 August 1980. In that case bauxite was invoiced to an associated company in Hong Kong and was subsequently reinvoiced at a higher price to Japanese purchasers. As a result of the arrangement the profits of the Australian company were less than would have been the case if the sales had been made directly to the ultimate purchasers.
  2. Section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act is designed to prevent avoidance of tax where, among other things, an Australian business is either controlled principally by nonresidents or is carried on by a company which controls a nonresident subsidiary and, because of those circumstances, the business produces less taxable income than might otherwise be expected.

The High Court held that the provisions of section 1 36 do not apply to the particular facts of the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation case. The majority of the Court found as a fact that, in the years in question, the business of the company was controlled principally by directors who were residents of Australia. The Commissioner of Taxation is preparing a report for me on the implications of the Court’s decision.

Custody Orders: Reciprocal Arrangements (Question No. 6241)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

Further to the answer to question No. 122 (Hansard. 8 March 1978, page 570), viz. that the following countries had been approached with a view to ascertaining their attitude towards entering into reciprocal arrangements with Australia for the recognition and enforcement of custody orders: Argentina, Bangladesh, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Egypt, Eire, France, Germany (FRG), Greece, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Malaysia, Malta, The Netherlands, Pakistan, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Uruguay and Yugoslavia, can he now indicate with which countries the Government has been able to enter into reciprocal arrangements for the recognition and enforcement of custody orders.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The Government’s efforts to enter into reciprocal arrangements for the recognition and enforcement of custody orders between Australia and the countries listed in the honourable member’s question have so far been unsuccessful. The Government is now of the view that seeking to conclude such arrangements with individual countries is not the most effective means of approaching the problem of international child removal by a parent or guardian; the more promising solution seems to lie in Australia’s accession to multilateral convention on the subject. It is expected that the final text of a draft Convention on International Child Abduction will be drawn up during the 14th Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to be held in October 1 980. A representative of the Australian Government will attend the Session.

Commonwealth Table of Precedence (Question No. 6251)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. What is the present Commonwealth Table of Precedence.
  2. Does the 1953 rule, viz. ‘the wives of the foregoing to enjoy the precedence of their husbands’ still apply; if so, what is the position of husbands.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth Table of Precedence is set out in the Australian Government Gazette No. S 21 dated 17 February 1 977.
  2. See the footnote to the published table.

Immigration: East Timorese (Question No. 6260)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

Do Australian Government programs exist for migration of East Timorese people to Australia, whether as refugees currently living in Portugal or direct from East Timor; if so, (a) what are the programs; (b) when were they commenced and (c) how many East Timorese have been admitted to Australia in each year since the inception of the programs.

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

Residents of East Timor and former residents of East Timor residing in Portugal may apply for entry to Australia under normal policy provisions. It is important to emphasise that the Timorese do not meet the internationally accepted definition of a refugee: viz. one with a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, who is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. Those in Portugal are Portuguese citizens and those in Timor are in their homeland. The Australian government has nonetheless recognised this group as deserving special humanitarian consideration.

In addition to the first group of approximately 1 700 East Timorese who were evacuated directly to Australia during the civil war situation in 1975 and allowed to remain here, more than 300 have since arrived under a special family reunion program of 625 persons agreed between the Australian and Indonesian governments in July 1978. Other applicants may be considered in accordance with normal migration policy. To date 1 50 persons have been approved.

Relaxed family reunion entry criteria were introduced in December 1976 to provide for the reunion in Australia of Timorese evacuees in Portugal and other parts of the world. This concession permitted the sponsorship of brothers and sisters and adult children. A total of 560 former residents of East Timor has arrived from Portugal under both the relaxed and normal family reunion programs.

National Traffic Code (Question No. 6270)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 9 August 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What is the function of the National Traffic Code.
  2. Has the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes completed its comprehensive review of the National Road Traffic Code; if not, when is the committee expected to present its report.
  3. If the committee has presented its report, (a) what were its findings, (b) were these findings discussed by the ATAC

Ministers and if so, when, and (c) what action, if any, has resulted from the committee’s findings and any discussions by ATAC.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Australian Transport Advisory Council first approved the Code in 1962 and while recognizing that it would not necessarily be adopted in its entirety by all jurisdictions in Australia, expressed the hope that individual States and Territories would, as opportunity offered, adopt its provisions. It is anticipated that the revised Code, when adopted, will establish that strong national focus so necessary for the achievement of uniformity.
  2. The review by the Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes is nearing completion and should be finalised in time for consideration by ATAC at its February 1981 meeting.
  3. Refer to reply at (2).

National Road Traffic Code (Question No. 6272)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 9 August 1 980:

  1. Can he state to what extent are (a) the Draft Regulations Defining Vehicle Construction, Equipment and Performance Standards for road vehicles and (b) the National Road Traffic Code incorporated into legislation in each State and Territory of Australia.
  2. Can he further state what steps, if any, are being taken towards the further incorporation of these standards into State or Territory legislation.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) State and Territory legislation in Australia incorporates the majority of the requirements set out both in the Draft Regulations Defining Vehicle Construction, Equipment and Performance Standards for Road Vehicles and in the National Road Traffic Code. A simple comparison of the legislation with these two ‘model code’ documents can be misleading since in many instances uniformity is achieved through the exercise of administrative discretion by State and Territory officials or by the enforcement procedures adopted on the road. For these reasons the extent of uniformity as between the States and Territories cannot be precisely determined.
  2. The goal of uniformity in the specification of road transport requirements, where such are necessary for the welfare of the transport industry or of the travelling public, is regularly pursued through the consultative machinery of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Currently the Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes is completing a major review of the National Road Traffic Code so that it may serve as a stronger focus for uniform action by the States and Territories. Currently the Commonwealth also has in train a review of the utilization and development of the Draft Regulations defining Vehicle Construction, Equipment and Performance Standards for Road Vehicles to determine what new initiatives might assist in achieving greater uniformity.

Gippsland Basin Oil Fields (Question No. 6275)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

What was the production of (a) parity and (b) non-parity oil produced from (i) small, (ii) medium, (iii) large and (iv) new oil fields in the Gippsland Basin, Victoria, in the period January to June 1980.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

Production of (a) parity and (b) non-parity oil from (i) small, (ii) medium, (iii) large and (iv) new oil fields in the Gippsland Basin, Victoria, in the period January to June 1 980 was as follows:

(a) 287.73 megalitres; (b) none

(a) 579.73 megalitres; (b) none

(a) 3,1 1 3.60 megalitres; (b) 5,782.40 megalitres

none- The concept of parity and non-parity oil does not apply to production from ‘new’ oil fields.

These figures should be regarded as provisional.

Barrow Island Oil Fields (Question No. 6276)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

What was the production of (a) parity and (b) non-parity oil produced from (i) small, (ii) medium, (iii) large and (iv) new oil fields on Barrow Island, Western Australia, in the period January to June 1980.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

Production of (a) parity and (b) non-parity oil from (i) small, (ii) medium (iii) large and (iv) new oil fields on Barrow Island, Western Australia, in the period January to June 1980 was as follows:

(a) 100.75 megalitres; (b) none

(a) 474.67 megalitres; (b) 256.96 megalitres

(a) none; (b) none

8.687 megalitres- The concept of parity and nonparity oil does not apply to production from ‘new’ oil fields.

These figures should be regarded as provisional.

Queensland Oil Fields (Question No. 6277)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

What was the production of (a) parity and (b) non-parity oil produced from (i) small, (ii) medium, (iii) large and (iv) new oil fields in Queensland in the period January to June 1980.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) 41 . 58 megalitres; (b) none
  2. (a) none; (b) none
  3. (a) none; (b) none
  4. none- The concept of parity and non-parity oil does not apply to production from ‘new’ oil fields.

These figures should be regarded as provisional.

South Africa (Question No. 6311)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many migrants from the Republic of South Africa have arrived in Australia since 1978.
  2. What is the average age of these immigrants.
  3. What occupational categories do they fill.
  4. What sums of money did they bring into the country.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 4,692 (from 1 January 1979 to 30 June 1980).
  2. Average age, 25 years.
  3. –
  1. This information is not held by the Department.

National Plan for Aboriginal Health (Question No. 6360)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

  1. ) Has the Minister received any representations from the Kew City Council in Victoria regarding Country Roads Board results of their lead monitoring program conducted adjacent to the Eastern Freeway in Kew.
  2. If so, can the Minister state what was the nature of those representations and did they include the seeking of Federal assistance in obtaining the release of those results.
  3. If the Minister has not received any such representations, is he able to state whether any other Federal Minister, Department or agency has been approached on this matter by the Kew City Council.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. (As of 2 September, the date of this reply).
  2. See (1) above.
  3. I am unaware of any approach to another Commonwealth Minister, Department or agency by the Kew City Council on this matter.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 September 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800909_reps_31_hor119/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant