House of Representatives
16 September 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1277

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 1 980, and

Whereas if funding is not approved by August the course will close and students’ careers placed in grave jeopardy.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure that funding of the Preston Institute of Technology Chiropractic Program by the Tertiary Education Commission be no longer delayed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Bradfield, Mr Dawkins, Mr Dobie, Mr Dummond, Mr Fife, Mr Fisher, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Nixon and Mr Ian Robinson.

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 fiar and just compensation. They remind the Prime Minister and his Government that they found the sum of $190,000 to compensate the Hilton arcade shopkeepers for their loss of business and we the undersigned regard the loss of life and permanent injury even more important than the loss of business. The police involved were guarding the Prime Minister’s life and one of them lost his life, because the Prime Minister and the other international heads of state were inside the hotel. Three other police were seriously and permanently injured as a result of the bombing. The undersigned petitioners call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to compensate these unfortunate victims.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Or Blewett, Mr Bradfield, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Jacobi, Mr Keating, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Scholes, Mr Wallis and Mr Yates.

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 Dawkins, Mr Humphreys, Mr Innes and Mr Morris.

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 Kevin Cairns, Mr Martyr and Mr Millar.

Petitions received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the prospect of the proposed Plant Breeders’ Rights Legislation. The reasons are as follows:

  1. We believe it will restrict free growing and exchange or sale of non-chemically treated seeds.
  2. We believe it will cause a decline in the genetic diversity of plants as evidenced in Europe following implementation of similar legislation there.
  3. We believe that prolonged public debate is necessary as is a referendum before a final decision is made.
  4. We believe that implementation of this Legislation could lead to the control of growing and distribution of food and, through this, the control of the peoples by a few Corporations.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take positive action as soon as possible to arrest the implementation of such legislation.

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

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

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

Petitions received.

Pornographic Publications

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 the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the government to introduce immediate legislation:

  1. 1 ) To prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic child-abuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films.

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

Petition received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its Recommendations:

  1. Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc.
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 31 persons, and for the Commissioners acting in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ‘a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment’, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the ‘family’.

Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:

  1. Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations,
  2. Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the U.N.O. Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia’s support for the Year of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.

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

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Child Care Expenses

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

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

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

Petition received.

Post Office: Marsden Area

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 postal facilities provided by Australia Post in the Marsden area of Queensland are totally inadequate.

Your petitioners request that the Honourable, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications will provide an agency in the Marsden area so that an efficient service can be provided.

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

Petition received.

Nuclear Free Pacific

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

That the Australian Government should join with other Pacific Nations to make Australia part of a Nuclear Free Zone, including the whole of the Pacific region by:

Applying a moratorium to the mining and export of Australian uranium;

Prohibiting nuclear waste dumping, nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power generation, uranium enrichment or any other part of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia;

Not allowing transport of nuclear materials by Australian railroads, aircraft, or shipping;

Not renewing agreements which relate to existing foreign military bases in Australia- Nurrungar, Pine Gap, North West Cape, and Omega;

Excluding nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered shipping from Australian ports;

Encouraging State Governments and Local Councils throughout Australia to declare Nuclear-Free Zones in areas under their administration, following the example of a number of Councils in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland;

Supporting the opposition of other Pacific peoples to nuclear activities on or near their territories.

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

Petition received.

Labelling of Cosmetics

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

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

That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission’s terms of reference, seems unable to impose any 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. 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 Humphreys.

Petition received.

Great Barrier Reef

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits:

That offshore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth.

Your petitioners request that your Honourable House will:

  1. 1 ) Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region,
  2. Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1 975,
  3. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region.

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

Petition received.

Export of Live Animals

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

That the export of live animals is cruel and inhumane and should in no way be countenanced by governments.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the government prohibit such practices by the denial of export permits.

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

Petition received.

Sydney Telephone District

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 changes to the system of telephone charging announced by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on

Tuesday, 5th June, 1979, fail to meet the needs of the people of the Division of Macquarie in the following respects:

  1. 1 ) The failure to grant local call access to Sydney to the residents of the City of Penrith is a clear repudiation of a promise made to those residents by the Government in 1977; and
  2. The bulk of the City of Blue Mountains will fail to gain any significant concession through the new arrangements, despite the fact that the City qualifies as a near-Metropolitan area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take action to give all necessary directions to have those subscribers presently in the 047 Zone included in the Sydney Telephone District.

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

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 tax-payers 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.

Trans-Australia Airlines

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:

Many Australians depend almost exclusively upon TransAustralia Airlines for the provision of essential air services.

The Federal Liberal Party policy objective of selling TransAustralia Airlines within 5 years is contrary to the national interest.

Sale of Trans-Australia Airlines would inevitably result in:

  1. the creation of a private monopoly of major airline services in Australia;

    1. higher domestic air fares.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright any proposal to sell Trans-Australia Airlines.

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 request that the funding of the Women’s Health Centres and Rape Crisis Centre 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 your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

Housing

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled should take action as it deems appropriate to ensure the immediate provision of adequate public housing throughout Australia; and in particular that the region of Latrobe Valley, Victoria be deemed to be an area of special housing need requiring funding over and above general State allocation for construction and purchase of appropriate public housing for rent; and that priority housing to low income people in urgent need be available in Latrobe Valley with the guidelines for priority housing made public.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

  1. Present income tax laws are unfair to single income families,
  2. All marriages should be recognised 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 Yates.

Petition received.

Education

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 and permanent residents of Australia respectfully showeth:

That recognition should be given to the permanent nature of the Adult Migrant Education program by providing permanent funding for an adequate and permanent English language teaching service.

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

Petitions received.

Education

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

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. by Mr Dobie and Mr Lucock.

Petitions 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 resuce 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 system.

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 NSW 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 percent.

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.

Abbotsford Point Quarantine Station

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

That due to the transfer of the Commonwealth Animal Quarantine Station from Abbotsford (NSW) to Wallgrove this area is now vacant.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

We prevail upon the Minister for Administrative Services the Hon. J. E. McLeay, M.P., to return all of the land in question to the State of NSW for the purpose of its conversion to a riverside park and waive any claim to monetary compensation.

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

Petition received.

page 1281

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) left Australia on 13 September to attend trade discussions with the European Economic Community in Brussels. The Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Sinclair) will act as Minister for Trade and Resources until Mr Anthony returns on 23 September.

page 1281

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Notice of Motion

Mr UREN:
Reid

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

That this House-

1 ) notes that the motor car uses about 35 per cent of the oil consumed in Australia and that over two-thirds of this is used in urban areas;

condemns the regressive practice of the Fraser Government in heavily taxing the motorist while doing nothing to bring about an alternative to the motor car,

deplores the Government’s cutback of 44 per cent in spending on urban public transport since 1975; and

calls on the Government to -

urgently seek the co-operation of the States to substantially upgrade urban public transport; and

establish a Department of Urban and Regional Affairs whose function will include co-operation with the States to achieve more fuel efficient planning and development in the cities.

page 1282

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SPOKESMAN

Notice of Motion

Mr NEIL:
St George

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

That this House condemns the Labor Party foi its affront to the Parliament and the democratic process by its failure to have an industrial relations spokesman in the Parliament.

page 1282

DOMESTIC COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE

Notice of Motion

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

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

That this House, being of the opinion that -

the recent retreat of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications from his previous stance of using a domestic communications satellite for the telephony needs of the great majority of outback dwellers is a further indication of the inadequacy of the Government’s satellite policy making, and

the Minister for Post and Telecommunications collapse in the face of pressure from the Minister for Finance over the selling off of public equity in the satellite is reprehensible, condemns the Government’s partisanship, inadequacy and incompetence in the domestic communications satellite project in general.

page 1282

OPPOSITION SPOKESMEN

Notice of Motion

Mr YATES:
Holt

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

That this House-

agrees as from Wednesday, 17 September 1980, to provide two chairs on the floor for the use of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, and Mr R. J. Hawke, the candidate for Wills and the official spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition on industrial relations and invites both the Premier of New South Wales and the candidate for Wills to address the House from the Bar of the House on Thursday, 18 September 1980, and

is of the opinion that, in view of the failure of the representative of Her Majesty’s Opposition to fulfil his duties to the House, his salary be forfeited as from this day.

page 1282

FOREIGN NON-ALIGNMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That this House condemns as completely contrary to the national security of Australia the ALP proposal announced at the weekend that a policy of military and foreign nonalignment should be implemented.

page 1282

BANKSTOWN BY-ELECTION

Notice of Motion

Mr NEIL:
St George

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

That this House congratulates the New South Wales Opposition on achieving a massive 9 per cent swing against the discredited Wran Government at the Bankstown by-election.

page 1282

GANG OF THREE

Notice of Motion

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

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

That, aware of mainland China’s sufferings under the Gang of Four, this House declares that Australia should never be governed by the gang of three.

page 1282

ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO TASMANIA

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That in view of the record-breaking allocation of in excess of $68 1 m in Federal funds to and for Tasmania in the current financial year, this House categorically and unhesitatingly rejects attempts by the Lowe Government to try to blame its 1980-81 Horror Budget on Canberra.

page 1282

SOIL CONSERVATION

Notice of Motion

Mr FitzPATRICK:
Riverina

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

That this House -

notes the urgent need for Government incentives for soil conservation measures for the preservation and restoration of valuable and productive Australian farming land, and

urges the Government to introduce an immediate tax rebate for expenditure by farmers on soil conservation projects.

page 1282

MULTICULTURAL BROADCASTING

Notice of Motion

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

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

That this House favours efficient and exemplary multicultural broadcasting services and condemns the actions of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in purchasing for $20,000 an unserviceable television transmitter for multicultural broadcasting and in spending as much further money as may be necessary to get this transmitter on the air for the purpose of maintaining at least one election promise of the Prime Minister.

page 1283

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1283

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS: EMPLOYMENT SERIES

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question to the Treasurer concerns a statement in the Budget Papers that the reliability of each of the employment series published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics is questionable and that they are both being reviewed by the Australian Statistician. Will the Treasurer explain to the House why only one of the series - that is the wage and salary earners in civilian employment series - has been suspended for the last couple of months while the labour force employment series has continued to be published? Is it not the usual practice for a series to be continued to be published while it is being revised? Is the Treasurer aware that the officer in charge of employment statistics in the Bureau has publicly expressed his concern about the labour force series and asserted that the now suspended civilian employment series was the more reliable indicator of employment trends? Can he assure the House that the suspension of the civilian employment series has nothing to do with the fact that over the 12 months to April this year it showed a growth in wage and salary earner employment of 124,000 less than the labour force series and that over the last four years it showed that private sector employment of wage and salary earners declined by 1 0,000?

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

– The decision to review the surveys in this area was taken by the Australian Statistician, as I think the honourable member for Gellibrand well knows. The decision to withdraw them also was taken by the Statistician. I have already indicated to the honourable member for Gellibrand in another forum of this House what the circumstances were. If there is any further information that I can obtain for the honourable gentleman, I will be happy to do so. I repeat that the initiative to have it reviewed came from the Statistician. The decision to suspend came from the Statistician, based on a judgment made by him as to the relative merits of the two methods of assessing employment levels.

page 1283

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM PROJECT

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Trade and Resources. I refer to the assignment of the Government’s interests in the Ranger uranium project to Energy Resources of Australia. Have the legal matters associated with this assignment been completed? If so, when will the documents be made available to honourable members?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Special Trade Representations · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– I have been advised that the necessary documentation to effect assignment of the Government’s interests in the Ranger uranium project to Energy Resources of Australia was executed in Canberra on 12 September. I have also been advised that it has not been possible to arrange printing of the quite voluminous documents in time to enable me to table them in the House before the end of this Parliament. In these circumstances, it has been arranged that five sets of the documents will be placed in the Parliamentary Library where they will be available for the information of honourable members.

page 1283

QUESTION

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GUARANTEE

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister and refer him to the view expressed by the State Premiers after their meeting in Adelaide last Friday, that a financial assistance guarantee was necessary to ensure adequate funding and secure basis for planning over the next five years. What is the Prime Minister’s reaction to the Premiers’ proposal? Further, in view of the fact that no States have implemented the provision for double taxation under stage 2 of the Government’s federalism policy and that funding guarantees have ceased, does the Prime Minister consider that his Government provides a secure base for planning by the States in the years ahead?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I, and no doubt the Treasurer, will be interested to examine very closely the proposals of the States. Quite obviously, this Government will continue to provide the States with more than adequate funds to meet their responsibilities.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– They don’t think so.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Australian Labor Party has over time adopted a somewhat different attitude to financial responsibility from that adopted by this Government. We make no secret of that fact. We know that the Australian Labor Party tends to believe that, like some sort of cargo cult, one can get money off trees. If there is a request for something, the Labor Party says yes to that request and it generates a good few more of its own. The promise of the Leader of the Opposition to spend $2, 500m more on an annual basis in six areas of government expenditure alone shows how little regard the Labor Party has for the people of Australia.

Mr Hayden:

– You are a liar. You are lying again. You are lying again.

Mr Nixon:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask you to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. I find the words used by him totally offensive and I ask you to ask him to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have taken note of the point of order raised by the Minister. I did not hear the remark of the Leader of the Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition did make an unparliamentary remark, I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Hayden:

– Unparliamentary or unjustified?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am asking the honourable member to withdraw an unparliamentary remark.

Mr Hayden:

– Unparliamentary- yes, I will withdraw that.

Mr Hodgman:

– Raise your standard!

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– My colleague who interjected should know that the Leader of the Opposition is incapable of raising his standard.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Why don’t you answer the question?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I will answer the question, my honourable friend, but if I want to add one or two things in passing, I will do just that. Let me repeat that the Leader of the Opposition in five areas of expenditure, has committed a Labor government to $2,000m of additional expenditure, as documented in the most precise way of the honourable gentleman in this Parliament.

Mr Scholes:

– He is lying again. He can’t help it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Scholes:

– You are lying again; lies again.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The voice of the honourable member for Corio, I believe, was the voice I heard interjecting. If it was him, I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Scholes:

– I withdraw. I assure Government members that the truth doesn’t hurt.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio has been here long enough to know that he is tampering with Standing Orders. I ask all honourable members of the Opposition benches to remain silent while the answer is being given.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The statement by the Minister for Finance, which costed in detail the Australian Labor Party’s main policy proposals, has not been challenged, as I understand, by anyone in this Parliament. It is accurate to the last cent. It stands as complete condemnation of the mythology of the financial responsibility that might once have attached to the Leader of the Opposition. The point of the honourable gentleman’s question relates to the Government’s clear determination to see that the States have adequate resources to meet their needs. I suggest that the honourable member look at every State Budget for the last five years. Nearly every one of those State Budgets has contained substantial additions to expenditure and, at the same time, significant additional tax cuts. Those were applied under provisions that were granted by this Government. The Government’s attitude to the States has been one of generosity. That is well understood in the wider Australian community.

page 1284

QUESTION

REPLACEMENT OF HMAS MELBOURNE

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– I refer the Prime Minister to the visit now taking place in Brussels by the Deputy Prime Minister and to the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister to the general effect that the Government may have to look very carefully in the future to its purchases from European Economic Community countries. As the Government is to replace HMAS Melbourne with a new vessel, would such an approach as that outlined generally by the Deputy Prime Minister extend as far as withdrawing from the list of possible replacement vessels for HMAS Melbourne the Italian Garibaldi class vessel?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– My colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, as honourable gentlemen know, is in Brussels conducting important negotiations on the part of the Australian Government. But, more importantly, he is conducting these negotiations on behalf of a large part of the community in Australia.

Mr Innes:

– He is over there making a fool of himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will remain silent and cease interjecting continually.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– But, more importantly, my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, is arguing on behalf of large interests within Australia which need a government that is prepared to stand up for their interests in the wider international community. This Government will always do so. As the Minister for Defence announced last week, the Government has decided to replace HMAS Melbourne with a purposedesigned ship to be equipped with helicopters for anti-submarine warfare, and with the potential to be equipped with short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft. As the Minister also said, further definition of the carrier details will be undertaken and should be completed within the next financial year. It will be clear, therefore, that no decision has yet been made on a vessel to replace HMAS

Melbourne or on the source from which such a vessel might ultimately be purchased.

I am sure also that honourable members are aware that there have been considerable trading difficulties with the European Community. We regard with seriousness the intention of the European Community to apply a sheep-meat regime, especially since it comes so shortly after the conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations which had been regarded as important negotiations and as definitive negotiations in terms of the broad trading relationship. In a sheep-meat regime we see all the problems and the potential for damage which we have learned through bitter and hard experience such policies cause in many areas of industry. I would hope that any Australian government would stand up for Australian exporting industries in these matters. So, the Deputy Prime Minister is in Brussels with the full support and authority of the Government to make clearly known the Government’s and Australia’s concern and to seek from the Community assurances that it will not apply its policies in ways which will deny us reasonable access to the European market or in ways that will damage the ability to trade on other markets, as has so often been the case. It is no good to be concerned just with the European market situation because the European Community now spends $25 billion a year in either wage subsidies or export subsidies. With those kinds of resources, quite clearly it can buy its way into any market whether it has been a traditional market of a country like Australia or New Zealand. The application of policies of that kind is just not good enough.

The Deputy Prime Minister will be making it clear to the European Community that the Government’s attitude to the purchase of goods from the Community will be affected by its attitude to us as reflected in the way it applies its trading policies to us. The replacement vessel for HMAS Melbourne is in the same category as every other possible purchase we have in mind, whether it be a Garibaldi-class vessel, a helicopter, a carrier for short take-off and vertical landing aircraft or any other military or civilian purchase. Other things being equal, we would not be purchasing from the European Community if there were a continued application of discriminatory trading policies. I mentioned those words other things being equal’ because they are important. These are matters which we must take seriously, and the European Community would be well advised to know that this Government does take them seriously.

page 1285

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY’S EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

Mr HAYDEN:

– Is the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs aware that I have in my hand a transcript of a document from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet outlining a costing of Labor’s programs? Is he aware that I have seen an authenticated copy of the original document? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, among other Government Ministers, have been claiming continually that the cost of Labor’s employment programs is $ 1,000m?

Mr Birney:

– Receiving stolen documents.

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, I ask that that be withdrawn. It takes a thief to recognise a thief. On this occasion the honourable member is wrong.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Phillip will withdraw.

Mr Birney:

– I withdraw.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Gosh, I thought it was someone else. The only one who managed to stay outside Long Bay.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the statement that he made.

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, I withdraw. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, among other Ministers, have claimed continually that the cost of Labor’s employment program is $ 1, 000m? Is it a fact that the documentation from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet shows the net cost as $600m? Is it a fact that even that costing includes an overstatement of $260m as the cost of materials not proposed to be provided under Labor’s programs? Accordingly, is the figure of $ 1,000m, the cost of Labor’s employment programs as quoted by the Government, on those two scores alone wilfully overstated by an amount of $660m in round figures? If allowance is made for that, is it a fact that the real net cost of Labor’s programs on the basis proposed by Labor and applying the figures compiled by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is $340m as against $330m, as stated by my colleague the honourable member for Port Adelaide? Will this misrepresentation cease or is it the intention of the Government to lie its way out of government just as it lied its way in?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition was in order until the last statement. I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw the implications and not to repeat them.

Mr Hayden:

– I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to co-operate with me during Question Time and to avoid using such language. It only contributes to ill-will in the House.

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

– I am not aware of the document the Leader of the Opposition had in his hand. However, I am aware of the fact that the correct costing of the Labor Party’s programs is $ 1 ,000m.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is brazen and wilful misrepresentation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– I have seen the document, as have others.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, with respect, this is blatant and persistent dishonesty.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman knows that he can have recourse to the Standing Orders, but he is not entitled to make accusations of that kind under the Standing Orders. I ask him to obey the Standing Orders.

Mr VINER:

– As I was saying, I am aware of the fact that the cost of the Labor Party’s job creation programs is $1, 000m. If the Leader of the Opposition, let alone his front bencher who now has only half a job, looks at the Hansard of 25 March, he will see the basis of the costing of the Labor Party’s job creation programs. Let me repeat that they will cost $ 1,000m. If honourable members look at some of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Port Adelaide - I was in the electorate of the honourable member for Port Adelaide yesterday - they will see that at one time the Labor Party mentioned the sum of $180m as the full first year cost, whatever that means, and it will be seen that in another statement it referred to the full year cost as $330m. Who are we to believe? Are we to believe the Leader of the Opposition who said these programs would cost $180m or the honourable member for Port Adelaide who said they would cost $330m? The Government is not prepared to accept their costing because it knows it is wrong. Both those honourable gentlemen know that their costing is wrong. The true cost of the Labor Party’s job creation proposals in any Budget brought down by the Opposition if, heaven forbid, it ever became the government of this country, would appear as an appropriation of $ 1,000m to my Department. They are the plain facts of the matter. Nothing that can be said from here on by the Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the half-a-job man in this Parliament, can get away from them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the last question and answer demonstrate that from one side of the House a certain point of view will be put and from the other side of the House a contrary point of view will be put. It is up to the House and to the public to judge the correctness of either view. That judgment will not be assisted by the expressive noise in this House expressing belief or disbelief. I ask all honourable members to remain silent.

Mr Hayden:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In view of the fact that my probity in this matter has been challenged by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, I ask leave to table a document from the Minister’s Department which verifies in every respect what I have said and exposes him for the sham that he is.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– I seek leave to table the document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– Can I incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is refused.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 1286

QUESTION

NATURAL RESOURCE PROJECTS

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Treasurer’s attention been drawn to suggestions that the Government has not adhered to its foreign investment guidelines for natural resource projects? Will the Treasurer inform the House whether these claims are correct?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to claims made spasmodically by the Opposition, and more recently by Senator Chipp in another place, that the Government has not adhered to its foreign investment guidelines for natural resource programs. I would like to reject that criticism.

Mr Jacobi:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to my question on notice No. 6498, which deals with the same matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is in order.

Mr HOWARD:

– The facts are that since the establishment of the Foreign Investment Review

Board there have been 40 proposals approved for the establishment of new businesses in the natural resource area. Of these 29 have met the guidelines’ and have been approved; eight were approved subject to the condition that they would raise their Australian equity to 50 per cent in the future; and three others were approved also without conditions although they did not meet the 50 per cent Australian equity requirement. However, the weighted average of their Australian equity was about 47 per cent. The Government was satisfied in all the circumstances that in approving them they were highly desirable from Australia’s point of view and that domestic equity finance was unavailable. I think these figures rebut the criticisms made by the Opposition. They demonstrate that this Government has achieved a very important balance between attracting foreign capital into this country and at the same time providing adequate opportunity for Australian equity investment in resource development projects.

This answer also gives me the opportunity to point out what would happen if the Labor Party were to become the government of this country. The ideology adopted at the Adelaide conference talked about the increasing foreign domination of the Australian economy by transnational corporations endangering our national sovereignty and about establishing spy units within the Foreign Investment Review Board. Those units would carry out detailed examinations of companies, provide that information to trade union bodies and destroy any concept of commercial confidentially and trust between commercial organisations making investments and governments. This indicates what a Labor government would do to the prospects of retaining foreign investment in this country. We all know that in our development we need a balance between opportunity for local equity and a steady supply of foreign capital. There is only one foreign investment policy that achieves that balance - that is, the foreign investment policy of the Government.

page 1287

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister for Education a question which flows from the assertion of the Prime Minister that the Government’s costing of Labor’s program comes from the most reliable source available. He quoted the Minister for Finance which suggests that he is more easily pleased than others.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will ask his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Is it a fact that on 26 August in this House the Minister for Finance stated that the cost of Labor’s tertiary education assistance schemes would be an extra $68m? Is it a fact that a document from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet signed by Mr Malloy, Acting Assistant Secretary - a copy of which I have in my hand–

Government members- Oh!

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes. Is it a fact that this document states that the cost would be $85m, a mere error of well over 20 per cent? Is it a fact that the Budget Papers, on the basis of a 20 per cent increase in the TEAS allowances as proposed by Labor, make it clear that the cost of Labor’s program would be no more than $20m- some $10m less than Labor proposed? In the circumstances, which is the Parliament and public to believe - the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Minister for Finance or the Budget Papers? If it is asserted that the Budget Papers are–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable .gentleman will ask his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Finally, if it is asserted that the Budget Papers are wrong, are they wrong by error or intent? If it is asserted that they are right, which of the two other sources available - the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or the Minister for Finance - is the less reliable and the more wilfully misleading?

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

– The misleading aspect of the question comes from the questioner because today he conveniently omitted to make any reference to the cost of adjusting the means test. In the Labor documents ‘Education: What Labor will do’, reference is made to the fact that the means test will be adjusted to bring it back into line with what it would have been if–

Mr Hayden:

– That is why we say $30m instead of $2Om

Mr FIFE:

– The amount of $30m–

Mr Hayden:

– Are you stupid or something?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr FIFE:

– The amount of $30m does not even cover the rate increase.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– You have been caught with your hands in your pockets.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition knows that he has asked his question and that he should not debate across the table. I ask him to remain silent while the Minister answers the question. I gave the honourable gentleman considerable latitude in the asking of the question; I ask him to show common courtesy to the Minister by listening to the answer. I call the Minister.

Mr FIFE:

– I will continue where I left off. I was drawing attention to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has conveniently omitted to make reference to the cost of Labor’s policy of adjusting the means test. He has referred, of course, to the adjustment in the rate of the TEAS allowance but not got the cost of increasing the means test.

page 1288

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Sainsbury proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is out of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask on what grounds you rule that question out of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question, among other things, was a hypothetical question. It also asked for an opinion, and the Prime Minister is not responsible to this House in his official capacity for persons who have no official status.

page 1288

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DEBT

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Australian Government debt increased from $6 billion to $18.5 billion in the five years to June 1980, that is, from $441 per head of population in 1975, to $1265 per head this year? Has the Australian Government debt to foreigners increased from $1 billion in June 1975 to $5.3 billion in June 1980? If so, how does the Prime Minister square this evidence of the massively increasing debt of the Australian Government during this period in office with his claims that his Government has ‘paid off Labor’s debts’–

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman is now arguing the issue. His question, up to now, is in order. I call the Treasurer.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I suspect that the honourable member for Scullin is drawing those statistics from Statement No. 6 of the Budget Papers, which contains details of securities on issue from the Commonwealth. There are two reasons why the securities on issue, if that is the measure to which the honourable gentleman is really referring, are greater now than they were in the Whitlam years. Firstly, unlike the Whitlam Government, which chose to cover its deficits by printing money and not by issuing sufficient securities and fuding its deficit in a more responsible manner, we inherited, as the honourable gentleman knows and as my predecessor the right honourable member for Flinders knows even better, a very large expansion in the money supply. It was necessary to some extent for the Government to sell a large volume of securities in order to cover the vast amount of printing of money which had occurred during the Whitlam years.

It is also a fact that during the time that this Government has been in office we have borrowed significant amounts overseas to supplement our international reserves. It is common for a country that has relied over the years on capital from overseas to borrow on official account on occasions when private capital inflow is at more subdued levels. That is what the Government has done. The important comment that can be made about our overseas borrowings is that, as a proportion of gross domestic product, the debt is no greater than it was in 1967 and 1968. Overseas borrowings in the last financial year were significantly less than they were in the two previous years, which demonstrates a much stronger private capital account.

The other point that has to be made, and this is the real point so far as good budget housekeeping is concerned, that that as a percentage of gross domestic product the Commonwealth Budget deficit is now dramatically lower than it was at its peak of over 5 per cent in the Whitlam years. Not only is the Commonwealth Budget deficit significantly lower, but also the overall public sector borrowing requirement, which includes all Commonwealth and State authorities, is demonstrably lower. Those two comparisons alone demonstrate beyond any doubt that the budgetary policies of this Government, the national housekeeping of this Government, have been both more responsible and more successful than those of its predecessors.

page 1288

QUESTION

WHEAT AND GRAIN SALES TO THE SOVIET UNION

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. In the light of present circumstances, what is the Government’s policy with regard to wheat and grain sales to the Soviet Union? How docs this policy compare with that adopted by other friends of the United States of America?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– The House will know that, following my visit to the United States, the Government agreed to the limited sale of 3.9 million tonnes of grain from Australia to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I can also report to the honourable member that the United States has also limited its sales to the level of sales of last year of 8 million tonnes. Canada will support the policy and maintain its export controls but it has said that it will not establish specific ceilings for 1 980-8 1 because of the crop and marketing uncertainties it has. Likewise, the European Economic Community countries are limiting their sales to the same level of sales as last year. So, all in all, the situation is that apart from Argentina, which never agreed to limit its sales in the first place, to this point all the other countries are holding tight in respect of sales to the USSR.

There is to be the normal half-yearly meeting of grain growing countries in November this year. On this occasion it will be in Adelaide. Of course, the total question, as was stated at the time of the Washington meeting, will be reviewed again at that time. In other respects, any other actions that the Government may consider in respect of this matter again will depend on the policy that the Russians show in Afghanistan. Any change of approach that it might take could affect the Government’s policy.

page 1289

QUESTION

COSTING OF LABOR’S HEALTH PROPOSALS

Mr HAYDEN:

– I refer the Minister for Health to the ‘reliable’- we now know that that word is in inverted commas - costing that the Government has available to it of Labor’s program, referred to and often resorted to by the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Is it a fact that within this total costing of the Prime Minister and other Ministers, including the Minister to whom this question is directed, there is a costing of Labor’s health proposals of S380m? Is it a fact that in the costing provided by the Minister’s Department to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet - I refer to the transcript that I have - the Department implies that the figure is exaggerated because it is based on an unrealistically high insurance dropout rate? Is it further pointed out in the costing provided by the Department that a realistic dropout rate would be not 1 5 per cent but more likely 5 per cent on the basis of current experience and that, allowing for that and other savings available under our program, the real cost of our program, according to the Department, is not $380m as asserted by the Prime Minister and others but $1 80m - that is, a distortion on the part of Government Ministers of some $200m?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman is not entitled to use in his question a statement like distortion by Government Ministers’.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am sorry; I did not realise they would be above it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman can ask his question. I have already permitted him considerable latitude.

Mr Hayden:

– Not as much latitude, with respect, Mr Speaker, as the Government has been taking.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will ask his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Has the Minister sought to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that he is grossly overstating the costing of Labor’s health insurance program, according to his own Department’s estimate, by at least $200m?

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

– The Leader of the Opposition proposed his kiddybank program. Let me just remind honourable members and the Australian community what that means. It is essentially designed to help the most healthy in the community and to leave totally without help the aged and the chronically ill. The Leader of the Opposition himself has costed that, I think at $130m. The fact also remains that the introduction of such a proposal would be a positive encouragement for people to drop out of health insurance funds. Not only that, but also he has recently gone on to say–

Mr Hayden:

– Here you are - 5 per cent at the most. Be honest. It is difficult, I know, but try it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister will resume his seat. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to contain himself and remain silent while the question is being answered.

Mr Sinclair:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I wonder whether the microphone in front of the Leader of the Opposition can be switched on so that the people of Australia can hear the comments he is making in breach of our Standing Orders. I believe it is essential that they do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. I call the Minister.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– In recent times the Leader of the Opposition has excelled himself by proposing that there be a full return to Medibank, not in the long distant future but within three years. If one costs a full return to Medibank, the proposal that the Prime Minister put forward vastly understates the proposition. In fact, the cost to the Australian community of a full return to Medibank, plus initially the kiddybank proposal, would be far in excess of the amounts that have so far been stated.

Mr Hurford:

– You are misleading the Parliament and you are misleading the people.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Adelaide will withdraw.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Speaker, I would like you to reconsider your request to me on the grounds that the expression ‘misleading the Parliament’ is not unparliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The expression ‘misleading the Parliament’ is unparliamentary.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Speaker, since when has it become an unparliamentary expression?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Used in the terms in which the honourable gentleman used it, it implied a motive of dishonesty on the part of the Minister. I will not permit continued interjections which imply dishonesty. I ask the honourable member for Adelaide to withdraw.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Speaker, 1 have made my point. 1 now withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw unqualifiedly.

Mr Hurford:

– I withdraw.

page 1290

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN

Mr SHORT:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister ever appointed as an official political spokesman for the Government a person who is not a member of parliament? If so, what travelling and other allowances have been paid to such a person?

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask you to rule that question out of order on the grounds that it is hypothetical.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A question was asked earlier which was hypothetical. This question asks for an answer of fact.

Mr Young:

– We don’t mind it. Let it go.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The cheeriness of the honourable member for Port Adelaide is to be commended. I hope it is maintained. The honourable member for Port Adelaide at least was in the Parliament. We thought the honourable member was doing a pretty good job in difficult circumstances because the Australian Labor Party does not have much of a case and on occasions he argued quite forcibly. I can see that he agrees with me. But to be dismissed in this way is something that he is bearing with fortitude.

Dr Klugman:

– Your industrial adviser is still in Long Bay. He is there for 1 6 years.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Hayden:

– He should be serving breakfast to him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to understand that the dignity of the Parliament is constantly being disturbed by both the nature of his interjections and the constancy of his interjections. I ask him to give some leadership to the House by ceasing those interjections.

Mr Hayden:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. May I take it from your observations that you believe the dignity of the House is added to by the behaviour of the Prime Minister and his Ministers?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease acting as he is. I ask him to remember that the Parliament is a place that expects its members to behave with dignity and decorum.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– To answer the question, I have never taken that course of action and I would not take that course of action because to do so would cut across the traditional practice of government in this country, it would cut across the structure of responsible government whereby people need to be within this Parliament to answer questions and to have a responsibility to Parliament, and it would give the spokesman prerogatives and power but with none of the real responsibility to the Parliament that ought to go with them. That obviously applies, of course, to the appointment recently made by the Leader of the Opposition. One of the interesting things about that appointment is that it has had the willing acceptance of Caucus, so we are told, although I did not note much enthusiasm from Caucus this morning in relation to it. The honourable member for Port Adelaide’s demotion in this way after he had argued on a sticky wicket for the Australian Labor Party quite well and forcibly over recent times must be somewhat of a humbling experience for him. Our sympathies are with him.

The very fact that the Leader of the Opposition has had to go outside the Parliament for such an appointment indicates the general paucity of his regard for the other front bench members and, indeed, the back bench members of the Australian Labor Party. He is saying quite plainly that none of them are fit and propoer persons to do this job. A day or two ago we had a statement from the socialist Left about how firmly it controlled the Labor Party machine in Victoria and the Leader of the Opposition, so if we cast ourselves into the future perhaps we could see Bill Hartley being made spokesman for economic policy in a couple of days. Also, the Labor Party might get a new spokesman for foreign affairs, Yasser Arafat. What did go on at that midnight, secret meeting with Yasser Arafat? If we wanted our imagination to go a little further, Mr Tirath Khemlani could be given some kind of roving commission. These are the only things that the Labor Party will be able to do.

page 1291

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT COSTING OF LABOR PROGRAMS

Mr HAYDEN:

– The Prime Minister would have noted that this afternoon I have raised a series of questions about the Government’s costing of Australian Labor Party programs. In every single case the information I produced was based on official documentation from within his own Department, or was supplied by the Minister for Finance within this Parliament. I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he noted that, on the basis of information supplied from within his own Department, the figures he has been using as costings of Labor’s programs for employment opportunities overstate the real figure by $860m, for health by over $200m, and for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme alone in the education area by over $65m, which is an overstatement of $1,1 25m. Of the $2,500m cost of our programs that he has been quoting, did he also include $250m for pension increases for which no firm commitment has been given; that is, is the total overstatement within that $2,500m, on the basis of official documentation from his Department available to the Opposition, some $ 1,375m, or more than half? Will he explain how such a massive error occurs? Does it occur because of some compulsive problem or is it just to keep his hand in?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– Two years ago the Leader of the Opposition, with Mr Whitlam, indicated that he would introduce a job creation scheme for 50,000 people at a cost of $800m. Those costs were appropriate to two years ago. Then the Leader of the Opposition indicated in March this year that he would introduce a program for 100,000 people, but which would cost $330m. That was in the earlier part of this year. A few weeks ago he reduced that total cost to $180m. The basis of the costings by the Government and the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs are on the very firm basis of the Regional Employment Development Scheme which the Labor Party introduced and then abandoned. It has been demonstrated on the basis of what the Opposition has done that that was entirely without justification. If people are to be employed in a job creation scheme their wages have to be paid on the basis of current costs and materials have to be provided on the basis of current costs. Costings that have been given by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Finance covering the whole range of costings of the Australian Labor Party program are accurate. The Leader of the Opposition will never be able to persuade people that what he is saying about costings is accurate on the basis of something that he raised in his question, because on the radio program AM when he made a firm commitment to an additional$500m of expenditure he said that they would move to a certain percentage of average weekly earnings forthwith, and that they would move to 30 per cent over a period.

Mr Hayden:

Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. That is the most blatant and dishonest statement that I have heard. I did not say that. We will not win this campaign on who will provide the greatest set of lies, because the Opposition would be beaten hollow. I made no such statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– I made no such statement. If it is not corrected now, the people upstairs will wander off thinking that I did. This is blatant dishonesty.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– The No. 1 person in Australia is abusing his privilege and his position.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows that there is no point of order. If the honourable gentleman claims that a statement made by the Prime Minister is incorrect, the judgment will be made by the people as to who is correct. The Standing Orders do not permit a member of the House to interject while another member is speaking. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to remain silent and not to take a point of order that he knows is not a point of order.

Mr Hayden:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. A little while ago, I suppose not unreasonably, you lectured the Opposition about the standard of conduct from this side of the House, always, I might add, necessary to establish some sort of decorum and to maintain public respect. I agree–

Mr SPEAKER:

– I wish the honourable gentleman would resume his seat and show decorum.

Mr Hayden:

– One minute! One minute, with respect; it comes from both sides of the House. When the Prime Minister, the No. 1 citizen in the country–

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman. will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– When the No. 1 citizen in the country stands up and abuses his position–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– By lying to the Parliament, wilfully lying, trying to win an election as a compulsive liar, then how do you expect us to have any respect for him? The record shows that he is telling a lie.

Honourable members interjecting ;

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable gentleman on my right will remain silent. So far as I am aware, there has been only one occasion in the history of this Parliament when a Leader of the Opposition has been suspended from the services of the House.

Honourable members interjecting;

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honourable members on my left will remain silent.

Mr Uren:

– Remember you are a candidate for the Liberal Party- not for Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Reid will remain silent. The only reason that I can understand why that practice has been observed, and I have observed it, is that it is expected that Leaders of the Opposition will give leadership in the decorum of the House. If any other honourable member said what the Leader of the Opposition has just said I would immediately deal with him under the Standing Orders, not even naming him. I ask the honourable gentleman, because I give him latitude, not to take advantage of it in that sense. I will not accept that any honourable member is entitled to interject, attribute dishonesty and to use words like ‘liar’ and ‘dishonesty’. It is not for this Parliament to act in that way. The Leader of the Opposition has a special position and I ask him to observe it. I now ask him to withdraw what he said.

Mr Hayden:

– I do, and in fairness I apologise to you because of your extraordinary difficult position. It is not your fault that these things happen so much.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– I merely want to make it clear that there is no personal reflection—

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– I withdraw, and I remind the Prime Minister that I too have a transcript of the interview.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has condemned himself on the basis of his own question, but more importantly perhaps from the basis of his totally uncontrolled and uncontrollable behaviour in the Parliament a few moments ago. Perhaps he is lucky that the would-be member for Wills is not in the Parliament at present, because if he were I cannot imagine that the Opposition back bench would tolerate the kind of leadership it has seen this afternoon. We have seen an appalling example of parliamentary behaviour. Honourable members know that it is falsely based and that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to build his–

Mr Hurford:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like you to note that this answer is completely irrelevant to the question asked and I would like you to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to that fact and to sit him down.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the right honourable gentleman to make no further reference to the interjection of the Leader of the Opposition and allow me to deal with that. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Let me turn to that AM program. It was stated on that program in part:

But our main task will be to restore pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly–

Mr Scholes:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio rises to take a point of order but he is not in his seat.

Mr Scholes:

– There is no Standing Order which requires a member to be in his seat to take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr Scholes:

– The Prime Minister has just accused the Leader of the Opposition of making a deliberately false statement. There is no difference between that and a straight out statement calling a member a liar. I ask that’ he be made to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is a very considerable difference.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You did chastise, or attempt to, the honourable member for Adelaide for suggesting that somebody had misled the House. Now, in similar terms, you excuse the Prime Minister. I put it to you, whether you realise it, sir, or not, that it is a display of bias and you cannot expect the confidence of this side of the House if you continue in that fashion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– On that AM program, which was such an expensive one for the Australian Labor Party and a more expensive one for the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition, because he is now saying that he never said it–

Mr Hayden:

– I have a copy here, for God’s sake!

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman has appealed to the Almighty 35 times this morning. I will continue with the quotation:

But our main task will be to restore pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Having done that, as circumstances permit, allow us to lift the level of pension in real terms and in relation to average weekly earnings to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

The ‘as circumstances permit’ only applies to the 30 per cent. The plain statement is that the movement to 25 per cent would be done forthwith. That was the plain intention of the Leader of the Opposition on that AM program when he wanted everyone to hear it. Now he is condemning himself by his behaviour in this House, for which you have properly chastised him, Mr Speaker. He has condemned his own integrity, for which the people of Australia will chastise him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the right honourable gentleman not to refer to that matter.

page 1293

CLEANING SERVICES IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honourable members are advised that all cleaning services within Parliament House have been withdrawn by cleaners employed by the Joint House Department who are members of the Miscellaneous Workers Union from midday today until midnight Thursday. I am informed that this action has been taken by the union without consultation with either the Presiding Officers of the parliamentary officials. I am further informed that the strike is an extension of earlier black bans placed on selected areas of Parliament House in support of the union’s claim that work value pay increases of $8 to S9.30 a week offered by the Public Service Board on 2 September 1980 were discriminatory and inadequate compared with other sections of the Public Service and in private industry. The Public Service Arbitrator has been notified that industrial situation exists and that the matter has been listed for tomorrow, Wednesday, 17 September 1980. In the meantime, it will not be possible to provide the usual cleaning services within Parliament House.

page 1293

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: POLICE INTERVIEWS OF HONOURABLE MEMBER

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honourable members may have noticed in this morning’s Press reference to police officers interviewing the honourable member for Reid in his room in Parliament House yesterday. To avoid any misunderstanding as to the powers of the police in this building, I draw to the attention of the House that it is accepted as part of the Parliament’s privileges and immunities that the police do not have a right to enter the Parliament building without the prior knowledge and consent of the President and /or the Speaker. The police officers who visited the honourable member yesterday sought my permission to do so before coming to the building. I gave that approval on two bases: First, yesterday was not a sitting day; and second, the honourable member for Reid had indicated agreement to receiving the police officers.

page 1293

AUSTRALIAN WINE INDUSTRY

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

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929 I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Wine Board.

page 1293

DRIED FRUITS RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971 I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Dried Fruits Research Committee.

page 1293

AUSTRALIAN STATISTICS ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Benelong · LP

Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, 1 present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Statistics Advisory Council.

page 1293

NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSION

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Benelong · LP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966, 1 present the fifty-seventh annual report of the National Debt Commission for the year ended 30 June 1980.

page 1294

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Benelong · LP

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, 1 present the report of the Law Reform Commission on Insurance Agents and Brokers together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) relating to the report.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I wish to make a short statement on this report. This is a very important matter. The report results from a reference made, at my request, in 1976 by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) when he was Attorney-General to the Law Reform Commission to consider insurance contracts. Subsequently, the Law Reform Commission decided that in dealing with insurance contracts it would be obliged initially to deal with intermediaries. The presentation by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) of this report dealing with insurance brokers is the result.

I vividly recall that it has taken some years for me to get legislative reform in two areas, namely, insurance law and, in particular, insurance brokers. In recent years, the number of insurance brokerage firms that have collapsed has escalated appallingly. In recent months, some six insurance broking firms in Western Australia have collapsed. These collapses have involved some $3. 5m. These collapses led to a call by the Western Australian Minister for Consumer Affairs and the Acting Premier, for the Federal Government to legislate in respect of insurance brokers.

The inquiry was carried out by Professor David St Leger Kelly, a brilliant lawyer from the Adelaide University. The lack of any legislation in the States, with the exception of Queensland, has led to a number of problems throughout Australia. Late in 1 979 Professor Kelly set out in stark detail in the Commission’s report the nature of those problems. Figures for the number of insolvencies involving insurance brokers in the past 10 years were given. But those figures were incomplete because, until recently, no one - not even officers of the Department of the Treasury - had collected information in this regard. Although the figures were incomplete, they revealed that known losses to the insurance industry and the insuring public as a result of broker insolvencies were in excess of $500,000 a year. If solvencies that have not been recorded were taken into account, the true figure probably exceeds Sim.

Since the completion by the Commission of the report which was presented today by the Treasurer, the figures reveal that in Western Australia the amount involved has reached well over $3.5m. It is small wonder that last March concern was expressed at a meeting of Commonwealth and State officers responsible for consumer affairs at the apparent” lack of control in this country over insurance brokers. The fundamental problem is the lack of control over the financial conduct of brokers. When an insolvency occurs, premiums that have been paid by those who have sought insurance - people and businesses - are found to have been dissipated by the broker who has used those funds to finance his business. This practice ought not be allowed to continue. Brokers, like lawyers, should be required to keep the money of their clients separate from their own money. The manner in which they invest premiums on the short term money market also should be strictly controlled. That is the area where the disaster has largely occurred.

I repeat that this reference was given to the Commission in September 1976, that is, four years ago. In the absence of any financial controls, the insolvency of insurance brokers will continue to cause confusion and hardship to members of the Australian public. Insurers ought to be prevented from avoiding their responsibilities in this manner. As they extend credit to brokers, they should suffer any loses arising from that practice. The need for control of the activities of insurance brokers cannot be denied. It is important for the Government to move quickly to establish the controls to deal with the recommendations of the Commission and to enact necessary legislation. A draft bill, I understand, is an attachment to the report.

Nothing could be worse than for each State to regulate separately the activities of its brokers. If the Federal Government fails to legislate, Western Australia has threatened to follow that course. As the Treasurer knows, controls already exist in Queensland. But, apparently, that State is not anxious to maintain those controls. Western Australia is moving towards establishing its own set of laws. Like insurers, brokers are often organised nationally but not on a State basis. The introduction of separate, conflicting systems will add unnecessarly to the cost of controls and as a result undue restrictions will be imposed on the conduct of insurance business. I suggest that the Government ought to act. It should move rapidly to implement the recommendations contained in this report.

In conclusion, I wish to mention one fear that I hold sincerely. The Treasury ultimately will make the decision in respect of the proposed legislation. I regret to say to the Treasurer that the proposed legislation will be strangled at birth. One thing that I wish to see–

Mr Howard:

– You don’t like the Treasury very much, do you?

Mr JACOBI:

– No, I do not- especially on this issue. Frankly, I can understand to a limited extent what is said in respect of market forces and private enterprise. But with respect to insurance brokerage, the track record indicates that a crying need exists for adequate and appropriate legislation and regulation. For four years, this Government has utterly failed to introduce the appropriate legislation, despite the report by the Law Reform Commission. My worry is that this report will be sent to an interdepartmental committee where Treasury will be the dominant force. Undoubtedly, a change of government will occur as a result of the forthcoming election and in 1981 the Labor Government will legislate to introduce the recommendations contained in the report of the Law Reform Commission. I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1295

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: INTERIM STATEMENT

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present an interim statement on the Department of Health’s expenditure 1976-77 to 1979-80 and appropriations 1980-81.

page 1295

NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present a report of the National Health and Medical Research Council entitled Medical Research Projects 1979’.

page 1295

AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the final volume of the report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs entitled Outlines of Recommended Uniform Legislation’, together with the text of a statement relating to the volume.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) - by leave - agreed to:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, (1) authorises the publication of the report, and (2) that the report be printed.

page 1295

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of the annual report 1979-80 of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

page 1295

ABORIGINAL LAND COMMISSIONER

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) relating to the report of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner on the Anmatjirra and Alyawarra land claim to Utopia pastoral lease.

page 1295

COMMONWEALTH ACCOMMODATION AND CATERING SERVICES LTD

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1979-80 of Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd.

page 1295

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present extracts from the annual report 1980 of the Australian Postal Commission.

page 1295

NATIONAL ACCREDITATION AUTHORITY FOR TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Balaclava · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report 1979 of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters.

page 1295

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on passenger motor vehicles and components- export facilitation for specialist component producers.

page 1295

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 non-adjustable spanners.

page 1296

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

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

– Pursuant to section 52 of the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act 1975,I present the text of the annual report 1979-80 of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.

page 1296

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– During Question Time the Prime Minister asserted that on an AM program on 20 August I said that the Labor Party was committed to restoring pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings immediately. I am not saying that ‘immediately’ is the exact word but that effectively was the meaning of the word he used. I have asked the Hansard staff to ascertain the exact statement. It is a totally wrong statement, and because it is wrong it is misleading. I suggest that there is clear motivation behind the making of that statement. To save the time of the House I condense, or extract from, the statement I made. I said:

Our main task will be to restore pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings.

That remains our main task. There is no statement that we will do it in the first Budget or as soon as we gain office. We will do it as we can and as quickly as we can, but responsibly. Mr Speaker, you and I, as former Treasurers, recognise that responsible economic management imposes enormous disciplines and, too often, restraints that we prefer to be without. Not to acknowledge them would make worse off people who we are trying to look after. I merely make the point that I said:

Our main task will be to restore pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings.

We will do that as quickly as we can, consistent with economic circumstances. All I can say is that the anger of the Prime Minister in misrepresenting this statement is a reflection of his obsessional opposition to the condition of pensions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman has made the misrepresentation clear.

page 1296

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Defence Services Homes Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 980.

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1 980.

Social Services Amendment Bill 1980.

National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1980.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1980.

Taxation Debts (Abolition of Crown Priority) Bill 1980.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1980.

States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

page 1296

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

Loan Bill 1980.

Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1980.

page 1296

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Report

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

– I present the 181st report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Mr Connolly) - by leave - agreed to:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the 1 81st report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts concerning the Canberra Commercial Development Authority.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– by leave- The Committee’s 181st report refers to an inquiry into the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. Our findings were that the Authority has deliberately disregarded provisions of its ordinance. It failed to seek the Treasurer’s approval for investment in bank bills. Even after being formally advised of the need for approval it delayed for a further two months. It misrepresented the nature of oversubscriptions on a $ 10m public loan, and acted contrary to the public interest and Loan Council practice. It deliberately contravened section 1 7 of its ordinance by not seeking the Public Service Board’s approval to the terms and conditions of employment, and failed to observe section 22 ( 1 ) (c) by making payments that were not in accordance with its ordinance. It failed to publish its 1978-79 annual statement because, in the belief of the Committee, it wishes to capitalise all expenditure net of income for the period 1 July to 9 November 1978. The Public Accounts Committee has demanded that the Authority publish its statement in the form approved by the Minister for Finance forthwith.

While the Committee is conscious of the need for a trading authority to have some independence from political control, it nevertheless recommends that the permanent head of the Department of the Capital Territory, or his departmental nominee, should be appointed to the Board of the Authority. The Committee is so dissatisfied with the past administration of the Authority it recommends that, at the conclusion of the current period of office of members of the CCDA, the Minister for the Capital Territory should consider restructuring the Authority and those who are subject to criticism in the Committee’s report should not be reappointed.

We believe the Authority has left itself open to accusations of patronage in selecting its employees and recommend it adopt a policy of advertising for each staff position. There was evidence that conditions for security of tenders were inadequate during the period of the Belconnen Mall’s construction. The Committee recommends the Attorney-General initiate a full inquiry into this matter. The Committee shares the concern of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works that statutory bodies should be subject to examination by that Committee. We recommend that the Public Works Committee Act be amended to bring all statutory authorities within its ambit.

As pointed out in the Committee of Privileges report tabled on 11 September, the Public Accounts Committee Act is one of the few Acts where Parliament has declared its privileges. Notwithstanding the powers contained in section 18 of the Public Accounts Committee Act - penalty of 5 years imprisonment for wilfully giving false evidence - the capacity of Parliament to institute proceedings under section 21 (4) of the Act depends upon the consent of the Attorney-General. The Committee believes that provisions of this type actually limit the powers of Parliament to protect its rights or privileges and appears to be inconsistent with the traditional division of powers between the Excutive and legislature. The Committee believes that the Parliament should be served by its own legal counsel responsible for advising on the rights and obligations of Parliament. We understand that this is the case in Canada. Mr Speaker, I commend the report to honourable members.

page 1297

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee’s report on proposals for variations of the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, 72nd series, together with extracts of minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr FRY:

– by leave- This is the fourth report on variations to the plan of Canberra to be presented by the Joint Committee this year. It is the third to be presented during the present period of sittings of the Parliament. The Committee has made a special effort to ensure the presentation of this report today because it considers one of the variations - that which deletes roads on Capital Hill - to be of particular importance. Removal of the roads from the city plan will enable the commencement of site works for the new and permanent Parliament House. This variation is therefore, in its way, of some historic significance to this Parliament and the nation which it represents. The Committee has approved the proposed changes to allow this work to begin.

I take the opportunity to suggest that there may be a need to co-ordinate the roles of various agencies in the planning stages of the- new and permanent Parliament House. For example, at present this Committee and the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House have terms of reference covering different aspects of the project. In addition certain provisions of the Parliament Act may be relevant. It will be important that these be co-ordinated and that any problems be resolved promptly if the project is to go ahead as scheduled and be completed for the Bicentenary. The Joint Committee on the ACT will want to maintain careful scrutiny of all aspects of road planning and has made it clear that all such proposals should be dealt with by the Committee before they proceed. The Committee has been informed that this will be done.

The Committee also considered a proposal to provide a lease frontage and access to the Repertory Society’s ‘Theatre 3’ in Civic. There is, however, some concern about the provision of parking facilities at the theatre. The Commitee has requested further details on the parking arrangements for the theatre and other facilities adjacent to it. Nevertheless, the proposal has been approved. It was not possible for the Committee to consider the third item in this series of variations, the extension of William Hovell Drive from Coulter Drive to Kingsford Smith Drive. This proposal aroused considerable public interest and 12 representations were received by the Committee. There was not time for the Committee to give the variation the attention it required so it has been suggested that it be included in the next series of variations, which the Committee also suggests should be early in the first period of sittings of the new Parliament.

page 1298

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Report

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

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

Aircraft corrosion control facility, RAAF base, Richmond, New South Wales; and Lavarack Barracks, stage 2 development, Townsville, Queensland.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mr BUNGEY:

– by leave- The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works wishes to advise the House that several proposed works referred to it by the House will not be reported on by the Committee before the House rises at the end of this week. These works include: The Commonwealth Office Building at Townsville in Queensland, which was referred to the Committee on 28 August 1980 and the development of the Royal Australian Air Force base at Learmonth in Western Australia, which was referred to the Committee on 26 August 1 980. The Committee is hopeful of presenting a report on the proposed works to upgrade facilities at the Norfolk Island Airport. This work was referred to the Committee on 29 July 1 980 by the GovernorGeneral in Council.

page 1298

HEALTH INSURANCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

- Mr Speaker has received letters from the honourable members for Bonython (Dr Blewett), Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and St George (Mr Neil) 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 honourable member for Bonython, namely:

The growing failure of the Government, despite its electoral commitments, to provide universal, fair and simple health insurance cover.

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-

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– On 27 November 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised this country: ‘We will maintain Medibank’. Certainly the Government that came to office following that election was entitled to make amendments and improvements to the medical scheme that it found in operation. The Opposition certainly is prepared to accept that. It was a dramatic new scheme and obviously problems would arise that would have to be ironed out. However, I think from the Prime Ministers promise: ‘We will maintain Medibank’, all Australians could have expected that at least the basic principles of the Medibank scheme would have been maintained by the Fraser Government. Three basic principles underlay that original scheme. Firstly, it was a universal scheme, that is a system which would provide cover for all Australians; secondly, it was a fair scheme, that is that in some way there would be an equitable relationship between a person’s income and the payments he had to make for health cover; and thirdly - this was one of the great characteristics of Medibank - it was a simple scheme, that is ordinary citizens would not be handicapped by the complexities of the system. Given the promise made by the Prime Minister on 27 November 1975 one could have expected that those basic principles would have been maintained.

Health insurance in this country in the five years of the Fraser Government has ceased to be universal. In March 1979 only 49.6 per cent of total contributor units had health cover in the sense that they had basic medical and hospital cover, that is less than half of the total contributor units had medical and hospital cover at the base level. That was in March 1979 and there is no doubt that the steady and slow erosion has continued. If one wants to try to defend the present Government in the sense that it has a universal scheme because a Commonwealth medical benefit is paid on costs of medical charges over $20, it is important to point out that only 1 5 per cent of all medical services cost $20 or more. That cannot be an excuse nor can it be some kind of argument to pretend that the scheme is universal. Whatever tortuous logic is used by Government supporters no one on the Government side can any longer claim that we have a universal health scheme in this country. Cover is no longer universal, despite the expectation that every Australian might have had, in the days when the Prime Minister was believed to be a man of his word - i.e. on 27 November 1975 - when he implied that universal cover would be maintained.

We no longer have a system which is in any sense an equitable system. I will quote that favourite platitude of the previous Minister for Health who said:

  1. . health costs must be met by the community by one means or another, either by the payment of taxes, levies or premiums, through direct payments, or by a combination of these means. The community cannot escape the bill.

It is a platitude that the Opposition completely accepts. The real issue is how the payment is to be made. Our basic principle is that it should be made in terms of ability to pay. The Opposition accepts that platitude. But the question is what is the most equitable way of paying for health care? Under the original Medibank scheme introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government, medical cover was paid from general revenue. Therefore people contributed to health cover roughly in proportion to their income. Insofar as income tax was equitable then payments out of general revenue reflected the contributions of individual citizens in terms of their income. Of course it was even true of the first of the Fraser changes, that is the first of the four schemes. I know it is very difficult for citizens to keep up with all the changes we have had in the last five years. The first Liberal scheme introduced a levy system which was related to income. At that stage there was still a measure of equity because of this ability-to-pay criterion. Today there is no relation between income and health insurance contribution. Is it a fair and equitable system when the family man on an average wage has to pay exactly the same for health cover through the private health fund systems as the Prime Minister? Is it fair and equitable that we should have a system whereby people on average incomes have to pay exactly the same for their health cover as the wealthier members of our society? The Opposition believes that the private insurance system - the cornerstone of this Government’s system - is not fair and is not equitable. Let us look at what has happened to charges in the five years of this Government. In 1 975 there was no requirement for basic medical insurance because of the Medibank provision and basic hospital insurance in New South Wales at the family rate cost $1.58 a week. The payment required was $1.58 a week and no medical cover was necessary because of the universal cover. Today the basic rate for medical and hospital insurance at the family rate in New South Wales is $9 a week. That is a six-fold increase under this Government. Nor has there been any reduction in the taxation burden which might have excused that shift in payments.

The third expectation Australians might have had in relation to the Prime Minister’s promise was that the Government would retain a basically simple system, which again was one of the fundamental characteristics of the original Medibank. The reverse is true, of course. I think Australians could be forgiven for believing that this Government had deliberately set out to confuse them about health insurance. There have been four major new schemes and innumerable minor alterations. The best calculation is four major schemes and five significant extra alterations. Those schemes have been inconsistent and contradictory; they have been determined not by the health care needs of the people of this country but by short term budgetary considerations. In 1976 and 1979 the changes were made in order to deal with the Government’s deficit problems. In 1978 quite contradictory changes were made in order to fudge the consumer price index figures at the end of that year. Therefore, we have had a contradictory and confusing set of policies which has led to great confusion in the community. The Government has also been responsible for the most complex pattern of choices and gimmicks offered by the private funds - things like front end deductibles and all the various choices people are now faced with. Medibank New South Wales has a relatively simple set of offerings. It has three medical tables plus three hospital tables plus five separate packages plus 1 2 extra covers. If a person does not read very carefully between all the fine print he will find he has taken out a form of cover that does not suit his needs. The Government has produced an incredibly complex system. It is certainly not simple and many people in this community are abandoning health insurance not only because of the costs but also because of the complexity of the schemes that are offered. Therefore as a result of a promise that the Government would maintain Medibank, we now have a scheme which is neither universal nor fair and simple. I think that is typical of the value that the Australian people in the coming months will put on the promises of the past and of the future made by this Government.

The Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar), who is at the table, has inherited what is perhaps the most inequitable and certainly the most confusing health care system in the Western world. It is almost impossible today to find a single organisation connected with health care prepared to praise the mess that this Government has made of health care in this country. The Government has been roundly condemned by the Australian Medical Association - no great friend of the Labor Party - and savaged by the Doctors Reform Society. Not merely its pharmaceutical policies but also its general health policies have been attacked by most of the major pharmaceutical organisations. Despite the encouragement given last week by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), I have been quite unable to find any statement by any pharmaceutical organisation praising the general health policies of the Fraser Government. Hospital authorities are paralysed by the Federal inaction in the hospital field. Yet we have this strange situation of the Minister at the table presiding over this chaos and confusion with bland and benign complacency. One could liken him unto Canute as the waters lapped around him, as the whole Australian health scheme crumbles.

Perhaps it is fairer to say of him that he is more like the little boy trying desperately with his fingers to plug the growing holes in the dyke. We have had from the Minister in his nine or 10 months as Minister for Health four little Bills, none of which has addressed the major health care questions facing this country. All of them have been designed simply to plug up the wall until after the election. The nursing home measures were introduced so that greater control could be exercised over nursing homes in an effort to control what is clearly a galloping cost area. The $75m of taxpayers money which was put into the reinsurance pool was designed primarily, despite all the talk about looking after the old and the chronically ill, to hold down insurance contribution rates until after the election. The extension of the pensioner health benefit provisions was designed primarily to mitigate the growing unfairness of the system which I have stressed has been one of the results of the failure to honour the Prime Minister’s promises.

We must ask: Is the Government so intellectually bankrupt in the health care field that it has no solutions but these stop-gap measures? Has the Government a health policy addressed to the major problems in the health field? Certainly, on all the evidence we have, Government members seem totally unprepared to defend the health chaos over which they have reigned in the last few years. For instance, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) wrote a long letter to his local newspaper in which he made various comments on health policy. He did not in that long letter mention any of the four health schemes of the Liberal Government; he did not mention the Liberal health achievement at all. It was as though’ the Liberals had not ruled in this country for the last five years for all the honourable member for Barker was prepared to say about Liberal health schemes. All he could come up with was two points - the tired out cliche about Medibank costs in 1974-75 and in 1975-76 and the latest extravagant fantasies about the costings of Labor’s present health plans.

Let me just briefly deal with each of those. Medibank did not raise the costs of health care in this country and that can be discovered from practically every report issued by the Government itself and also by most of the academic commentary on that scheme. Medibank mark 1 was in operation for only one year and came in as budgeted- that is, $ 1,443m of which $629m was related to medical benefits. There was no increase in medical usage as the result of the Medibank scheme. This has been certified by studies carried out by Professor George Palmer, the head of the New South Wales University School of Health Administration. Medibank did not lead to any rise in medical costs. The fee increases which occurred at that time would have applied under any system. Medibank did not lead to a rise in hospital costs. The costs rose because of long overdue wage rises for nurses and other hospital staff and the costs of high technology medicine. We admit that what did occur was a transfer of expenditure from States, individuals and private funds to the Commonwealth but not a rise in usage. Of course, it was the Liberal-Country Party Opposition which prevented part of the cost of Medibank - that is the levy proposals - from being imposed at the same time as Medibank went through. As Professor Palmer has written:

The tentative conclusion which may be drawn is that no substantial increase in the usage per head of medical services was caused by the introduction of Medibank.

If we are to have a worthwhile debate in this country I think those basic conclusions must be accepted. We will still have problems about the cost increases that took place. But the bland assertion that these derive from Medibank rests on no fundamental evidence whatsoever.

Let me take the second part of the excuse, that is, the fantasies of the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson). He has alleged that the cost of Labor’s health proposals would be an extra $250m over and above our careful costing of $130m - that is, a 200 per cent increase over our careful costings. I can only call that the deranged fantasy of a diseased mind. In his statement the Minister for Finance gave no indication whatsoever of the assumptions on which these fantasies were based. Apparently, they assume some massive drop-out rate from the insurance system. This is very peculiar because, first of all, we do not touch the hospital side at all, and secondly, by taking children under governmental cover, we remove a high usage element from the primary care field. All the evidence we have is that the rates for insurance are likely to drop. We are taking out only a segment of the family; we are not taking out the whole family. There is no evidence whatsoever for any argument that there will be a significant drop - the kind of massive drop which one can only assume lies behind the fantasies of the Minister. I do not believe that the Health Department of this country supports an expectation of a massive drop-out rate of that level. I would be very interested to hear the Minister in charge of that Department comment on those figures.

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

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

– I am indebted to the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) for stressing once again the Opposition’s adherence to an ambition to reintroduce Medibank just as quickly as it possibly can. Despite his assertions today I think that the experience of the Australian people rather than the academic writings of some noted Labor Party supporters would be fresh in our minds. I do not think there is anybody in Australia who does not understand that during the Labor period of government, between 1972 and 1975, there was a massive escalation in health costs. If honourable members ask any of the doctors who were practising during that period they will be told that it was a bonanza for the doctors. There is very little doubt on that point amongst the practitioners. I was particularly interested in one point made by the honourable member for Bonython. He said that private insurance systems are not fair and equitable, giving a very clear indication that the Labor Party, with a Minister of his persuasion, would seek to eliminate those private insurance organisations which currently look after about 60 per cent of the people of Australia.

Let me tell the honourable member for Bonython and the people of Australia about the Government’s attitude towards health insurance. We see our role as providing various mechanisms whereby all Australians can choose how they will avail themselves of our health care system. Australians do have a choice, either through taking out health insurance or through special arrangements provided by the Government. Basic hospital and medical benefits tables provide comprehensive cover for the charges involved. They enable people to have the doctor of their choice in hospital. Supplementary benefits tables allow individuals to take out higher levels of protection if they want it. For example, the funds offer supplementary tables which provide comprehensive medical benefits cover up to the full cost of the schedule medical fee. Despite the fact that the honourable member for Bonython thinks it is confusing, there are opportunities for people to take out additional insurance cover to take care of things like dental costs, physiotherapy costs, and the like.

The Government has made special arrangements to cover the medical costs of pensioners, to cover the medical costs of people classified as socially disadvantaged, and to provide free public hospital treatment if people wish to have it. The honourable member for Bonython said that Australians do not have access to health cover. They do. Free medical and hospital treatment is available in public hospitals if people wish it. Under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme we provide free pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners and dependants, and the scheme is heavily subsidised for the rest of the community. Under the Commonwealth medical benefits scheme, as the honourable member has said, any medical bill for schedule services over $20 is met by the Commonwealth. Patients can therefore be clearly seen to be protected against huge medical bills.

The honourable member for Bonython talked about contributor units. Let us talk about people. In fact, 8.7 million people have basic hospital insurance; 8.4 million people have basic medical insurance. The great majority of people take out the combined package, and therefore close to 60 per cent of the Australian population is covered for basic hospital and medical care. He talked about contribution rates. Let us look at the basic medical and hospital contribution rate for the family. In June 1978 the cost in New South Wales was $9.50 a week, in Victoria $9.24, in Queensland $7.85, and in Tasmania $7.10 a week. On 1 September 1979 the costs were $8.25 in New South Wales, $7.90 in Victoria, $6.62 in Queensland, and $6.77 in Tasmania. Therefore there had been reductions in the cost of the basic medical and hospital insurance rate. As I have mentioned, about 60 per cent of the population is covered for at least basic medical and basic hospital insurance and another 18 per cent is protected against health care expenses under special Government arrangements, for example, the pensioner health benefit card scheme, repatriation arrangements, et cetera.

There has been a lot of criticism about the numbers of people dropping out of health insurance funds. It is surprising that the Opposition castigates the Government because people have left the health insurance schemes and at the same time positively encourages people so to do. It seems to me a little unfair to suggest on the one hand that people should drop out of the health insurance funds and then to turn around and castigate the Government because that is taking place. The fact of the matter is that the rate of drop-out is not nearly as dramatic as so many commentators believed that it would be. Whilst the rate continues, in fact the extent of that drop-out is not such as would warrant a hasty change in the system. 1 point out that the Government recognises that there are problems, and that is why we are keeping a very close eye on what is happening. However, I make the point again that the rate of drop-out is not such as would necessitate a hasty response.

Let us look at what the Opposition would substitute. We have heard a lot about Medibank. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has promised that a Labor government would reintroduce Medibank within three years. What cost to the Australian people would that entail? Let us ask the Leader of the Opposition himself. On 26 November last year he stated that it ,would involve an additional expenditure of $600m annually. That was last year. My Department has estimated that the additional cost would be over $900m, on present day costs. Here we have a statement by the Leader of the Opposition that he will undertake to reintroduce full Medibank’ within three years at an additional cost of over $900m annually as I have said. How is the Labor Party going to fund that additional cost? It is trying to create the illusion and it has always tried to create the illusion that universal health insurance can be provided free to all Australians. Honourable members will hear this all the time - ‘We will give free health care’. Eventually it will have to be paid for and, as the honourable member has stated, my predecessor pointed out very clearly that somehow someone has to pay the costs of health care, and the costs of health care are rising and will continue to rise.

A return to Medibank would mean higher taxes if it is to be funded in an economically responsible manner. I do not think that on the record of the previous Australian Labor Party Government between 1 972 and 1 975 it could be trusted to react in an economically responsible manner. I believe that the policies would produce, particularly because of the extent of the costs in the health care field, an increase in inflation and, as a result, we would see increased unemployment and increased interest rates, just as we did before. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was Treasurer in 1 975, acknowledged that there was a link between a high Budget deficit and higher inflation rates, higher unemployment and higher interest rates. Yet here we have again the Australian Labor Party portraying its proposed universal health scheme as providing free health care. It has to be paid for, either by taxation levies, by health insurance premiums - we have heard that the honourable member for Bonython does not think much of health insurance- by direct payments, or by a combination of these methods. Which is it to be?

Let us look at the program the Labor Government proposes to introduce as a first step - the program which has been labelled, quite understandably, kiddybank. This proposes free medical care for all children under 16 years of age, dependants over 16, and expectant mothers. The plan can quite clearly be seen to encourage the young and the healthy to desert the health insurance system. If the young and the healthy do desert the health insurance system, and all the thrust of the Opposition policies is to encourage that, then inevitably those left within that health insurance system would be the older people, the aged, the chronically ill. Inevitably there would be a higher call for funds from those health insurance schemes and inevitably the contribution rates that people had to pay would rise. I do not believe the scheme would be universal. I do not believe it would be fair or necessarily simple. I believe it would discriminate against the aged and the chronically ill, that is, those people within our community most in need. The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that this first step in a return to Medibank would cost the Government an additional $130m annually. Today in Question Time he made some play about the additional costs, and I must say that there were some scenes which I thought brought disgrace to this Parliament.

Mr Howe:

– Ha, ha!

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I am sure it would not upset the honourable member for Batman; he is used to that sort of behaviour. However, as I have already pointed out, as people opted out of hospital insurance and as a result of this first step back to Medibank a great strain would be placed on Australia’s public hospital system. I believe very seriously that this also could jeopardise the viability of the private hospital operations because with people dropping out of health insurance schemes the tendency for them to attend private hospitals would correspondingly fall.

The Department of Health - the honourable member for Bonython asked about this - has estimated that, if only 1 5 per cent of insured persons dropped their cover, Commonwealth and State governments would be up for an additional $250m in extra costs each year. This would take the additional cost of this first step back to Medibank to $380m annually - about three times the Leader of the Opposition’s original estimate. All of it would have to be met by the taxpayer.

Kiddybank is not simple to understand and there are a tremendous number of unanswered questions in relation to this first step back to

Medibank by the Labor Opposition. For example, what happens to the expectant mother when she goes to hospital for her confinement? Will she not require her personal doctor, as the great bulk of mothers do in Australia? The honourable member for Bonython is a family man as I am. He would know that expectant mothers do have a strong desire to have the doctor of their choice. Does this Labor proposal not eliminate the possibility in very many cases for the doctor of choice for the expectant mother? Who will pay for the public hospital shared ward costs or private hospital accommodation when, with Labor Party encouragement, this mother has dropped her hospital insurance? What happens to the costs for the children if, after birth, they should require specialist attention? Who pays for that if she has not maintained her medical insurance cover?

The Opposition would have us forget and would have the Australian people forget what happened in the health area between 1973 and 1975 - a combination of Labor Party mismanagement on the economic scene and the introduction of Medibank in the latter stages of that period. I do not think anybody should forget that health costs increased by a dramatic 120 per cent in those three years. We had such things going unchecked as over-servicing by doctors. There was a real mess, as the honourable member for Bonython has already acknowledged today, for the Fraser Government to clean up after that period of mismanagement.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the present situation is ideal. What I am suggesting is that, if there was a return to the discredited policies of the past, we would have a number of consequences. Chief amongst those consequences would be an enormous escalation in health costs. Health costs have to be controlled; if they are not controlled, they will break us. What we need to have and what we seek to achieve is a health care system which provides adequate care for all Australians - high quality health care at a cost that this community can afford, not pie-in-the-sky esoteric arrangements which would in the long term break the Australian economy and, I believe, bring about a diminution in the standards of medical service available in Australia.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– There appear to be as usual a number of misconceptions being perpetrated by the Government in its response to what the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) had to suggest. I will deal in turn with several of the things that the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) suggested. I deal firstly with the question of escalation of health costs in the early 1 970s. No one suggests for a moment that there was not a rapid increase in costs in that period in Australia and in most other developed countries. That was a product of the inflation which afflicted the developed world as much as it afflicted Australia in that period. But it was also the result of certain deficiencies which existed in relation to the health system of this country. Nobody who remembers the conditions under which nurses were employed in the various hospitals of this country prior to the period of the Labor Government would ever want to return to that time. 1 am sure that neither the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who will follow me in this debate nor any other member on the Government side who is aware of the conditions of nurses in that period would regret that changes that were made. They were necessary and desirable changes. They were important changes that enabled nurses to receive something like the kind of remuneration that the dedicated nurses who serve hospitals in this country certainly deserve.

On the other hand, one does not have to look towards Medibank or any innovation introduced by the Labor Government to explain or to account for the great escalation which occurred in relation to doctors’ salaries. Doctors sought during that period, as they have sought since, every opportunity to raise their incomes. We regret that. A Labor government would seek to restrain doctors’ salaries just as any other government would do because they represent a section of the community that in a time of economic recession ought to be dealt with in terms of restraint. Furthermore, it has to be recognised, as the report of the Sax Committee of Inquiry into Nurse Education and Training suggested, that doctors do represent a key element in the system in terms of any escalation of health costs. I point out that this Government has taken no measures whatever of any significance to restrain the incomes of doctors in the period that it has been in office. Nor, more seriously, has it sought to introduce any system of medical audit within hospitals which would in itself provide a restraint on rising medical income. It would not appear to me that this Government has anything to teach Labor with respect to this question of escalation of costs. Certainly, it cannot suggest that any escalation that occurred was the responsibility of Medibank for Medibank was introduced, as the honourable member for Bonython suggested, at the end of Labor’s period in office. It was certainly not in any sense responsible for the changes that occurred.

Secondly, the Minister suggested that somehow we on this side of the House are committed to the elimination of private insurance. I think that is again one of those statements often made by members on the Government side that has no evidence whatsoever to support it. There is no commitment on the part of the Labor Government to eliminate private insurance. Certainly, there is a commitment to controlling and regulating insurance in this area, as in all other areas of the insurance industry. No one on the Government side would suggest, surely, that private insurance ought not be regulated. Thirdly, the suggestion was made by the Minister and repeated, as these things tend to be repeated, that we are on about destroying people’s choice - their choice of doctor and choice of hospital. Nothing in what the honourable member for Bonython suggested in his speech would indicate that the Labor Party in any way wants to reduce people’s choice of doctor or the choice between the public and the private sector.

The Minister went on to speak a great deal about the hospital situation. In terms of the announced proposals that the Labor Party has made within this election context, there has been no reference whatsoever to changes within the hospital side of insurance or in relation to hospital charges. Indeed, one might speculate that, if changes were to be introduced, they would more likely be introduced by a Liberal government which, I believe, may well be on the verge of introducing charging for all patients in public hospitals. Indeed, it is that one element that remains of Labor’s proposals where people universally have access to the public hospital system which is maintaining some degree of sanity about the whole health system at this stage. But one cannot trust this Government, if it is returned to office, to retain that situation.

We know that in 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made the strongest of all commitments when he said that he would retain Medibank. Within weeks of being elected he was all for destroying that system. We went through that farrago of four changes to the Medibank system. Nobody in this country now knows what is happening or where he is situated in terms of health insurance. If this Government is returned to office, I would not be at all surprised if one of the first things it does is to introduce charging by public hospitals to endeavour to discourage the people who are flocking to the public hospitals of this country at the moment because of the inequities that exist in the health insurance system.

If one has no money, what does one do about getting health care? One simply cannot go to the local doctor as he is very likely to make a judgment that one is not disadvantaged. Because of the stupid system whereby doctors are left to decide who is and who is not disadvantaged, one goes to the casualty wards of public hospitals. That is what is happening under this Government. People, lacking community services and a comprehensive system of insurance certainly are returning in greater numbers to seek services in the public hospitals. The very great concern that I have is that, given the record of this Government and the differences between what it promises and what actually takes place, if this Government gets past the election period it will be whacking on charges in the public hospital system. It will eliminate the degree of choice that currently exists whereby people can choose between going to their private doctor and going to a public hospital to get some kind of service.

The Minister for Health commented again upon Labor’s proposal. He did so with that infinite capacity for distortion which is the trade mark of this Government. It has an infinite capacity to take some figures and to expand upon them. I would remind the House that when the Prime Minister was campaigning for the election in 1975 he refused to give any indication of the costs that would be associated with any of his programs. He said: ‘Until I get to talk to Treasury, I cannot talk about what anything will cost’.

The Labor Party, with its tradition of honesty and of putting the facts squarely before the electorate, has costed its program at $!30m. That commitment is for the first year of office of a Labor government. We are not talking about what may or may not happen over a three-year period. We are talking about what will happen in the first year of office of a Labor government. A figure of $ 1 30m has been arrived at responsibly by the Opposition. Certain assumptions are built into that figure. Firstly, it does not relate at all to hospital cover. The proposal to cover children under 16 years and expectant mothers relates purely to medical cover, not to hospital cover. So one cannot make the calculations that the Minister quite clearly made that because of this scheme one can assume that there will be a great drop out from insurance in relation to hospital cover.

People’s hospital costs will not be covered by this scheme. If they choose - they have the right to choose - private cover in a hospital situation, they will have to have private health insurance or they will have to pay very expensive bills. On the other hand, if they choose to have standard ward accommodation, that is what they will receive. This proposal does not relate in any strong manner to hospital insurance. One ought to make the point in relation to medical insurance that when Medibank was introduced it provided not only medical cover but also full coverage of hospital charges. There was only a 20 per cent drop out in relation to medical insurance.

In terms of the scheme which the Labor Party is proposing to introduce after the Federal election, it is simply nonsense to suggest, as the Minister has suggested, that there will be some massive drop out from medical insurance. There will not be an enormous change in that respect. Any assumption to that effect which allows the Government to turn $130m into $380m clearly is quite fallacious and cannot be supported. There is no evidence to suggest that it might take place. It is unfortunate that we have had to return repeatedly to this subject of health insurance. We have been through four major schemes and five minor schemes and, no doubt, if the Government is returned to office we will be going through–

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

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– The main thrusts of the arguments of the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) and the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) have been that the Government has failed to retain Medibank or at least some system of universal cover. I put it to the House that it would be totally irresponsible of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and this Government to have retained the Hayden Medibank scheme. The Opposition is saying to us that it wants us to go down a path of destruction. That is exactly what happened with the introduction of Medibank in the three years of office of the Labor Government. The Australian people have too much sense to want to see a return to the out-of-hand spending on a full scale that a universal health scheme such as Medibank provided. Medibank was wasteful and unnecessary. Indeed, it is a scheme that has been completely discredited. The honourable member for Batman blames the cost explosion and escalation that took place in the three years of office of the Labor Government on the wage increases that went to nurses and on increased doctors’ charges in that time. He ought to go back and do his sums again.

I remind the Opposition that under Labor health expenditure rose from $2, 500m to $5, 600m in three years. The Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) provided us with the figures, but I will repeat them as they are extremely interesting. That represents an increase of 125 per cent. Under the Fraser Government the expenditure moved from about $5,600m to about $8,000m over the next three years - a 40 per cent increase.

The facts are there; the runs are on the board. I repeat that the expenditure increased by 125 per cent over three years under Labor and by 40 per cent over three years under this Government. Under the Labor Government the cost of health to Commonwealth outlays rose from $780m to about $2,900m, which represents an increase of 277 per cent over three years. In the next three years, under the Fraser Government it was actually reduced by 1 .7 per cent.

I turn now to doctors’ fees, an issue raised by the honourable member for Batman. For medical benefit purposes, doctors’ fees almost doubled in just over three years of a Labor government. I stress that there were unparalleled increases in schedule fees. In four years of the Fraser Government the fees increased by 31 per cent. The fees almost doubled in the three years of a Labor government. The Labor Party is now telling us that when it is returned to government it will look at curbing doctors fees. I commend the medical profession for acting with a great deal of restraint over the past several years. Let us look at health expenditure under Labor as a percentage of gross domestic product. It rose from 5.89 per cent to 7.84 per cent, a one-third increase. The increase under this Government was around 7.89 per cent in the following three years. This, of course, was a remarkable slowing down.

The debate today is a dismal attempt by the shadow Minister for Health to make health a major election issue. The people of this nation know what the Government is about in relation to health matters. They may not be totally happy with the schemes that this Government has presented, but at least they know that they have to pay for their health services. Whereas the Opposition wants to bring in again a universal system, with all of the problems it experienced in its three years of government, I believe the people of this nation will accept that they have to pay for their health care. When we look at the system that has been developed we find that people can take health insurance and have freedom of choice of doctor and hospital. There are various levels of insurance, including a category for disadvantaged persons which I believe is important and vital to the system. I believe it has grown from. 2 per cent to around 3 per cent to 4 per cent. Just to prove that the system for the disadvantaged is working, I understand that in some of the lower socioeconomic areas of Australia usage is up to around 10 per cent to 12 per cent. That is a clear indication that the medical profession is handling the disadvantaged category with a great deal of care and compassion.

The next section of the system concerns pensioners. Everybody in this country knows that a very fine pensioner health benefit scheme is operating. No pensioner, provided he has a pensioner health benefit card, has to worry about health expenses. We have also hospital treatment whereby people, if they do not want to insure, can go and have free standard hospital treatment. That is at no cost to the patient. So, everyone in the community is catered for. This year’s Budget provided about $3,664m for health, an increase of $475m over the 1979-80. That is an increase of 1 5 per cent. Although people in this community are paying a lot of tax, 10 cents in every dollar of the total collected by the Commonwealth is spent on health care. Of course, that is in addition to the 27.4 cents in the dollar going towards the vast numbers of programs and payments under the social welfare system.

In my view, in advocating further spending in the health area the Australian Labor Party is acting totally irresponsibly. The honourable member for Bonython, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), who I notice is in the chamber, want to see a return to full scale Medibank. I do not believe that the nation will accept that. Australians have not accepted the advice given to them by the Leader of the Opposition and the present spokesman on health matters, the honourable member for Bonython, which is that people should drop out of health insurance. Australians have too much sense to accept that advice, and we have seen only very small decreases in the numbers in medical and hospital insurance. I repeat the figures that I believe were given earlier by the Minister for Health. Since December 1978 there has been a drop in the number of people covered at least with basic hospital cover from 63.7 per cent to 59.8 per cent, a drop of 3.9 per cent. When we examine medical insurance we find that for basic cover there has been a drop from 60.6 per cent in December 1978 to 57.8 per cent in March 1 980, a 2.8 per cent decrease. People are not leaving health insurance funds in droves; they are taking practically no notice of the Opposition in relation to this matter. That must be quite a blow to Opposition spokesmen because they have been advocating for quite some months that people leave health insurance funds.

As I have said, the disadvantaged people of this nation - the large and low income families, and the chronically ill - are covered by being classified by their doctor, who accepts 75 per cent of the common fee. Surely people such as the pensioners are those about whom we should be concerned.

The healthy Australian can decide whether he wants to carry his own insurance or become insured. In regard to Labor’s alternative health care policies, the Minister for Health has stated that over $900m will be necessary for the gradual return to Medibank as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bonython. These figures ought to be repeated. In excess of $900m will have to come out of Consolidated Revenue if this scheme is to proceed. I believe a full return to Medibank is unacceptable to the Australian people. I believe they have too much sense to want to see the out-of-hand spending involved in a return to a full scale Medibanktype operation. The raising of this matter of public importance has been a very poor and feeble action by members of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

page 1306

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend various electoral Acts consequent upon the enactment of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. The Acts in question contain references to the Principal Registry, District Registries, Principal Registrar and District Registrars of the High Court. The references are in provisions of the several Acts dealing with the procedure for disputing elections and making application to the High Court as the Court of Disputed Returns. For example, the Commonwealth Electoral Act requires a petition disputing an election to be lodged in the Principal Registry of the High Court or in the District Registry of that Court in the capital city of the State in which the election was held. Other provisions of that Act lay certain obligations on the Principal Registrar of the High Court or on the appropriate District Registrar.

With the enactment of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, there is no longer provision for a Principal Registry of the Court and for District Registries. The Act provides instead for a Registry of the High Court, which is to be at the seat of the Court, now in Canberra, and for offices of the Registry in each State and in the Northern Territory. Likewise, there is no longer a Principal

Registrar or District Registrars of the Court. Instead, there is a Registrar of the Court, and provision is made for the appointment of Deputy Registrars. This Bill amends the relevant references in the existing legislation to references to the Registry of the High Court and to the Registrar and Deputy Registrars of the High Court, as appropriate. Under the High Court of Australia Act, a document may be filed in the Registry of the Court by lodging it at any office of the Registry, so that lodgment of a petition at the office of the High Court Registry in the State where the election in question is held may be effected without need for special provision in the present Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1307

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1981 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 9 to 15, 1980, introduced into the Parliament on 26 August, Proposals No. 1 6 introduced on 28 August and Proposals No. 1 7 introduced on 9 September. The Bill also provides for the further validation of Tariff Proposals No. 8 introduced on 1 May 1 980 and validated until 31 December 1980 by the Customs Tariff Validation Act 1980. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collection of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or until the close of the session of Parliament whichever occurs first.

The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a Customs tariff amendment Bill, anticipated for the autumn sittings, to enact the changes contained in the Proposals. The tariff changes contained in the Proposals validated by this Bill arise, in the main, from decisions of the Government on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority in their reports entitled:

Gearboxes, gears and shaft couplings;

Pharmaceutical and veterinary products;

Apples and pears;

Travel goods, brief cases, toilet cases and similar goods;

Continuation of assistance for insulators;

Polymeric plasticisers and certain polyester polyols;

Textiles, clothing and footwear parts A to H;

Chemical products (Part B);

Certain works trucks and stackers.

Honourable members will recall that details of the changes contained in the Proposals were circulated at the time of their introduction. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1307

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1980

Bill 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 validate all duties of excise demanded or collected pursuant to Excise Tariff Proposals (No. 3) 1980, because Parliament is being dissolved at the end of this week. When introducing those Proposals into the House on 28 August 1980, I explained their purpose to honourable members and debate took place. The Proposals increased the excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil from $140.1 1 to $157.21 per kilolitre and on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $41 . 65 to $43.48 per kilolitre and took effect on 1 July 1980.

These increases have been made in accordance with the Government’s long-standing policy of linking domestic prices of these products with movements in the prices of the products overseas. This policy is fundamental to the maintenance of an adequate supply of liquid fuels over the longer term and has the proven dual object of conservation of irreplaceable resources while accelerating the development of indigenous energy reserves. Honourable members will appreciate that the community is faced with either paying realistic prices for petroleum products or having shorter term access to cheap fuel with the inevitable result that conservation is not encouraged and a shortage of the products will occur. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Mr Hurford:

– I would love to respond immediately but I believe the forms of the House are such that I must move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1308

PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING FRANCHISE BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill 1980, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– The petroleum retail marketing Bills, which are both before this House and frankly about to be rushed through the Parliament before the election, were first promised before the last election, nearly three years ago. As such, we are witnessing the latest stage in a typical Fraser Government saga - a saga of procrastination, of promises easily made and quickly broken, and a saga of hardship for Australian businessmen and workers who are apparently of no concern to the present Government; as shown by the way in which this Government has behaved.

There is nothing courageous in the action now taken by the Government. For several thousand service station operators and their staff, this legislation is too late. They packed their bags, or had them packed by rapacious multinational oil companies, while the Government dithered and on many occasions danced before the dictates of big oil. Only the prospect of an electoral backlash and a small businessman’s strike has prompted the belated and inadequate response that we debate in these two Bills today.

What are the facts of this industry? The fundamental fact is that the petroleum industry in Austalia at all levels, from crude oil production through to petrol retailing, is dominated by nine big oil companies. About 75 per cent of all petrol retailed in Australia is sold through sites owned by the nine major oil companies. A further 20 per cent is sold by owner-dealers under a single brand name of one of these companies. Over half of the market is held by just three companies- Shell Co. of Australia Ltd, BP Australia Ltd and Mobil Oil Australia Ltd. Two of these are major direct operators in the retail market. About 83 percent of the retail market is supplied by multinational oil companies, of which 47 per cent are European and 36 per cent American.

The industry has become highly vertically integrated, so that systems of transfer pricing enable the companies to take their profits at any point which suits their interests; either in oil production, transport, refining, wholesaling or retailing. Because there are now fewer opportunities to exploit at the crude oil production end of the process, the companies have devoted more attention to the downstream activities. These are subject to a significantly lesser degree of regulation by the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, do not think for a minute that these changes that we have before us in these Bills have been made at the expense of the big oil companies. The profits of there companies last year were in the order of $300m after tax. Let us look at some examples of their profit performance in 1979 compared with 1978. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table which I have shown to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), who was at the table earlier, setting out the 1979 profits after tax of the oil companies and the percentage increase those profits represent on the 1978 levels.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Mr HURFORD:

– I would like to run through some of these profits. The profit after tax for Shell was $87. 4m, a 102 per cent increase on 1978 figures. The profit after tax for Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd was $43. 3m, a 108 per cent increase on 1978 figures. The profit after tax for British Petroleum was $23.4m, a 59 per cent increase on 1978 figures; and the profit after tax for Mobil was $39.9m, a 194 per cent increase on 1978 figures. Those are just some of the nine examples.

Of course, some of these profits of some of these companies find their way into the coffers of some political parties. Another use of the money has been to wage a defensive propaganda campaign to try to maintain the current system of petrol marketing in Australia which is clearly so beneficial to the oil companies. But these profits do not come from the blue sky. They come from other people’s pockets - most importantly from the pockets of the hard-pressed Australian consumer and from the equally hard-pressed small business service station dealers in this country. The fact is that for the past five years the Government and the oil companies have shared a very nice ride on the backs of the Australian public. The Australian small business community has also been ridden to the ground by these oil companies. Everexpanding income taxes have not been enough for the Government. The oil companies and the Government have reaped thousands of millions of dollars from the Australian community. This rip-off is not about to come to an end under this legislation. Reluctantly the snail-paced Fraser Administration has finally introduced some weak legislation. But that will not stop the everincreasing petrol tax, nor will it stop the everexpanding petrol price increases and rising profits of the oil companies.

The Opposition will support the passage of these Bills. They are better than nothing at all. With two days of the Parliament remaining, we cannot possibly improve the situation in this session. As a responsible government however, after the election we will do something about the situation to improve it. It is scandalous that we face this situation late in 1980. This issue has faced Australia for more than half a decade. The last Labor Government implemented the Royal Commission on Petroleum in 1973. Its fourth report, from Commissioner Collins, was made in April 1976. It was bad luck for the service station owners that that report came down in 1976 because that was the first year of the Fraser Government. We then had a government that was not prepared to act on that report as it should have done immediately. The findings of the Royal Commission were not inconsequential. They were very important. I will list a few of the criticisms:

  1. There are far too many service stations . . .
  2. Motor spirit and other petroleum products are overpriced; both wholesale and retail margins are exessivelyhigh . . .
  3. There are too many oil company marketers; the petroluem market in Australia is irrationally fragmented . . .
  4. the market is sometimes chaotic and often not price competitive . . .

I ask honourable members to listen to this criticism and to note in particular:

  1. Unfair competition and especially discriminatory pricing practices are rife . . .
  2. The ‘tiers’ of price and the pricing structure generally are archaic and irrational . . .
  3. Dealers are sometimes dealt with oppressively . . .
Mr Garland:

– Where are these criticisms taken from?

Mr HURFORD:

– I am glad that the Minister asked that question. He ought to have those quotes indelibly printed on his memory. They come from page 369 of the fourth report of the Collins Royal Commission. The Commission found that Australia suffered adversely from the situation in the industry. It found that the Government had to intervene in the industry. It noted that Australia was practically the only country not to have done so to that point. Regrettably, that was four years ago. Still Australia has not intervened properly to ensure that the interests, not only of consumers, but also of the small business people involved, are preserved. The report noted:

Underlying all overseas governments’ policies was the view that security of supply, balance of payments, price to consumers, social utility of investment and basic industrial organisation–

The following words must be underlined: were too important to be left to the commercial rivalries of foreign-owned corporations.

That paragraph appears at page 371 of the fourth report. I believe that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) ought to have known that section off by heart also. But of course the Fraser Government did not agree. Despite the scandalous situation revealed by a 2½-year royal commission, it was 1 3 months before the Government could even make a decision and that decision was to do nothing. Three months later a government back bench committee released another report on the industry, the so-called Cadman report. Still no action was taken. Then late in 1977, during another Fraser early election the infamous promises were rolled out. The Prime Minister said he would ‘do something’ for the garage operators. We all know what that meant. We waited.

Twelve months later, in October 1978, we received a Press release on the belated Fife proposal on price discrimination, the divorcement of the oil companies from direct retailing and a new fair franchise law. I ask honourable members to mark the date. It was October 1978. The Government did not commit itself to any of these proposals but acknowledged that a package of policies would be needed and promised that the final package would be back-dated, that is, made retrospective to October 1978. That was the promise then. The promise was for retrospectivity, that the final package of policies would be back-dated to October 1978. But once again nothing happened. Six months later we had the Cotton report on petrol marketing in the United States of America. Twelve months later it was announced that legislation would be prepared. That was 12 months ago. Again we have waited for 12 months. A draft was released in February this year. We are now debating it in September. Throughout this history of procrastination and broken promises, thousands of service station operators have gone to the wall. The number of sites has fallen by nearly 4,000 and many more businessmen and their workers have left the industry. Meanwhile petrol prices and oil company profits have gone through the ceiling.

The complaints of service station operators were practically ignored. Some of them believed the Government’s promises and acted on the understanding that they would be protected. As a result, some still face civil court action. Let me quote from a letter that 1 received from a former Amoco Aust. Ltd dealer which was addressed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs who is sitting at the table. The former dealer is Mr Geoff Bastin of Westlakes in South Australia. On 8 August this year, he wrote:

I am currently facing a civil court action because you–

That is, the Minister - failed to protect me.

I doubt ifI can win a costly legal battle and even if I do they will appeal to the High Court.

My work has been long and hard and now I can see that even with a great deal of care and investigation I will lose all I have. Just because I trusted a multinational and a government to behave with some compassion . . .

My family is under great pressure. Why can’t I get justice?

I have asked Mr Fife and now yourself for help. When do I get it?

He has had to wait and the wait has been too long for him. There are many other dealers in this situation. Despite the Government’s promise, they will get no help from this legislation because it has no retrospective effect. The Government deserves the condemnation of the entire Australia community for its raising of false hopes its breaking of promises and it total neglect of small businessmen.

Let me turn now to the provisions of the Bill before us. First of all let me deal with the Petroleum

Retail Marketing Sites Bill 1980. Two arguments favour the full or partial divorcement of the oil companies from directly operating service stations, that is, through commission agents. Firstly, direct retailing involved the full vertical integration of the petroleum industry and so has anti-competitive effects. Secondly, unfair advantages accrue to oil company operated sites - their market power enables unfair policies to be pursued to the detriment of small business lessees and independents. Those of us who have had an opportunity to involve ourselves in this industry and to move around Australia will know just how that has applied in every capital city and in every major provincial city in this country.

This Bill will only partially affect each of these concerns. For the first 12 months, there will be virtually no change because under the Billto company is obliged to reduce the number of sites. There will be little change after the first 12 months. After two years, a completely anomalous situation will prevail. The Bill provides for a permanently discriminatory market structurehelping some companies at the expense of others - to prevail for the oil companies. The total number of sites allowed after two years will be 401. But 272 of these sites- 68 per cent- will be operated by just three companies, Shell, BP and Ampol. These are the three main companies presently operating their own sites.

There can be no doubt that this situation will prove intolerable, particularly if the franchise law proves at all effective. The Government’s intention to review the legislation after five years is quite ludicrous. Frankly, I would be surprised if it survives two years in its present form. I doubt that it should. Indeed, I foreshadow, in respect of the motion for the second reading of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill, an amendment proposing that a review should occur within 18 months to make it more effective. It must also be recognised that changes in the technologies of petrol retailing will soon render this Bill ineffective as well. I foreshadow an amendment which the Opposition will move to the motion for the second reading of that Bill. I ask the attendants, through the Clerk, to make copies of the foreshadowed amendment available to honourable members. It reads:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing this Bill, the House -

notes with concern that the maximum number of sites which may be operated by the major oil companies need not be reduced until one year has elapsed from the commencement of this Bill;

In other words, in theory no change need take place for 12 months. The amendment continues:

  1. expresses its view that the price charged by the major oil companies for petroleum products marketed through sites which they operate–

That is, their agency sites– should be regulated by a regulatory agency for the petroleum industry as recommended by the Collins Royal Commission, and

  1. calls upon the Government to review the legislation within 18 months of the commencement of the Act with a view to deciding upon a further reduction of the number of sites operated by the major oil companies’.

As this amendment will not hold up the legislation but merely expresses a view, I hope that honourable members on the Government side will support the Opposition in the sensible views that it is putting forward. If they do not support those views, I trust that, after 18 October, the government that is mentioned in the foreshadowed second reading amendment will be a Labor government. Certainly we shall be reviewing the legislation to make it more effective not just for the dealers concerned, who deserve it, but also for the consumers of this nation. I said earlier that it must be recognised that changes in the technology of petrol retailing will soon render this Bill quite ineffective as well. I will quote from a speech made on 1 1 July by Mr Doug Wilson, General Manager (Re-sale) of Mobil Oil Aust. Ltd. He said -

In years gone by, the fifties and sixties, the average dealer operated on low volumes and high margins with minimum operating costs. A high volume station sold 200,000 gallons of gasoline a year. Today that’s a month’s volume. Tomorrow, a divestment candidate.

Mr Wilson predicted that the $3m turnover of today’s biggest sites will tomorrow be the average. This indicates that very soon the oil companies will be able to command as much of the petrol retail market with 400 sites as they do today with 800 sites. No one can deny that the introduction of new retailing technologies can reduce petrol prices, but they will not be reduced if all that happens is that the oil companies are left to use their market power to manipulate the petroleum retailing industry. As I said earlier, they will take their profits at various places. One of the areas in which they can take their profits is retailing. If they are left with the market power in retailing that is where they will take their profits. Australia needs and deserves the lowest possible retail margins for petrol, provided they are established under fair market conditions. But the belated and inadequate legislation before us will soon be out of date and will prove completely inadequate even for the modest task that this Government is giving it. I have already foreshadowed that at the conclusion of this speech I will move an amendment proposing that an agency to regulate the oil industry should be established and that the present legislation should be reviewed. I have already stated that that is my intention. I have read to the House the amendment that I intend to move at that stage. Unless these actions are taken, petrol prices will remain too high and unfair practices will continue in the industry.

I turn now to the Petrol Retail Marketing Franchise Bill. This Bill puts into effect two of the elements of the Government’s policy for petroleum retailing: Firstly, a law to regulate franchise agreements and, secondly, a law ostensibly - I put the emphasis on ‘ostensibly’- to prohibit price discrimination. In respect of the franchise provisions, the Opposition has no particular quarrel with the Government. We believe it is worthwhile legislation and we support it. However, we have two general objections which I will now outline to the House. The first relates to retrospectivity. Retrospectivity is made difficult due to the provisions of the Constitution. Any law of the Commonwealth must not result in an acquisition of property other than on just terms pursuant to section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution. The Government has relied on the recent case of the Trade Practices Commission v. Tooth and Co. Ltd, which tends to indicate that variation of franchise rights does not constitute the acquisition of property. However, it has protected itself by the insertion of clause 23, which would require franchisees - that is, the dealers - to compensate oil companies should the High Court ever determine that an acquisition of property results from the operation of the proposed Act. This problem would be compounded by any retrospectivity clause, although the law in this area remains inadequately tested. A more courageous approach by the Government would have been to provide for retrospectivity in respect of agreements in force at the time of the commencement of the proposed Act. This Bill will apply only to new agreements. I believe that it ought to apply to the agreements that are now in force.

The second quarrel I have relates to regulation of the industry. The Collins royal commission recommended the establishment of a regulatory body for the industry. That has been rejected by the Government. I condemn the Government for that rejection. The enormous power of the oil companies suggests that such a regulatory agency will still be required, particularly as the legislation covers only a minority of the total number of petrol retail sites in Australia. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, the Australian Labor Party believes that Australia cannot afford to stand virtually alone among nations without a substantial degree of government regulation of the petroleum industry. This is needed to ensure not only fair competition between retailers but also that petrol prices are constrained to the minimum efficient level.

The second issue dealt with by the Bill is that of price discrimination. There can be no doubt that the Government has adopted the weakest possible provision in this regard. Clause 20, in the Labor Party’s view, is quite unsatisfactory. If it works, it will place franchisees at a disadvantage compared with company-operated sites and independents. If it does not work, as is more likely, the problems presently encountered in the industry will continue. It is outrageous that we have waited five years, received at least four reports, had the Trade Practices Commission undertake surveys and have now received another Prices Justification Tribunal report, only to fine a few inadequate lines in the middle of the franchise law ostensibly to tackle the problem. The issue is much bigger than the Government chooses to recognise. The current variation in premium petrol prices within Australia is as high as 14c a litre- 55c a gallon. That is the extent of the difference between petrol prices that the people of Australia are suffering at present. Country people, in particular, are paying exorbitant prices for their petrol. Moreover, the Prices Justification Tribunal which was decimated by this Government closed its office in Sydney. It has half the staff that it used to have. The PJT is unable to investigate properly and to control the wholesale prices charged by the oil companies. Without a regulatory agency for the petroleum industry such as that being advocated by the Labor Party, without an effective price discrimination law and without a forthright approach by government the Australian public and the small business sector in particular will continue to be fleeced by big oil companies and their friends in the Fraser Administration.

On behalf of the Opposition I wish to move an amendment to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill. I will ask the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) who is in the chamber to second this amendment. I reiterate the strong desire of the Labor Party to achieve two things. On the one hand the Labor Party wants to see a sensible approach to preserve the interests of the small business dealers in the petrol marketing area in this country and on the other hand it wants to see the lowest possible price for consumers in this country. In the short time that the Bill has been before us the Government has decided that it wishes to make amendments to it. The more the

Opposition examines this Bill the more it is convinced that this is not the correct approach. We have heard the bleatings of some Liberal members who have pretended that they support small business and who have pretended that they hold the same aims as the Labor party. The Labor Party asks the people of Australia to recognise that these same Liberal and National Country Party members are propping up a government which has delayed the introduction of adequate legislation. It has brought in an absolute pip squeak. Before I move my amendment I emphasise the fact that the Opposition is in no way delaying this Bill. It is not opposing this Bill but it is bound, of course, to put an alternative view. The best way that can be expressed is in an amendment to the second reading of the Bill for all to see. I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Jacobi:

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It is my intention to call the honourable member for Lyne. Before doing so I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this will be the final speech of the honourable member. As an Opposition Deputy Chairman of Committees and as a Deputy Speaker I should like to say that I am very pleased to be in the chair at this particular time. I served with the honourable member for Lyne as a Deputy Chairman of Committees when he was the Chairman of Committees. I think we became quite good friends. I state without equivocation that he is a man of the highest sincerity and integrity. He has served this Parliament with distinction during the 28 years that he has been here.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I express my appreciation for your remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker. I spoke the other evening during the debate on the Budget. I remarked then that it brought back many memories of my maiden speech which I made in this House 28i years ago. I think that the legislation that the House is considering at the moment highlights one of the basic principles of the Federal Parliament. When I spoke during the debate on the Budget I expressed my appreciation to all those who had played a part in making my years of service in this Parliament fruitful. Those years have been enjoyable. Mr Deputy Speaker, you spoke of our association. 1 believe 1 can say that I have many friends not only in my own party but also on both sides of the House. As I think back in time, I think of many honourable members who are no longer with us. As the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) said the other evening, at least we know that we will not be back again in the new parliament. That will not be easy. After having served in so many parliaments and having such a close association, it will not be easy to be, as it were, on the outside looking in. As I said, legislation such as that before the House at the moment reminds us of our opportunities, privileges and responsibilities in this House.

I emphasise that irrespective of the position we hold in the Parliament, each honourable member has to return to his electorate at the time of an election to give a report on his stewardship. In the present hurly-burly of politics it might be said that the member of parliament is becoming less of a strength in his own electorate and that policies and personalities in leadership are the things that are considered. But I believe that there is still that individual strength of representation by an individual member. If one traces the history of this Parliament one will find that there have been occasions when members have been defeated because of the failure of their representation. On the other hand members have been returned to this Parliament even when their own party has been defeated because of the strength of their representation and the respect of the people in their electorate. I believe that these things are of vital importance in Australia today. It has been said that Australia is a lucky country. It is a lucky country, but we have to realise that to continue to be a lucky country each one of us must make the maximum contribution to the progress and development of this country in whatever sphere we may serve. An example of that is found in the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and others in this House. They have put a tremendous amount of effort into the sphere of activity covered by this legislation. That individual representation is important.

Some criticism has been made of the Cabinet and of the Executive. I suppose that I have stood in this chamber and criticised the Executive because I believed that on occasions it had drifted away from the realities of the political situation and the problems facing this country. This is where I think the back bencher has an important part to play. Sometimes back benchers feel the cold wind of public opinion blowing down their necks sooner than members of the Executive. Therefore, we need to remind members of the Executive that that cold wind sometimes blows to the detriment of the parliamentary representative. All of these things are important. We must realise that in this twentieth century life is changing; it never remains static.

The other day I read an article by Clive Lloyd, the West Indian cricketer, in which he talked about the changes that had come into cricket. He said that some of the changes were for the better; some of them perhaps were not such an advantage. However, he said that the most important thing was that we should be aware of change and maximise that change to the benefit of the game. I believe that in exactly the same way in our political life things will change and we must maximise the benefit of those changes for our democratic system. We must never lose what is basically the fundamental principle concerning the right of every person in this country and the responsibility of every member of parliament.

I believe that today the media - the Press, radio and television - have a tremendously important part to play. I have not always agreed with the media. But overall I think members of the Press, radio and television are aware of their responsibility. I can remember times in the period that I have been a member of this House when the Press could have taken a step that would have been detrimental to this Parliament. However, realising the real value of parliament, they did not take that action. I believe everybody gained from this attitude. Whilst there may be times when we criticise the media, I think overall they accept their responsibility and play their part in sustaining and upholding our democratic way of life. We frequently talk about democracy, its value and what it really means. I think we need look only at some other countries to realise what democracy does mean, what its values are and the privileges if offers.

So that at least it can be said that I had something to say about the legislation before the chamber at the moment, let me point out, as I said earlier, that I believe this legislation gives an indication of what is basically the privilege of parliament and government in Australia. The petroleum industry is dependent upon the individual, big business and the unions. It is dependent upon the co-operation of each person fulfilling his obligation. How much interference- if I can use that word - should there be from governments? How much pressure should come from unions or from big business so that the little man can go forward within his framework of business without fear or favour? That is what parliament is all about.

When I think of the members of my own party, members of the Liberal Party and members of the Australian Labor Party who have served this country in this House, I think it can be said that this country has been fortunate. I regard it a privilege and a pleasure to have been able to play my part and serve in this House during the period I have been a member. I thank all of my colleagues and my electorate for the support they have given me. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) is in the chamber. Only the honourable member for Hindmarsh and the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) have been members of this House continually since I was first elected in 1952. Both of them, with many other honourable members, have made their contribution. To Mr Speaker, to you Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Deputy Chairmen of Committees, to the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), to members of the Cabinet and to all my colleagues in this House I say thank you. I offer my best wishes to those who are going out on to the hustings to face the future. I support the legislation that we are considering.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:

– I think all members of the House would join me in wishing the honourable member for Lyne a very long and happy retirement.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I extend to the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) my best wishes on his retirement. Whilst not opposing the measures before the House I wholeheartedly support the amendments moved so ably by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). Four years ago the Fraser Government rejected the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Petroleum which inquired into the marketing and distribution of petroleum products in Australia. The Royal Commission, which had undertaken the most detailed investigation ever into the Australian oil industry, was scathing in its attack on the paucity of government control over so vital an industry. The Commission pointed out that petrol is an essential commodity and by the most normal test it qualifies as a utility industry. The report stated:

In its socio-economic context motor spirit as a staple consumer product resembles electricity, town gas, water supply, postal and communication services, meat, milk and bread supplies. All these areas have acquired distinctive forms of regulation. The policy objectives of regulation include security and comprehensiveness of supply, availability to the public, public pricing and market costing, cheapness and standardisation.

After comparing the policy vacuum in which Australian oil companies operate with the position in other countries the Commission concluded:

The Australian consumer may well have paid a high price for the lack of governmental oversight of this area.

In this situation any intervention by the Government into the oil industry is welcome, but unfortunately the measures proposed by the Government are too weak and too late. The Government is simply subservient to the oil companies. It has done nothing to prevent their unrestrained and unprecedented takeover of Australian resources. It has sided with them on every occasion that a dispute has arisen between them and the thousands of small businessmen in the industry.

The market in which petroleum products are sold has always been dominated by oil companies. Lessees of oil company sites have had no freedom in the way their business is run. They must open at times fixed by the oil companies, show their books to company representatives, hire their petrol pumps and other equipment from the company at company prices and have them checked or repaired by the company if, and only if, the company desires. They can force service station proprietors to change to self-service operation or use other marketing strategies against their will. On top of this, they can effectively remove service station lessees at a moment’s notice, under pretexts such as dirty facilities.

We often hear Tory politicians berate Government control of small business, yet the control imposed by oil companies would outstrangle any regulation that the Government has yet devised. As an example of oil company behaviour, I cite the case of a service station operator in my electorate who has worked the same site for 1 5 years. The proprietor had operated his station as a conventional full service site, selling petrol at the recommended retail price. Although nearby stations were price cutting, he had a number of regular clients who were prepared to pay the full price for petrol in return for personalised service, account facilities, and access to mechanical repairs. He employed one driveway attendant and several mechanics. His operational returns and expenses for one month earlier this year are set out in a table which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Table read as follows -

Mr JACOBI:

– I thank the House. At the expiration of his lease several months ago, the oil company concerned confronted him with a new contract which provided that the station be converted to self-service and increased his rent from $750 to over $2,100 a month. The oil company offered a reduced price for petrol on the condition that this discount was matched from the retailers own margin. On this basis the company estimated that the dealer would increase his sales threefold, but his profits would still be greatly reduced. Information from other dealers indicated that this estimate was quite unrealistic and that a more reasonable estimate of sales was half the figure estimated by the company. On the dealer’s estimate, he would be forced to run at a loss. The only alternatives available to him as a successful businessman were to throw himself on the mercy of the company or to quit the industry without any compensation.

Another case involving a dealer who incurred the wrath of an oil company because of his role in leading the fight for reform in the industry is even more deplorable. He discovered that his petrol pumps were malfunctioning by over-recording the gallonage sold, with the result that he was being overcharged by the company. Because the pumps were company equipment it refused to repair them. In spite of the fact that the dealer was able to prove the malfunction, he was simply run out of business, only to be replaced by somebody more acceptable to the company. Because the Government has reneged on its promise to apply retrospective legislation, he will have no redress against the treatment meted out by the company.

Another way in which companies decide which of their lessees should survive and which should become bankrupt is obviously price manipulation. An oil company can wipe a service station proprietor out of business overnight by charging that proprietor more for petrol supplies than the selling price at a nearby site - often a site operated by the same company. The companies justify these games of Russian roulette played with service station proprietors at the end of the barrel because of the need to rationalise the industry. Certainly a case can be made for a reduction in service station numbers, as the Royal Commission on Petroleum pointed out. However, the Commission proposed an independent regulatory agency to oversee such a process, through negotiations with dealers on the one hand and oil companies on the other, but with the public interest paramount. The present process of socalled rationalisation has nothing to do with the public interest. It ignores the legitimate interest of service station proprietors, many of whom have built up their businesses over many years.

Why are there too many service stations? In the early 1950s the companies overinvested in petrol retail outlets in an attempt to maximise the volume of petrol sold, regardless of the efficiency of the selling operation. The companies neglected distribution efficiency because they were making huge profits from the production of oil in the Middle East. Oil was then so cheap that they were making huge profits at the oil well for every gallon of petrol sold. The proliferation of service stations was the companies’ way of gaining the highest throughput, and hence profit, from the Middle East crude oil. The cost of this inefficiency in petrol distribution was passed on to Australian consumers. According to the Royal Commission, Australian motorists paid millions of dollars more every year than motorists in any other country to prop up a bloated network of petrol stations. Because the world situation has changed with the advent of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, oil companies have lost their control over much of the production in the Middle East. They are now looking more towards the marketing and distribution sectors of the industry, and their recently announced profits show that this transition has certainly been a successful one for the oil companies.

The companies are trying to increase their hold over the retail side of the industry by forcing many of their lessees out of business. Once this is achieved the companies will convert key sites to self-service operation, under the management of commissioned agents who are virtually salaried employees of the companies. The Government has delayed for four years and allowed that to become a monopolistic practice. The point is that for 20 years oil companies have greatly overinvested in service stations. They are now trying to back-pedal without taking any responsibility for their earlier decisions. It is the height of hypocrisy for oil companies to publish large advertisements in the Press advocating the need for efficiency in petrol retailing. Companies brought hundreds of people into the industry as a deliberate act of policy, but now they want to wipe them out overnight. The argument that oil companies are entitled to a fair return on investment I suggest has little validity when the decision to overinvest was made with such little regard for the interests of Australian consumers.

This Government must accept responsibility since it was its conservative predecessor which stood by in the 1950s and 1960s and allowed consumer interests to be ignored. The Government also has a shameful record of deceit in its handling of the petrol industry problems, certainly since 1975. When the industry problems did not go away after the Government rejected the Royal Commission’s findings in 1976, the Government passed the issue on to a committee in an attempt to bury it. When the issue flared again just before the 1977 election, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) committed the Government to resolving the problems. This promise quickly suffered the same fate as the rest of his promises. In October 1978, following conferences between the oil companies, petrol retailer representatives and the Government, the then Minister announced a series of four measures to overcome the problems. The measures now before this House are a poor substitute for those proposals.

The announcement of the 1 978 package was, of course, anathema to the oil companies and they immediately brought pressure to bear on the Government. This Government caved in, the Minister was shifted, and the measures were forgotten. Although the announcement of the measures initially deceived petrol resellers into thinking that the Government was sympathetic to their interests, it eventually became clear to them that the Government was subservient to the oil companies.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Well, they got a pretty big donation. They should be.

Mr JACOBI:

– They certainly did. After more protest from petrol retailers the Government produced draft legislation to handle only the question of franchise agreements. That is all it did. Even this half-hearted measure was delayed by referring it to the Trade Practices Commission. The Government’s credibility with small business has hit rock bottom. The introduction of this legislation is a desperate attempt to try to win back some favour before the polls. These measures have been left to the very last moment so that their weakness will not become apparent until after the election.

The major flaw is that the Government has watered down the important measures prohibiting oil companies from direct retailing. That is the crux of the whole issue. The loophole provided by the Government is that oil companies will still be able to control a certain number of service stations. Although relatively small in number, these outlets will be the key high volume selfservice sites that will account for a significant proportion of the petrol sold in Australia. We ought not to lose sight of the fact that oil companies will be able to use those sites unfairly to run more lessee dealers out of business. Obviously, if oil companies were completely excluded from the petrol retailing market, the market might approach something like a true free market. Under this situation, any reduction of service station numbers would be on the basis of ability to compete under fair conditions.

The point of this legislation should not be to guarantee the survival of petrol resellers so much as to allow them to compete on equal terms. Small business will never be able to do that while multinational, vertically integrated corporations are able to dominate the market by fair means or foul. I quote an extract from an excellent article in the September issue of Probe, the journal of the Consumers Association of South Australia. It states:

To the public the service station proprietor may seem like a profiteer, as it is his premises which display the price of petrol.

But these people are amongst the most competitive businessmen you will meet, willing to undercut their nearest rival for that extra market share. They do not want protection, what they do want is a truly free competitive marketplace where their opposition are their peers- not their suppliers.

Insofar as it is possible to do so, they will fight to lower wholesale prices by using their freedom to choose their suppliers. But more than anything else they believe that a service station is not merely a primitive ‘tap’ for the switching on and off of petrol at prices dictated by oil companies, but that it also must offer the kind of service which motorists have come to regard as essential to their comfort and convenience.

Unlike the oil companies, the petrol retailer does not claim saintly status as the friend of the consumer, through some divine impulse to save him money. He simply claims that in the ordinary circumstances of free competition the best way to look after himself is to look after his customers.

In conclusion, I point out that the Government’s attempt to regulate the oil marketing industry falls short, even by the Government’s own standard set two years ago. It is a fraud and petrol resellers will see it as a fraud. The Government has been forced to admit that it was wrong and that the Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum was right. That Royal Commission made recommendations four years ago and the Government of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), when it came to office in 1976, flatly rejected the adoption of the recommendations in the Royal Commission’s report. The Government said that there was no need for an inquiry, that there was no need for discussion. As I say, the recommendations were made four years ago and now the Government is forced to reach the inevitable conclusion that the recommendations have to be implemented. The Government ought to reexamine the reports of the Royal Commission. In particular, the Government should adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission to establish an oil industry agency to regulate properly and to rationalise the industry, including the question of price. The Government should also establish a committee of this House to examine thoroughly the oil industry and to recognise the fact that energy is now too important to be left to the whims of overseas-controlled corporations. I suggest to the Minister that oil pricing in Australia, ever since its inception, has been a fraud. To understand really what the price of crude oil ought to be will require a thorough investigation into the history of oil pricing. As Tolstoy put it once very simply: ‘If you fix the catechism, you fix the theology. If you alter the catechism, you alter the theology’. A study of original price fixed for crude oil will show that it was manipulated by the oil companies. It was initially a fraud and it is still a fraud. Only when these steps are taken will the oil industry operate in the best interests of all Australians. The price paid by the Australian community for government inaction is already much too high. Let me conclude on a truism. I trust that every petrol reseller throughout the length and breadth of this country will come to understand it. It is a very old but very true dictum which petrol resellers are learning at their cost. It is simply this: The rich can buy justice but the poor are obliged to legislate for it. The only way in which petrol resellers will get any sense of equity in the market-place will be to force this Government to legislate, which it will not do. The only hope petrol resellers have is the return of a Labor government on 1 8 October to ensure that they will get the necessary legislation to give them the protection that they so richly deserve.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

– May I take this opportunity to wish the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) all the very best in his retirement. He has been an ornament to this Parliament and I was very appreciative of the very nice remark that he made about me. Shortly after the report by Mr Justice Collins into the petroleum industry was handed down in this House, I made a speech on this matter. I would like to go back in history and repeat some of the statements I made at that time because I believe they are as relevant and as pertinent today as they were nearly five years ago. I also take the opportunity of saying that not many members from the Opposition made speeches on this matter at that time. It seems that in this Parliament one never gives credit to anybody on the opposite side of the House, but I must admit that the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) was very deeply involved with the oil industry and made some very constructive remarks at that time. But there were not very many other members from the opposite side of the House and not very many other members generally who were very interested in this complex industry. So, let me make that point right from the very beginning.

I said that I had watched with dismay over a period of many years an apparent lack of concern for an industry that had been thrown literally into chaos, and I cited Victoria as a prime example. I said that the industry’s marketing methods had for many years been the subject of substantial criticisms, criticisms which were familiar and which echoed those made in many other countries. I said that through the years the reports of a long list of commissions of inquiry of one kind or another had referred to them. I picked out a couple of the allegations. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) conveniently quoted the Royal Commission; yet, on the other side of the coin, he said that the Royal Commission was outdated now. We all admit that there have been many changes in this industry. Indeed, it is an ever-changing industry.

Mr Jacobi:

– Not on this issue.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– I think the honourable member for Hawker would agree that it is everchanging. 1 said that the market was sometimes chaotic and often not price competitive and that unfair competition and especially discriminatory price practices were rife. I said that the tiers of pricing and pricing structure generally were archaic and irrational and that dealers were sometimes dealt with oppressively. I said that it would be an indictment of this Parliament to allow this industry to continue on the path of selfdestruction. Further, I said that the lack of apparent intervention and concern was illustrated in a letter received by the Commissioner of the Royal Commission on Petroleum, Mr Justice Collins on 13 May 1975 from the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, the late Mr R. F. X. Connor, and I was in no way implying that there was any blame on Mr Connor. I quoted the letter which stated:

I refer to your letter of 24 March enquiring whether my Department is able to provide information about the various topics you have mentioned, namely the Motor Spirit Price War, the relationship between Oil Companies and Service Station Proprietors and the causes and remedies for the proliferation of Service Stations. In summary, these topics all relate to the Retailing of Petroleum Products- a matter about which my Department has virtually no information and regrettably it cannot therefore be of any real assistance to you. Your Officers are of course welcome to consult mine to see if the little information they do have on file is of any assistance.

The point that I want to make is that it is a complex industry. For many years few people knew anything about the industry. Few people were concerned about the problems of the service station proprietors at that time. There is talk of discrimination and of service station proprietors losing their livelihood.

During the price war in Melbourne many service station proprietors lost their businesses but, unfortunately, few people took any notice. Most of the people of Australia seemed to forget at that time that they were subsidising the cheap petrol in Melbourne, to the detriment of many consumers throughout the country. It is a complex and difficult industry to unravel.

Even as this legislation is being considered - I trust it will pass through both Houses of Parliament - there are many people who view it with a great deal of cynicism and criticism. The major oil companies are divided on this issue. Some may welcome parts of this legislation and some may not. Some of the commission agents may not welcome the legislation at all. Some of the dealers who own their sites may not welcome this legislation. Some of the lessee dealers throughout Australia may believe that the legislation does not go far enough to give them adequate protection. It will never satisfy everybody. I doubt whether any legislation could protect all the people in this complex industry. As a result of this Government’s policy to move to import parity pricing, which I believe will be in the national interest, the people of Australia are being asked now to pay a higher price for petrol. Therefore, I believe that all consumers throughout Australia should have a fair and respectable opportunity to purchase petrol at the cheapest possible price. I believe also that people who work in the industry should have adequate protection. Those oil companies which have not played the game in the past should realise that this Government means business, that this Government is prepared to take them on at every given opportunity. I hope that those companies will heed the necessary warning and work towards the betterment of this industry.

I have been accused, quite unfairly, of being an oil company hater and a complete supporter of the dealers of Australia. That is not true. It should be said that in the interests of balance - there are elements of possible achievement - it is too late to allot blame, but for the purpose of considering how the industry may be restructured once more on a rational basis and in the interests of the community, the oil companies, and those people who find employment in this industry, all should be considered in the context of serving the consumers of Australia in a more respectable and ethical way. It is useless for the Australian Labor Party to criticise the Government for taking this distinct and momentous step along the path of restructuring this industry. I agree that we may not have gone far enough. If I am returned to this House and if I believe that the oil companies are still placing dealers in an oppressive and difficult situation, those companies can rest assured that the fight will continue. We have just returned to the question of politics and we should not have done so. During this debate, the Opposition has accused the Government of certain things. The Australian Labor Party, during its period in government, allowed one of the most disgraceful petrol price wars ever to rage in this country. Admittedly, it did not start during its term in government, but it allowed the rest of Australia to be disadvantaged by the price of petrol being far cheaper in Victoria. One of the main reasons for that was the ability of the ACTU-Solo organisation to purchase–

Mr Humphreys:

– Who sold COR? The Liberal Government.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– I will come to that.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I mentioned that in Victoria the price of petrol was much lower. I made the point that as a result of an Australian oil company selling petrol cheaply to ACTU-Solo a price war was created in Victoria. I believe that that cost many good, decent and respectable service station proprietors their livelihood or placed their businesses in jeopardy. The Opposition has said very little about that. Very few members of the Opposition came to the defence of those poor, innocent service station proprietors whose livelihoods were placed in jeopardy. As a consequence of the events I have outlined, many of them went to the wall.

That is all history now and, as I have mentioned, the oil industry is ever changing. When the recommendations of the Royal Commission were handed down I thought to myself that as time evolved there would be changes. Of course the oil companies - I am not being critical of them - are smart and are able to move in directions that probably will thwart governments and commissions. That is not being disrespectful to the companies, because they need to be able to monitor the market and cope with changing market conditions. There was quite a bit of pressure on the oil companies to stop discounting, which was to the disadvantage of others, and there has been a degree of levelling out. But, the industry does change, and some major oil companies decided that the next step would be to rationalise and also get involved in commission agencies. That virtually meant that the oil company owned the land, the service station built on it, the petrol and, to a degree, the person who was operating the service station because in fact that person was just a commission agent getting a commission on the volume of turnover.

I saw in this development two inherent dangers: Firstly, they were able to manipulate - I use the word ‘manipulate’ in its true sense- the prices which sometimes discriminated against other dealers; and, secondly and most importantly, whilst it may have appeared to the motorists and the consumers of Australia that the price had been reduced at this time, at their convenience, as this manipulation of movement to the commission agency continued, the oil companies were able to control the price of petrol from the wellhead, to the ultimate consumer. I thought that that had inherent dangers in it. In the past, many people leapt onto the rotting corpse of stable marketing in this industry and, with certain exceptional bargaining advantages, joined in the feast at the expense of the truly Australian part of the industry - by that I mean the average, ordinary service station proprietors. On this occasion their voice has been heard. Their lobby has been dedicated and most ethical.

Some of the people in Australia tonight who are of some political persuasion, and who even may have aspirations to become politically involved, should bury their heads in shame when they imply that this part of the industry has been protected to the disadvantage of the consumers and oil companies of Australia. When they mention the wheeling and dealing of some Liberal politicians, why do they not come straight out into the open and make their point truthfully if they wish to use innuendo to try to bring decent, respectable people down to their level? I have made this point without getting politically involved. I believe that some people will be listening tonight who understand exactly what I am talking about. There have been some very dirty manoeuvres in regard to this legislation as it has come before the House. I repeat that many people should bury their heads in shame. Many thousands of people who may be listening tonight will realise that if small business is to survive in this country then it requires fair treatment not only by the large cartels in Australia but also by governments and other people who pull the strings.

I would like to congratulate the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland). I believe the Minister has done a remarkable, dedicated job. Ministers for Business and Consumer Affairs before him, including the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) carried out their job with the same degree of dedication to make certain that this legislation to protect the small businessman in Australia was effective. Members of the Australian Labor Party do a lot of huffing and puffing, but we have reached the stage where this legislation is coming to fruition. They did not do very much in the past but the Government has now realised that many people in this industry have dreamed of a fair amount of protection, and the thought that once in a while the major oil companies in Australia are to some degree being stopped in the measures they are taking. I hope to goodness that the people concerned realise that this is an important issue and that many livelihoods, including those of employees, are at stake. If the industry is steamlined it could be to the advantage of the consumers, the people working within the industry and also the oil companies.

Everyone on this side of the House believes not only in the free enterprise system but also that the free enterprise system needs reform when it forces people into a situation where they cannot compete. In the past there was a proliferation of retail outlets through Australia. All the oil companies wanted their share of the market and many went in wildly with scant concern or regard for the future. Of course there have been many changes, and everyone can understand that changes were required. But, now we have a platform, a firm base, on which the industry can be restructured. The legislation before the House will go a long way towards offering a solution to some of the complex and difficult matters that have made this industry the subject of careful scrutiny by many people in the past. The industry has been prostituted for far too long. Let us all forget about some of the problems of the past. I repeat that the industry is ever changing and I submit that in the interests of consumers everyone in the industry should work in the national interest because oil is a precious commodity. It is like the air we breathe and the water we drink.

I support the legislation and, briefly in conclusion, I would like to outline some of the most important points of what I consider to be the most momentous legislation for the protection of small business in Australia ever to enter this House.

The first of the four main elements of the Bills is licence terms. Lessee and licencee dealers will have a nine-year security of tenure. There will be a basic three-year minimum term and rights of renewal will take the total up to nine years. This will be subject to rights of termination and nonrenewal. The second element is that the legislation will reduce substantially the total number of retail outlets directed, owned and operated by oil companies. Thirdly, the Government is legislating to prohibit unjustified price discrimination and, fourthly, the Government has asked the Prices Justification Tribunal to inquire whether the maximum wholesale price of petrol companies includes a component compensating oil companies for investment in service stations. I support the legislation, and I do not mind if Ministers, in a nice way, refer to these as the Tasmaniac Bills. I am honoured to be referred to in some small way in regard to this legislation. I congratulate everybody involved. I cannot mention everyone who has been involved in this step forward for the protection of these small businessmen. The Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, and its umbrella organisations, have done an excellent job. I say particularly to one man, Petroleum Jelli, I hope the effects of the legislation last with you.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition recognises that the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill represent the Government’s attempt to deal with the iniquities, uncertainties and indeed insecurities of the petrol retailing industry in Australia. There has been reckless and irresponsible competition which has left the Australian landscape strewn with the monuments of failed enterprise. In each case where a service station has closed down I suppose we can say that there is evidence of frustrated aspirations. Somebody’s idea of running a successful business has been dashed. Often life savings have been dissipated. It is a very serious matter that we are talking about tonight.

Closed service stations litter the Australian roadside. We see them being converted to all kinds of other purposes. In my electorate they are used as pre-schools, outlets for car parts, plant nurseries and so on. This represents an irrational and, indeed, an unrationalised approach to industry and a waste of material and financial and human resources. It is amazing that for many years the oil companies have been allowed to participate in such an unbridled way in this fierce competitive battle. We have had to pay a high price to uphold this principle that market forces should always prevail and that we should minimise government interference. We have reached the stage in respect of these upholders of free enterprise - service station operators - of which I think the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who preceded me in the debate might have been one at one stage–

Mr Goodluck:

– Fifteen years and proud of it; I still have the overall indented on the back.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right, I do not want to gild the lily. I am just acknowledging the honourable member’s previous role and giving him credit for knowing something about the business. It is a very high price to pay when we recognise that these upholders of private enterprise actually have reached the stage of threatening to withhold their services from the Australian community until their aspirations for a more secure industry were given effect. We say to the Government that we welcome the legislation, even though we contend that it is lacking in many respects and even though it is belated. It should have been introduced years ago. I doubt whether it would have been introduced at this moment except that the elections are pressing so heavily upon us.

From what the Opposition can discern the legislation leaves a great deal to be desired. I will outline some of the views that we have. The legislation provides no protection in relation to franchise agreements entered into prior to the commencement of the Act. This, I understand, has been acknowledged as being contrary to the promises made by the Government in 1978. Many operators have gone to the wall in that time. Maybe the promise should never have been made. But some people had been lulled into a state of false security and had some expectation that this legislation, if it has retrospectivity, might have given them some kind of compensation for the losses that they have suffered. We also have some concern that the price discrimination provisions of the Bill are inadequate and may lead to unfair practices detrimental to the well-being of franchisees and consumers. They should be reviewed within a reasonable time. We suggest this should be done within six months after the commencement of the Act. After the elections, we hope to be in a position to honour that undertaking. If things do not work out in the way we would like, we would then press the government of the day to give effect to that requirement.

We are critical of the failure to provide for the establishment of a regulatory agency for the petroleum industry. I probably need not remind honourable members that this has been recommended by the Royal Commission on Petroleum presided over by Mr Justice Collins. The Royal Commission proposed that the agency should monitor, review and regulate the pricing policies and market conduct of the major companies in the industry to ensure that the petroleum prices are fairly determined for the benefit of customers. We happen to be on the side of the Royal Commission set up by a former Labor Government.

We are also concerned that under the Bill the maximum number of sites which may be operated by the major oil companies need not be reduced until one year has elapsed from the date of commencement of the legislation. We offer the prediction - we are sorry about its consequence - that many service stations will probably close in the interim. As we see that happen we will need to sheet home the blame fairly and squarely to this Government which has had the opportunity to provide otherwise. We believe that there should be a regulatory agency established and that the price charged for petroleum products by the major oil companies which are marketed through sites they operate should be regulated by this agency for the industry as recommended by the Commission. Of course, we want to see a review of the effects of this legislation every 18 months and certainly within 18 months. We have made a commitment to that effect.

Let me briefly outline some of the main provisions of the legislation. The Petrol Retail Marketing Franchise Bill applies in respect of retail petrol outlets in a franchisor-franchisee relationship with a corporation or an oil company which, first of all, uses the symbol of the corporation, or secondly, uses or occupies the premises of a corporation. Thirdly, it applies where there is an agreement for the corporation to supply motor fuel directly or indirectly to the retail petrol outlet for retail sale. Virtually everybody in the industry is covered by the provisions of this Bill.

The legislation is intended to provide protection for service station proprietors. It provides, according to the Government, reasonable security of tenure for service station proprietors. The Opposition, puts a question mark against that objective. We do not think it is fulfilled completely by any means. Secondly, the Bill provides for the disclosure to any prospective franchisee- that is, service station operator - of information known by the franchisor or the oil corporation relevent to the operation and profitability of the site. The Bill spells out the rights for franchisees to bring action for compensation, to challenge terminations of agreements and to prevent contravention of the Act. Fourthly, this Bill makes it a requirement for oil companies to take steps to devise and operate fair and efficient allocation systems when normal supplies cannot be maintained. We believe that there is some doubt about the possibility of that being implemented in full because the Government has backed down on insisting that a specific formula should be used in these matters.

The Bill prohibits certain forms of price discrimination. Clause 20 deals with prohibiting oil companies from discrimination among its franchisees in the price of a motor fuel supplied to them unless it is done in good faith to assist a franchisee to meet a price or benefit offered by a competitor of the franchisee. There are examples of how major oil companies can provide discounted petrol to lessees. Let me cite some of the exceptions. They include where a lower price is justified in terms of actual cost saving, where another supplier has offered to supply the franchisee at a lower price or where the retail competition warrants oil companies to give price support to their franchisees. There are provisions which attempt to recognise the special relationship between the franchisee and the franchisor and the need for oil companies not to discriminate between the two categories without justification. In essence, they represent the major provisions of that first Bill.

The second Bill, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill 1980, is to effect a reduction of 50 per cent in the number of retail petrol stations operated by the companies in Australia as at 30 May 1980. Of course, these stations, generally speaking, are operated for the oil companies by a commission agent. It is interesting to note that the total company-operated sites increased from 578 in June 1978 to 670 in June 1979 and to over 800 as 30 May 1980. In 1975, there were no commission agent stations at all. The House would do well to contemplate why the oil companies considered it expedient to move in this direction and to establish so many commission agents. On June 1979 figures, the market share of the companyoperated sites was over 17 per cent even though they represented only 5 per cent of total site numbers. That is a very significant part of the industry.

This Bill is designed to reduce the number of company service stations. That is a very fundamental cornerstone of the Bill. The number of company service stations must reduce to 401 over a two year period. Of course what has happened is that the companies have expanded the number in the preceding years so that they would be able to drop down to still a relatively large number of outlets. The oil corporations are given a quota of retail site numbers which they are entitled to operate. Commission agents who were formerly lessees of the site will have a first option of a franchise where the site that they operate on behalf of their company is converted back to lessee operation within the two year phase-in period. The Bills do not adequately deal with the disproportionate market power of major oil companies.

I mention the dominating situation that oil companies have in the United States of America. A similar position prevails in Australia. One company operating in the United States, Exxon, reported that it had a profit of $4,300m in America in 1979. This was 55 per cent above its profit of the previous year. The Mobil corporation’s profits rose by nearly 80 per cent in 1979 to just over $2,000m. Texaco reported a profit of about $ 1,800m, an increase of more than 100 per cent on its earnings of 1978. So the list goes with a picture of record profits extending throughout the whole of the American oil industry. On average, the fourth quarter profits of the American oil companies were about 60 per cent of those of a year earlier. This came on top of an average rise of 90 per cent during the third quarter.

In Australia there has been a bonanza for the oil companies because these same companies have received some $ 1,200m from the Australian motorist over the last three years because of this Government’s oil pricing policies. We all know that in addition of course the Government has derived something like $3, 500m from the Australian motorist because of those policies. So, it is a great old milking cow if honourable members like. Not only has it been a bonanza for this Government but also it has been of great benefit to the oil companies. Yet they have been so inconsiderate of the retailers who have made these immense profits possible.

The Bills before the House, though removing some of the excesses, cannot be said to be creating or maintaining the service station proprietors as independent businessmen. Any businessman is independent only to a degree. The practice of the major oil companies in tying their lessees and licensees have been documented by the Collins Royal Commission. I will not have time to quote from that report at length. But in paragraph 11.4 which is headed ‘The Dealers’ Terms’, the report states:

Universally the dealer has no rights with respect to the business existing, carried on or built up by him at the outlet beyond the right, within certain constraints, to exploit it during the terms of his occupancy. Nor is he permitted to sell the business, to remove it to another site or to let it run down. He cannot close the business down.

Under other headings such as ‘Lease Provisions’, Exclusivity of Supply’, ‘Dealer not to Dispose of the Business’, et cetera, we see virtually a one sided contract. Under the heading of ‘Goodwill’ we read:

The dealer at the end of his term is precluded from recovering any payment from a new incoming dealer for the goodwill of the business. Lease and licence agreements specifically either provide that he has no property in the goodwill at the end of his term,

So it goes on. The Royal Commissioner has drawn attention to the one-sided nature of these agreements. Apart from these expressed licence agreements which can only be described as onerous, oil companies can use their economic muscle in other ways to impose an economic burden on, for example, privately-owned service station proprietors. Credit facilities can be reduced. In the face of this legislation, in recent weeks companies have taken action against their retailing outlets. One company has decided that its long-honoured arrangement to give 30 days credit was to discontinue. That in itself, against which the outlets had no redress, could have the effect of putting these people into bankruptcy.

I will not have time to extend my remarks greatly but I draw attention to the fact that the Opposition’s proposed amendment calls for a regulatory agency. We believe that there should be more public administration of this industry. It is interesting to note that the Commission suggested that the agency should have very considerable responsibilities. To mention just a few, the Commission suggested:

  1. The establishment, regulation and enforcement of a rationalisation system to achieve the goals proposed in this Report.

The Commission also suggested that the agency should also be able to cover:

  1. The licensing of all refineries, terminals, depots, service stations and other market outlets.

The Commission also suggested that the agency should undertake:

  1. The re-structuring of the pricing system.
  2. The monitoring of landed costs and transfer prices.
  3. The standardisation of the lease agreements . . .

And so on. The Government has run away from so many of these recommendations in its report. Finally, let me say that, as beneficial as that legislation is, it leaves a great deal to be desired. Service station proprietor objections have been submitted to all parliamentarians. The Minister knows about them. They say that there is a provision which confers a significant marketing advantage to the company-operated and privately owned outlets. The objections state that the legislation only permits lessee dealers to discount or compete with company owned and privately owned outlets by reducing his own retail margin. They state that the Government’s cutback on the number of company operated stations is not sufficient; full divorcement is the only acceptable and workable situation to prevent the emergence of artificial situations in the future. The objections also state that reductions in the number of company-operated stations will not necessarily mean a comparable reduction in the market share of these outlets. I could go on to make many points on behalf of service station operators who are not satisfied that the Government has met their needs. If the needs of those proprietors are not met, the most significant point is that, in the long term, the needs of the consumers will not be properly met.

I charge this Government with having been very tardy about its approach to the problems of this industry. I think that its panaceas to these problems have come far too late. The Government has failed to effectively diagnose the industry. I hope that it will not be long before the Parliament will be able to apply itself in a more realistic way to bring down legislation which will solve the problems to which I have referred.

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

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

- Mr Deputy Speaker–

Motion (by Mr Carlton) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Mr Hurford:

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence? The Opposition did not divide the House on the amendment. The purpose of it was to put succinctly the Opposition’s view. We have grave reservations about the likely success of the Bill, but we want to give time for some of the members of the Opposition to speak in the Committee stage.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

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

– by leave - I move:

  1. 1 ) Clause 3, page 4, line 37, after “Act”, insert “, except in sub-section 6 (8),”.
Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– And the Royal Commission.

Mr GARLAND:

– And the Royal Commission- I am glad the honourable member said that- which was appointed by a Labor Government. I think that ought to be clear and understood. The Opposition wants far-reaching government control in every area. Of course, we know what that would lead to- stifled activity, lack of freedom, losses–

Mr Yates:

– Bankruptcy.

Mr GARLAND:

– As the honourable member says, it would lead to bankruptcy. That is the Labor alternative to these proposals. The legislation seeks to create a balance between the rights of the parties concerned without adversely affecting consumers. That is what it does. Some of the criticisms that have been made are based on a belief that the Government has unlimited legal power. In fact, we do not have unlimited legal power. The honourable member for Adelaide rightly referred in his speech to one section of the Constitution. That is the answer to the point he raised about why the legislation cannot apply immediately to existing franchises. The answer is contained in his own speech. I draw attention to one paragraph in my second reading speech in which I said:

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.

I emphasise that point because it covers a number of the cases - not all - that have been referred to in this legislation. I repeat what I said before: This legislation will not, I know, solve every problem in this industry - it is a very complicated and diverse industry- but it does strike, I believe, a fair balance. That is the reason that the Government could not support the amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill. The Opposition discloses that it is in something of a cleft stick with regard to this matter. It wants to oppose and to be critical of the Government, but it dare not oppose too strongly.

I wish to deal briefly with some of the amendments that I have moved. After the Bills were introduced last week the Government received some comments on them and, therefore, decided to introduce certain amendments for the purpose of clarification. It was the Government’s intention that country distributors should not be subject to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill. That has been made clear. Following the introduction of the Bill the Government received information from some oil companies which indicated that there are some cases in which, because of the nature of the existing contractual arrangements between the companies and some country distributors, these distributors would be franchisees under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill. Proposed new sub-clauses 3 (12) and 6 (8) (a) ensure that the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill does not apply to a franchise agreement where 75 per cent or more of the motor fuel sold by retail at the site is sold in bulk, that is where the fuel is not delivered into the fuel tank of a vehicle or is sold by the franchisee as servant or agent of the franchisor. Sub-clause 6 (8) also deals with the situation where a franchise relationship is incidental to a commission agency agreement. Some commission agents could, in relation to part of their business, operate as principals rather than as agents. This could, but for the amendment, bring them within the definition of franchisee.

The amendment to clause 9 will improve the remedies available to franchisees. That clause renders void an obligation on a franchisee under a franchise agreement which is impossible or unreasonably onerous to perform. The amendment will deal with the situation where such a provision is not severable from the other provisions of the franchise agreement. The franchisee will have the option in such a case of avoiding the whole agreement or of applying to the court to vary the provisions of the agreement. An amendment is proposed to clause 20 which deals with price discrimination to make it clear that discrimination, resulting from compliance with a State or Territory law fixing a maximum wholesale price does not contravene the clause. A further amendment excludes from the provision a sale at wholesale of motor fuel to the franchisee for reselling in bulk. That is the explanation of the proposed amendments to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill. I will move one or two amendments to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill which has been debated cognately during the second reading debate.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

– I rise to support the amendment so capably moved and debated by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) on behalf of the Opposition. I must say that I am amazed at the statements of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) in the Committee stage this evening. I should like to make a few comments in passing. The Minister wanted to know who the Australian Labor Party is representing. Let me tell the Minister in no uncertain terms that the Labor Party is representing the small businessman and the dealers of Australia. Let all the dealers of Australia know that also. The Minister said that the Labor Party was once again carrying out its socialist doctrine. Let me quote a few remarks made by the Deputy Premier of Queensland, a member of the Liberal Party, Dr Edwards. He was reported as saying:

SOME large oil companies were using blackmail and intimidation against service station proprietors . . .

Dr Edwards made this statement on Monday, 14 April. That is a long time ago. But the Minister come in here tonight pretending to do something for the service station proprietors of Australia. It is a weak effort and it is a political ploy. The Deputy Premier of Queensland is reported as saying:

I believe the Government will be prepared to legislate to protect the operations of small business if proved claims of standover tactics continued to be presented to us . . .

One of the possibilities was legislation to bar oil companies from selling petrol direct to consumers, he said.

This would mean the elimination of company owned and operated service stations.

Dr Edwards, the Deputy Premier of Queensland, has been–

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is he a socialist?

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– The Minister has told us that he is a socialist. The Deputy Premier of Queensland wants the legislation to be far harder than the legislation which the Minister has presented to Parliament. The report of the Deputy Premier of Queensland continues:

Federal Cabinet would consider a similar proposal this week, he said.

Dr Edwards returned to Brisbane yesterday from the Liberal Party federal council meeting in Canberra, where he discussed the oil industry with Federal Ministers.

I wonder which Federal Minister he held discussions with before he went to Queensland and said: ‘We are going to legislate to ensure that oil companies don’t own and operate their own service stations’. I wonder what the Minister will say in a moment about this? Mr Merv Vining, the General Secretary of the Queensland Motor Industry Association, was reported as saying yesterday that at least 300 service station proprietors had gone to the wall and closed in the last two years while this Government had been trying to legislate to ensure that small businesses do not go broke. Honourable members should not forget that this Government and this Minister have been saying that they will look after the service station proprietors and ensure that they do not go broke. While the Minister has been playing around with this legislation 300 service stations have gone broke in Queensland. I wonder who the Minister is representing here this evening. It appears to me that he is the mouthpiece for the oil companies from the way in which he has been carrying on here. Let me go a little further. He will reduce the number of company owned sites from 800 to 400. That refers only to the company owned and operated sites. The Minister went on to say that the Government would allow the companies to have their own training stations where they can train new dealers and then they will have another training station where they can train the staff for those service stations. Does the Minister know where they have those service stations? They are right opposite K Mart, Woolworths, BBC stores and all the big supermarkets. That is where they have their training stations. They do not have them on the little street corner in the suburb where they want the ordinary small businessmen to operate them. They are in selected sites where they have huge gallonage. That is what the Minister will let them do. They will have 400 plus. I would like the Minister to explain to the House and to honourable members here tonight how many company owned sites they have where they have training stations. Nobody knows anything about that.

Let me go a little further. The service station proprietors have been able to achieve something in this legislation. Unfortunately the pensioners of Australia, the unemployed and the family men have not been able to achieve much. The small businessmen have not achieved very much either. They have received a half-hearted pre-election gift from the Government - a nicely parcelled package of legislation that is supposed to keep them quiet over the election period. Why do the service station proprietors seem to have so much muscle at this time? Is it not natural that the Government would want to treat its tax agents with a few bonuses after the sterling service they have given this Government? Would it not be a disaster, even worse than the Queensland coal miners’ strike, if all the service stations were to close their doors and stop collecting the petrol tax. Imagine what would happen to the petrol tax if the service station proprietors decided to get together. Do honourable members know why the service station proprietors cannot get together? It is because when they go into a service station site the oil companies say to them: ‘This is a lovely site and you will sell so many gallons. You will have to pay only so much rent and look how much money you will make’. When they start making money they say: ‘We are going to charge you increased rent’, and they start making them become discount houses and finish up with their houses and everything mortgaged to try to keep their businesses going. We have the instance in Ipswich where the man finished up with a heart attack as the result of trying to fight the oil companies. Where was the Minister then when the deals–

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is this true, Bruce?

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– Yes. He is in hospital today. Bruce knows all about the service station proprietors in Tasmania. He knows that it is only half-hearted legislation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) - Order! I ask the honourable member to address the Chair and not other honourable members.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I apologise for that. I think the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is concerned about the lessees in this legislation. I think he was half-hearted in his speech this evening. I know that he has not stuck up earnestly for the service station proprietors. He told me in the corridors that he was very worried about this legislation. He has been talking to the Minister to try to get him to change his mind. I know that. Seeing that it is close to an election he cannot really take on the Minister. I feel very sure that he would be very capable of taking him on.

I could talk all night about service stations. I was a service station proprietor for15 years and I know well what the oil companies do to the little dealers. I would like to finish on this note: I am sure that all the station proprietors throughout Australia who are listening to this debate this evening will be sadly disillusioned by the halfheartedness of this Minister who has failed to ensure that they will not go broke in the future.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

- Mr Deputy Chairman–

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 1327

PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING SITES BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I move:

Briefly, the amendment points out that there will be no reduction in the number of sites, in theory anyway, for one year. It points out also that there will be no way that the legislation will be effective unless there is a further reduction in the number of sites later. It calls on the Government to review this legislation after 18 months. I trust that a Labor government will be in office to carry out the wishes that are expressed in this amendment. Of course, this is vitally needed if the dealers and the consumers of this nation are to get what they want.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Jacobi:

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

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

– in replyVery briefly, I must indicate that the Government cannot accept the amendment to the motion that be read a second time which was moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) on behalf of the Opposition. Paragraph (1) of the amendment refers to the maximum number of sites which will operate for one year. Of course, it is necessary to have a transition period. The Government believes that one year is a reasonable time in which to reduce the total number of approximately 800 sites to a new level of about 600 sites at the end of the first year and to 401 sites at the end of the second year. A transitional period is necessary. In the first year oil companies which have more than the allocation will reduce their number of sites to the first stage level. The second part of the amendment refers to a regulatory agency. I spoke about this a little while ago. The Royal Commission on Petroleum which looked into the marketing and distribution of petroleum in Australia, known as the Collins Royal Commission, referred to a regulatory agency and the Government has given reasons why it could not accept and would not accept that course. The third limb of the amendment proposed by the Opposition refers to a review of the legislation by the Government within 18 months. I am sure that the Government will be monitoring very closely the activities of industries and will be looking at matters from the point of view of the consumer and small business. But to set a time when this should happen seems to be unnecessary. Therefore, the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr Hurford:

– With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to explain that because the Opposition wishes to give some of its members more time to speak at the Committee stage, it will not divide the House at the second reading stage. Our amendment succinctly sets out our views which we hold strongly. But as we do not have the numbers to press those views and as we are not actually opposing the Bill, we will let it rest there.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committe

The Bill.

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

– by leave- I move:

I would just like to add that some companies expressed concern about the numbers of sites that have been allocated under the sites Bill as shown in the Schedule. The Government has stated that the formula must be to some extent arbitrary. The formula selected has taken account of a range of facts. It takes account of the interests of companies which have not moved into commission agency operation as well as those which have become dependent upon this type of marketing strategy. I indicated in my. second reading speech that these allocation numbers are not intended to be permanent. Moreover, the Government will continue to monitor developments in the intervening period. Variation in quota numbers can be effected by regulation.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– The Opposition is not opposing these amendments. But the fact that we have them does betray the halfhearted nature of this legislation. We recognise that the amendments help to carry out the wishes of the Government in respect of the initial purpose of the legislation. In trying to please everyone, the Fraser Government frankly will please no one. That was the purport of all that I had to say at the second reading stage of these Bills in the cognate debate before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. Most of the dealers do not realise just how wishy-washy this legislation is at the moment and how inadequate it will prove to be. Some dealers do realise this, but most do not. We do agree that what we have here is better than nothing, and that is why we of the Labor Opposition have supported what can be described only as a little gesture, because that is all it is. However, I repeat that it is better than nothing.

It is incredible that, although it is only one week since this legislation was laid on the table, we already have these amendments. For only one week have we known about this Bill and been able to study it. Heaven knows how many more amendments will be required after more people point out more weaknesses in the existing legislation. At the second reading stage we were able to point out, I believe, with great strength, the weaknesses of the Bill, how it will not carry out its purposes, how it will not serve the purposes of the dealers or the consumers of this country. However, I say again that the little that there is is better than nothing, which is why we are not opposing this legislation.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I really wanted to speak on the preceding legislation. As the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill are interlocking, I wonder whether I could prevail on the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) to allow me three or four minutes?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) - The Chair will permit that to take place.

Mr JACOBI:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I wish to make a few observations on the earlier remarks of the Minister about the different approach of the Opposition and the Minister to the concept of the legislation. I think it is unreasonable for the Minister to contend that there are such things as market forces and free enterprise in the oil industry, and I say that for this reason. Dealing with the refining capacity, the marketing capacity, and the distribution, in terms of Australian equity we own about 4 per cent of the refining capacity. In a vertically integrated industry like the oil industry one could name five major companies which control the marketing, distribution and refinery capacity. It has been a monopolistic industry since Rockefeller fixed the trust structure in 1867, and it has not altered since that time. They suffer in the United States, as we do, under a federal system. If one studies the litany of the anti-trust laws in the United States, that is, the laws on collusive practice and monopoly control, without any doubt there is a need for a regulatory agency. I agree with the Minister that we face constitutional problems; we face legal problems. If it were not for those problems perhaps we could implement a regulatory agency.

The third observation I make to the Minister is that, as a nation, we will have to watch carefully the alternatives to oil - at the moment, in the foreseeable future, and in the long term. These alternatives will be controlled by the same people who manipulate the marketing, refining and distribution of oil. Once a government loses those three areas it no longer controls the price structure, the regulatory procedures, or the marketing and distribution. Those areas leave the government’s hands and are controlled by oil corporations. The situation has been no different in the United States, in Western Europe, in Great Britain, or indeed in this country.

I want to raise with the Minister two questions on the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill, particularly clause 3 and clause 22. I trust that I will receive a reply from him. In relation to clause 3, as I understand it the Government has decided to retain oil company participation in the retail industry. A number of commissioned agents will be operating the company stations. I ask the Minister whether the Bill provides any protection for those agents? In some cases agents will be former lessee dealers- this is so with one in my area - who have been forced, and I say that forcefully, into converting their sites to meet the obligations of the oil companies. The agents may command some measure of goodwill. They do all mechanical repair business, and obviously they should be covered by the Act against instant dismissal by the oil companies. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that sort of contingency is adequately provided for in the franchise Bill.

My second question relates to clause 22 of the franchise Bill. It is disappointing that the Government has chosen not to introduce pecuniary penalties for breaches of franchise agreements. Indeed, that will be the Government’s problem, not just in respect of the oil industry but also in respect of small business. Across the board, the problem will be one of what will be done with franchise legislation. The Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, in its submission to the Government earlier this year on the draft franchise Bill, pointed out that marketing situations may arise in which the oil companies would consider it worthwhile to sustain damages in breaking a lease. I warn the Minister that there is no doubt at all that that is what the oil industry will do. There is no trepidation at all about that. The industry has never had any doubts about it and it never will. The provision of effective pecuniary penalties would provide a real deterrent to an oil company which resorted to this sort of tactic. Again I emphasise to the Minister that the oil companies will resort to it; their track record is there. I hope that the Government will introduce penalties, if not in this Bill- as I understand it there is no provision for them- then at least in a future review of the Act.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

– I must take up some of the points that have been made in this debate, including those made by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), and especially his assertion–

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– This is a farewell speech.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– Despite the comment of the honourable member for Lalor, I am quite sure it will not be my farewell speech because I am sure that the electors of Kingston will be more than happy to return me.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. Does that mean that the honourable member for Lalor is not coming back?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) - Order! There is no point of order. I call the Committee to order and remind the honourable member for Kingston to speak to the matters before the Committee.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– The honourable member for Hawker asserted that these was no competition within the oil industry. The marketing practices we have seen indicate quite clearly that there has been extreme price competition in the market place. The Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill seek to ensure that that competition is fair and equitable, particularly as regards the relationship between service station operators and the oil companies and between the wholesalers and the retailers. Of course, that fulfils the commitment which this Government made prior to the 1977 election. Indeed, it is yet another of the promises that the Government has fulfilled during the life of this Parliament. We have heard from the Opposition in the debate this evening an emphasis on the need for excessive intervention and excessive regulation. We have heard from the honourable member for Hawker, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), and the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) all the arguments for excessive intervention and excessive regulation of this industry and its marketing practices. That is quite unnecessary as far as the Government is concerned and quite unnecessary as far as the industry and the dealers are concerned, as they made very clear. Perhaps it is worth quoting in this context a statement by Mr John Collins in a letter he wrote to the Age on 28 July. At the conclusion of the letter he said:

  1. . we do not want government-controlled Utopia, only an opportunity to compete fairly and on equal terms in the wholesale and retail market place. We sincerely believe that small business and the Australian motorist will be certainly advantaged by these courageous Government moves.

He was referring to the courageous moves of the Fraser Government in introducing the two pieces of legislation that we have been debating this evening and which will shortly be passed by this House. He is completely opposed, as are his fellow dealers, to the propositions that have been put tonight in the debate by the Labor Party and which were announced and discussed on 8 June by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). It was then that the Labor Party first announced its proposal to regulate and to enforce control over oil supplies, to licence all oil refineries, terminals, depots and service stations and to dictate prices to consumers and small businesses. There, of course, we see the Labor Party’s determination to intervene to excess in business activity. The Labor Party cherishes excessive regulation and enforcement and, of course, it cherishes the opportunity to facilitate further the implementation of its socialist objectives. The Labor Party tries to indicate that small business is its friend. It extends the hand of friendship. It cuddles up to small business, attempting to persuade small business that it is really supporting it and that the Labor Party is really its friend. But we know that behind it all is the Labor Party’s determination to ultimately implement its socialist objectives. That is indicated when we look at those specific proposals.

On the other hand, the legislation before us which the Government has introduced quite clearly meets the needs of service station operators as far as their relationship with oil companies is concerned. It will give them the opportunity to compete in the market-place, and to compete on a fair and equitable basis and to have fair and equitable relationships with their suppliers, the oil companies, at the wholesale level. That is the important point that we need to remember when we are discussing specific points of this legislation: The objections which the service station operators have had regarding the operation of the market and their relationship with oil companies have been overcome by this legislation and the legislation is accepted and, indeed, strongly supported by the dealer organisations. We need only to look at statements they have made to the Press and their letters to the editors or the comments they have made to Government Ministers and Government back benchers to see that the dealers strongly support this legislation and that they equally strongly oppose the excessive intervention which is proposed by the

Opposition and which would ultimately lead, as I have said, to their socialist objectives.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I would–

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 1331

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 August, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

– I rise, on behalf of the Opposition and on behalf of the nitrogenous fertiliser users of Werriwa, to speak on this Bill. This Bill is symptomatic of the complaints about and the attitude of the Government to matters rural. Because farm income has been good in the last two years even though farmers are on the brink of a major drought, the Government seems to think that it can get away with treating the rural sector in a very poor manner indeed. As this Bill is basically exactly the same provision as last year, this will almost be a re-run of last year’s debate, not that there is much time for debate in these, the last days of the floundering Fraser Government. I really to not know how the Government can adopt this complacent attitude towards the rural sector because there are some seats, particularly seats such as your seat of Wide Bay, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the seats of Dawson, Herbert and Leichhardt which are great sugar seats and this measure simply continues this rather piddling amount of subsidy for nitrogenous fertilisers. The Australian Labor Party believes that fertiliser bounties are justified on the basis that they subsidise productivity rather than production.

The Government is determined to phase out the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty and has only followed a phase out policy because of pressure from the Opposition and the rural sector. The Government is relying on the Industries Assistance Commission report of 1975 as some sort of crutch. That report advocated that there be an even rundown of the amount of subsidy per tonne from $80 to $60, to $40 and to $20. The ALP in 1975 did not go along with the IAC report but the Government decided to do so and has followed a phase down policy, but not quite in the way in which the IAC recommended. I really do not have to elaborate on the fact that such action breaks another undertaking by the Government. The National Country Party policy speech in 1975 included this promise:

We will maintain the bounty on nitrogenous fertilisers.

I guess that is going back quite a way now but when in Opposition, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), in a Press release on 8 May 1974, said:

I can give an unqualified assurance on behalf of the National Country Party that in government with the Liberal Party we will restore the bounties on superphosphate and ensure that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty continues.

I suppose it is continuing but, at $20 a tonne for just one more year at a total cost to government revenue of $5. 5m, it is not much of a guarantee. I guess it really does smack of hypocrisy, given the great fuss made about the superphosphate subsidy when the Labor Party was in government. That subsidy is now also being allowed to decrease in value year by year due to inflation. Incidentally, the subsidy for superphosphate this year amounts to about $30m. The farmers want the subsidy increased and they want it regularly adjusted to 40 per cent of the price ex-works. I simply ask: What has been the Government’s response to this? Farmers are pressing for the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty to be increased to $100 a tonne. Again, what has been the Government’s response to this? We know that it has been to continue the subsidy at $20 a tonne for one more year, after having dropped it from $80 a ton or $78.74 a tonne a year in 1979. As I said, it will cost only $5. 5m this year. That really is not much of a subsidy when we consider the original purpose of the subsidy.

At a time when the price of nitrogenous fertiliser is rising rapidly due to the Government’s fuel price policy which is designed purely and simply to gain revenue one would think that the Government would try to make some allowance for that. I think we need to stress the point that this Government’s fuel price policy is designed to gain revenue. Day after day we hear Government spokesmen saying that the import parity policy for new oil is somehow a great policy initiative of their Government. The very important fact, of course, is that the import parity pricing policy for new oil was a policy that the Labor Government introduced in September 1975 and we need to stress that there is no difference between the Government and the Australian Labor Party on import parity policy pricing for any new discovery of oil in this country. The Government’s policy regarding fuel pricing is simply to gain revenue. It is particularly hurting the man on the land and the people in provincial Australia. Mr Ian Wearing, the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation executive director said:

This–

He was referring to the Budget - confirms that the crude oil levy is a crude device to increase government revenue.

The great joke of all this with the fuel pricing policy is that the Government wants to convince the people in rural areas - it thinks it can - that it has a policy which maintains the price of petrol and diesel fuel to a differential of only lc a litre above metropolitan Australia. That is an absolute joke. Let us get back to the link between the price of oil and the price of nitrogenous fertiliser. Between June 1975 and June 1980 the price of nitrogenous fertiliser rose by SI 05.42 a tonne or 67.2 per cent, roughly equal to the amount by which the price of oil rose. The price of urea has risen from $120.60 a tonne in June 1975 to $253.04 a tonne today. That is an increase of 109.8 per cent in five years.

The producers’ price for the same product has risen from $156.82 to $262.24, a rise of 67.2 per cent. Ammonium nitrate has risen in price by a similar amount. The producers’ price has risen from $149.37 to $212.20 in five years, an increase of 42.1 per cent. The retail price has risen from $122.60 to $205.40, an increase of 67.5 per cent. That clearly demonstrates that the price of nitrogenous fertilisers is rising rapidly in keeping with rises in the prices of fuel and oil in this country. Honourable members will understand that the sugar industry is the main user of nitrogenous fertilisers in this country. Its use has a very definite regional impact. The latest figures available show that, of a total usage of 326,000 tonnes, the sugar industry used something like 186,000 tonnes- 57 per cent of the total. That is why this measure particularly affects Queensland and the sugar seats there.

This Budget measure is very similar to other measures in the Budget for the agricultural and pastoral industries. I said at the outset that the Government is very complacent as it seems to be sure in its own mind that the farmers will vote conservatively. The Government feels that it can cock its nose at the farmers. Mr Eckersley of the National Farmers Federation said, accurately, that rural assistance in this Budget has dropped by 34 per cent over the past two years while direct aid to mining and manufacturing industries has risen by 177 per cent over the last two years. Let us look at how farming fared in the Budget. The superphosphate and nitrogenous fertiliser subsidies have dropped by 1 3 per cent on the same basis. Even though they are being maintained, they have dropped because of inflation. Let us look at some of the other requests made by the rural sector. The request for lower interest rates has been ignored. The request for tax concessions for on farm fuel storage has been ignored. The request for a tax indexation commitment has been ignored. The request for abolition of the 2 per cent revenue customs duty has been ignored. As to the request for higher zone allowances and wider boundaries, a public inquiry into that matter has been announced. That is to be welcomed. The soil, water and conservation measures have seen a few small gains in depreciation. There has been no change as to the return of natural disaster relief funding. There was a request for more rural adjustment funds. Those funds have been cut by 1 7 per cent in real terms. There was a request for more extension service funds. These funds were cut by 10 per cent in real terms, following a dramatic cut last year. Overall, the Budget was not very good for the farmers. This measure is just another reflection of it.

The rural industries are concerned about the impact of this Budget and the situation facing them. The rural industries are, intelligently, concerned about the impact upon them at other sectors and about the way the economy will go. They know that protection is dispensed to various industries and that, for example, the clothing, footwear and textile industries will put more pressure on them in the long run. They know that the supposed resources boom will hurt them in the long run. Although some of the measures in the Budget are the result of direct requests to the Government, quite a few of the claims made about the Budget by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) sparked some rebuttal. For example, Mr Asimus of the Australian Wool Corporation reacted angrily to some of the grossly misleading statements by the Government on wool promotion. The Government claimed that there was an advance. Really all it was doing was restoring some level of funding from other years. One could go on and quote various spokesmen on that issued who said that it was a gimmick. Other spokesmen and the National Farmers Federation have made the same comments. The United Farmers and Graziers of South Australia made the comment that this Budget does very little for the rural sector.

All in all the situation faced by the rural sector with this Budget is one of no real consideration by the Government and of an attitude complacency. Some of the rural Press has even made the comment that the Government knows that these rural leaders, in making statements kicking the Government for its lack of consideration in the Budget, are really only playing politics and the Government can safely ignore them. The Labor Party does not share that view. We believe that the rural sector and provincial Australia have to be taken into consideration by the Government at any time. One has only to look at the amount of money that has been going to primary industry in the Budget. In 1974-75- the last full year of the Labor Government - some $447m was spent. That figure dropped right down to $46m in 1967-77. In all honesty that does not reflect exactly the true situation because there was a big difference owing to the wool fund. Where one can get a direct comparison for the rural sector one can see that the Budget has been dropping over the last three years. As I have said, this reflects a lot of complacency on the part of the Government and some belief that the rural sector can be kicked around because it will continue its voting patterns. Extension funds have been cut, adjustment funds have been cut, assistance to various industries has been cut. Where programs have been maintained they have simply been left at the old level.

The rural sector has a belief in smaller government. It must be very disappointed with the attitude of this Government even to this matter. Since the Fraser Government came to power there has not been less government. As a percentage of gross domestic product, governments throughout Australia take a greater percentage now than the average under the Whitlam Government. It is something like 38.6 per cent, compared with 35.6 per cent. The same applies to all the other things that producers, as farmers are, would like to happen. They are not happening with this Government. We all know that unemployment has doubled, but there are a few other areas that cause a lot of concern to the rural sector and provincial Australia. On average, taxes have gone up. A lot of that is tax attributed to this Government’s fuel pricing policy. On average, taxes are about 27 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with 24 per cent under the Labor Government. Overall, the deficits have gone up as a percentage of gross domestic product. The national debt has gone up from something like $5.9 billion to $18.5 billion. During a previous debate the matter of business confidence was commented upon. Bankruptcies of small businesses in the country towns and provincial Australia are at a record level. There have been 4,979 bankruptcies, compared with an average of about 2,000 a year through the late 1960s and early 1970s. On these very key economic indicators that affect rural Australia and provincial towns, the rural sector, the rural industries, country Australia must be very concerned about this Government’s complacency towards it. The Government’s petrol pricing policy - as reflected in nitrogenous fertiliser prices- is causing a very great increase in farm production costs.

When I last debated this subject I made the point that there was no point in the Government using any more the crutch of the 1975 Industries Assistance Commission report as a reason for diminishing assistance about nitrogenous fertilisers. The situation has changed dramatically since that time. The cereal industries are using more and more nitrogenous fertiliser. The sugar industry, although relatively buoyant in recent times, was not a year ago. It requires more assistance if one is to be consistent with the reasons for having a nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy. Conditions have changed so much that the Government should consider referring this matter back to the IAC for further consideration on the very basic grounds that the prices have risen so fast, that the pattern of usage has changed and that there needs to be a fundamental reassessment of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty.

Mr MCVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-Where has the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) been, and where would one start in order to educate him? It appears to me that he does not want to know the facts of the matter. He is out to divide rural Australia from urban Australia. Does he not realise that the superannuation benefits, decreased taxation, the maintenance of a stable economic environment, the record injection of funds into roads, the excellent amount of money made available for water resource development, and the lack of any increase in sales tax in the Budget, are all benefits to rural Australia? I wonder why he does not realise that. It disappointed me to hear him say that it is a joke because the Fraser Government is injecting $5. 5m into rural properties; a joke because it is injecting funds into rural industries. I can understand why he might think that, because that last Hayden Budget of August 1975 did not allow one dollar for injection into the area of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. So, probably he does think it is a joke that the Government is being responsible, whereas the Labor Government was completely irresponsible.

The sum of $5.5m is appreciated by the farmers. The increase in the use of nitrogenous fertiliser last year was of the order of 10 per cent to 12 per cent, well in excess of the historical increase in recent years of 6 per cent. We are pleased to know that fertiliser prices in Australia are slightly below world prices so that the Australian farmer has an advantage over his overseas competitors. It is disappointing that the honourable member for Werriwa did not quote the prices or figures for anhydrous ammonia, the cheapest, best and most used fertiliser in Australia. He quoted figures from a pamphlet put out by an economist who, frankly, would not know the difference between wheat and barley. He did not cite the significant amount of nitrogenous fertiliser that is being used. We are disappointed that the Australian Labor Party is not really interested in farmers. It does not know or understand the situation and, judging by the attitude of the honourable member for Werriwa, it has no wish to know or to understand. We are delighted to know that the Australian nitrogenous fertiliser manufacturing industry can stand on its own two feet with no tariff protection. It is a vigorous. part of the Australian manufacturing scene and supports Australian production. Is not the Labor Party interested in supplying jobs for in excess of 1,000 workers? The Government is interested in that. The Australian Labor Party, under the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), did not allocate one dollar for this in its last Budget in 1975.

I am disappointed that the Opposition spokesman does not really understand the situation. If he were a practical man he would know that there is a correlation between fertilisers and water. What better incentive is there to the Australian farmer than the decision of the Fraser Government to allow as a complete tax write-off, in the year of expenditure, funds allocated for water conservation? Does not the honourable member realise that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in effect has funded the Burdekin Dam, and that fertiliser is no good without moisture? Honourable members should look at the farms in northern New South Wales and in the Darling Downs area of Queensland and see the crops there now. It does not matter how much nitrogen is in the soil. The crops are not doing any good because there is no water. The Government has a balanced approach. It realises that certainly incentives must be given for the use of nitrogen but also it wants to give incentives to the farmers to keep the water that falls on their properties on their farms. This water harvesting will improve yields. One can inject all the elements one wants, but water is needed. Therefore, we are giving encouragement in that area.

In regard to cultivation, people have to realise that there are alternate methods of farming. The honourable member kept on about fuel prices. None of us are happy about paying high prices for fuel, but there are alternatives. The person who I think is easily the best farmer in Australia happens to be a neighbour of mine. His name is Mr Hector Todd of Poplar farm, Jondaryan. He won the title of Queensland Producer of the Year only a month or so ago. He is a grain producer who, in competition with people involved in all other methods of primay production, won the title of top producer of the year. With the implementation of modern ideas, and with determination, Hector Todd has pioneered minimum tillage. He does not slash his stubble, he just plants sorghum in rows in the summer. He takes off very good crops - good enough to win the Queensland Producer of the Year competition. In the winter he plants barley between the rows.

These are three important factors - minimum tillage, conservation of water and an injection of fertilisers. The honourable member for Werriwa does not seem to know or understand this, and he does not give credit where it is due. The Government has continued the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty notwithstanding the original intention to phase it out in 1978. Under this legislation it will continue until 1981. Rather than quoting what the present Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Sinclair) said many years ago, the honourable member for Werriwa should have given him credit and he should have given credit to the Cabinet and to the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) for being able to keep this subsidy going to allow farmers to have some buffer against increased costs and competition on the world market. It ill becomes any member of the Opposition to criticise the Government for what it has done. It has been a balanced approach. Sure, we would all like to have more done but when one looks at the concessions that have been given in the area of water conservation, and when one considers that maximum yield is obtained through a combination of moisture stored and applied and fertilisers used, one realises that the Government is playing a meaningful and significant role is minimising costs to the farmers, not only with its economic policy which creates stability and security but also in this very essential area.

I know that it is not unknown for members of the Opposition to try to pull the wool over people’s eyes. They have done that in this instance. I regret that only a few short minutes have been available to me. I want to conclude by saying that if rural Australia is listening tonight it should not be taken for a ride by the honourable member for Werriwa. In 1975 the Hayden Budget did not allocate one dollar for the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. The Fraser Government will be allocating $5.5m until 1981. 1 leave it to rural Australia to decide which party it wants.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (9.40)- The honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) already has pointed out the poor deal given to our rural industry by the Fraser Government. I have no desire to go over the same ground, except to repeat the figures mentioned by the honourable member for Werriwa concerning the last Labor Budget. An amount of $474m was allocated for assistance to rural industry. In 1979-80 this was reduced to $194,500,000. We can see a big reduction in the amount of assistance going to rural industry. For the benefit of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) I quote from the Budget Speech of 1976-77. On page 109 it is stated:

Late in 1975 the Act was extended to 31 December 1976, continuing the $78.74 per tonne subsidy rate, . . .

That means that the Nitrogenous Fertilizer Subsidy Act 1966 continued to provide the fertiliser subsidy at the rate set by the Labor Government. It was indeed surprising for me to hear the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) in his second reading speech make the statement that, in view of the reliance placed on nitrogenous fertiliser by an increasing number of producers, particularly those growing wheat and sugar for export, the Government had decided that the continuation of the subsidy for a further period would provide some relief from the escalating pressure of input costs which farmers are experiencing. It was refreshing to hear the Minister make that statement because we are often told these days by members of the Government how good things are in the rural industry. Members of the Opposition are aware of the escalating pressure of input costs, as spoken of by the Minister. That is the reason we are supporting the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill which is before the House.

However, we wish to point out to the House that the Government’s oil parity pricing policy not only has caused escalating pressure of input costs for sugar and wheat growers but also for many other primary producers. These include, for instance, people in the isolated areas of my electorate. Many of these people do not use any fertiliser at all. But they have to contend with these esclating pressures of input costs caused by this Government’s policies. It is unfair that these farmers should be denied the relief that is being handed out to other farmers in more fortunate circumstances. They include the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) and some of the members of the National Country Party.

The Minister in his second reading speech indicated some misgivings about the merits of the Bill. He said that the subsidy would be extended for only one year to December 1 98 1 and that next year the Government would examine the extension of the subsidy. This must surely leave every primary producer up in the air if he is depending upon this subsidy. We on this side of the House find it strange that the Government has failed for so long to recognise the implications and the importance of incentives to production. At long last, the Government has made some kind of exception with a very small extension of this national fertiliser bounty for just one year at this low rate.

As I mentioned before, the Minister spoke of the escalating pressure of input costs which farmers are experiencing. Every farmer must ask to what degree the intention to preserve the subsidy is genuine or whether it was motivated by a desire to re-elect the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). Over the years in this House I have often heard it said that the area covered by the electorate of Dawson has the greatest consumption of nitrogenous fertiliser of any electorate in Australia. I am trying to keep politics out of this debate but even the casual observer would have to admit that in the short second reading speech by the Minister, he left much to one’s imagination. The decision was made right on the eve of a federal election but the Minister did not give any clear reason as to why this subsidy would be extended for only one year.

We on this side believe that when the Government undertook to extend the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty, far too little was said by it about the short period of the extension it intended to provide. We ask everyone to remember that it was only in 1979 that the Government reduced the subsidy from $40 a tonne to $20 a tonne. Labor Party members on many occasions have drawn the attention of the House to the inconsistency of the Government in relation to this fertiliser subsidy. We point out again, as the honourable member for Werriwa has, the words of the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), when in opposition. He said that he could give an unqualified assurance on behalf of the National Country Party that in government with the Liberals he would restore the bounty on superphosphate and ensure that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty continued. We want to know on what the Government is assuring us today. Will it spend another $5.5m to see that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty continues until after the next Federal election? Honourable members say that we did not want to maintain it but I remind them that in 1973-74 the Labor Government spent $13,573,101 on the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty subsidy. We repeated that expenditure in 1974-75. But this Government has reduced that subsidy to a mere $5m.

The full impact of the Government’s decision to scuttle the last phase of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy can be gauged only when we balance it and the additional burdens that a string of restrictive Budgets brought down by the Government has applied to the rural industry. The honourable member for Werriwa has mentioned most of those things. Not only has the Government taken away the fertiliser subsidy but also it has imposed cruel levies on people living in country areas. They include the fuel tax, taxing of the scholarship allowance and many other things. I remind the House that a national government has a responsibility to see that taxpayers’ money is gainfully employed. The people have the right to know that any assistance is given fairly.

I can see the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) looking at me and asking me to conclude my speech. I will try to wind it up. I want to emphasise the fact that the Labor Party is not opposed to the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy. But we claim that equal assistance should be given to other farmers, the non-nitrogenous fertiliser users- people in my electorate - because they also are financially crippled by this Government’s unjust fuel taxes and its other economic policies. They are also feeling the effect of these escalating pressures of input costs which the Minister spoke about in his second reading speech.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1336

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 September, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– The purpose of this Bill is to increase by 15 per cent air navigation charges levied by the Department of Transport on airlines in respect of aircraft that they operate on the domestic trunk-line sector. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. The charges relate to services provided by the Department of Transport, such as use of aerodromes, airways facilities, meteorological services and search and rescue services. The Bill also proposes the inclusion in the principal Act of zone factors for international operations to firstly, Norfolk Island, Hobart and Townsville; secondly, factors for flights over Antarctica which commence and terminate at the same place in Australia; and, thirdly, the deletion from the principal Act of some routes which the domestic airlines no longer operate and the inclusion of some new routes.

Under the revised allocation principles and increased charges embodied in this Bill, the Government expects the rate of cost recovery on the domestic trunk-line sector to reach 100 per cent in 1980-81 . Despite the claim by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) that the increased air navigation charges will have a minimal effect on airline costs, the simple fact is that costs will increase and inevitably this will result in a further air fare increase. From information provided by the Minister for Transport, the following picture of rates of aviation cost recovery emerged for 1979-80, again calculated on the revised principles contained in the Bill. In international air operations, a surplus of $ 11.4m over costs is in effect a recovery rate of 1 27.7 per cent. It has been stated that the surplus is to be set aside for future expenditure on aviation infrastructure. Yet the Minister has been unable to give any indication to the Parliament of the specific purposes for which the $1 1 . 4m will be used or whether a special trust account is to be established. It is an unsatisfactory and sloppy method of handling public revenue and expenditure that must be deplored given Department of Treasury directions on the recording of public finance and the essential need for a precise accountability of Department of Transport revenues and expenditure.

In 1979-80, the cost recovery rate for the domestic trunkline sector was 92 per cent resulting in a deficit of $6.2m. For regional airlines, the recovery rate in 1979-80 was 30.2 per cent leaving a deficit of $20.8m. For general aviation including commuters the cost recovery rate was 14.5 per cent thus incurring a deficit of $82. 7m. In overall terms the rate of aviation cost recovery was 59.9 per cent which constituted, in money terms, an overall deficit of $98. 3m. It is abundantly clear from the Government’s record and from the Minister’s remarks that, if this untrustworthy Government were to be returned at the coming election substantial increases in air navigation charges for regional airlines and general aviation, including commuter services, will be introduced. The effect of these heavily increased charges will be to force up further fares for commuter air services and general aviation services as well as regional air services,

Again the Minister for Transport, like his predecessor, has told us that the terms of the twoairline agreement are under negotiation with Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines. At the beginning of the Budget session last year, the then Minister for Transport stated that legislation would be introduced in that session to amend the two-airline policy. It was not introduced. In February, at the beginning of the autumn session of Parliament and again in the winter recess, the present Minister for Transport repeated that the legislation to amend the twoairline policy would be introduced. Again it was not introduced. In the dying hours of this Parliament, he has told us now that the matters are under negotiation with TAA and Ansett. The simple fact is that this Government is committed to placing the interests of these airlines before the interests of airline passengers. The Government is a captive of the airlines and dances to the tune that they call.

The only changes that can be made by a conservative government under the anti-air-traveller provisions of the two-airline agreement are those which are approved by Ansett. Under the agreement’s restrictive conditions legislated by earlier conservative governments, the only changes that can be made are those which Ansett does not veto. I have said on many occasions that civil aviation was invented and should be developed for the benefit of the travelling public and not for the benefit of conservative governments, its bureaucracy, or to line the pockets of speculative airline proprietors or cross-subsidise non-airline activities. The major trunkline air services are an essential segment of our public passenger transport system. As such, its operations, because of the protected and privileged position that airlines occupy in public transport, must be fully accountable to the Parliament and to the public for the service they provide and their financial performance. The Australian Labor Party in government is committed to placing the interests of travellers first and to making air travel accessible to as wide a range of the Australian community as possible.

Though this conservative government has failed yet again to introduce changes to the twoairline policy it has achieved regrettable successes in a number of other areas of airline activity. It has succeeded in raising by massive margins the level of air fares, air navigation charges and fuel costs. All of these increases have occurred as a direct result of the Government’s economic, fuel and aviation policies. Since 1975, the two Ministers for Transport have established a procedure of rubber-stamping applications for air fare increases after what can only be properly described as a brief, partial and cursory examination of the applications. In the past seven months Ansett and TAA have been granted three fare increases totalling in cumulative terms almost 20 per cent which is well above the rate of increases in fuel, wages and other costs. Again, regrettably, in a departure from established ministerial practice, the Minister for Transport has refused to accept responsibility for the three increases which he has personally approved. He has chosen instead to seek to blame the airlines for his own actions and for the fare increases. What must be emphasised is that the increased costs being experienced by the airlines are the direct results of this Government’s economic policies, of its failure to arrest inflation presently in double figures and accelerating, and of its decision to increase taxation heavily on aviation fuel.

Let us look in detail at the rate of increases in domestic air fares between the principal cities brought about by the Fraser Government’s policies. In comparing the period from 1 1 November 1975 to 2 September 1980, we find that the first class air fare from Sydney to Melbourne has risen by some 86.2 per cent to $106.70. Between Sydney and Perth it has risen by 62.74 per cent to a new fare of $368.60. Between Sydney and Brisbane, it has risen by 85.3 per cent to a fare of $1 1 1. Between Sydney and Hobart, the first class fare has risen by 77.6 per cent to $173.70. In respect of economy fares between those destinations, the increases in fares are comparable. The economy fare between Sydney and Melbourne has risen by 69 per cent. Between Sydney and Perth, it has risen by 48 per cent to $268.10. Between Sydney and Brisbane it has risen by 69 per cent. Between Sydney and Hobart via Melbourne it has risen by 6 1. 5 per cent.

A similar picture emerges when we consider fare increases out of Melbourne. Between Melbourne and Hobart, the first class air fare has risen by 88 per cent. Between Melbourne and Brisbane, it has risen by 69 per cent. Between Melbourne and Adelaide the fare has risen by 88 per cent. Between Melbourne and Perth, it has risen by 64 per cent. The economy fare from Melbourne to Hobart has risen by 72 per cent to $70.50. Between Melbourne and Brisbane the economy fare has risen by 53 per cent to $130.30. Between Melbourne and Adelaide, the fare has risen by 71 per cent to $72.50. Between Melbourne and Perth, the economy fare has risen by 49 per cent to $229.30. So, overall, there have been substantial increases in air fares well in advance of the rate of increase of costs that have occurred within the industry and attributable, in the main, to the economic policies of this Government. The Fraser Government’s economic and aviation policies, in overall terms on a cumulative basis, have been responsible for a 68 per cent increase in the level of domestic air fares since 11 November 1975. The Government, under its policies, is pricing air travel beyond the reach of countless Australian families. In contrast, the Australian Labor Party is committed to bring air travel within the reach of as many Australian families as possible by providing safe, reliable and convenient air services at minimum cost.

I turn to the increase in air navigation charges as detailed in the Bill before us. It must be noted that this increase is the fifth increase to be imposed on the major domestic airlines since 1 1 November 1975. In March 1976 a 15 per cent increase in air navigation charges was legislated retrospective to 1 December 1975. The increases in air navigation charges since then - these apply to the major domestic airlines - are as follows: On 1 December 1976 there was a 1 5 per cent increase, bringing the cumulative total increase to 32.25 per cent. On 1 December 1978 there was a further 15 per cent increase. On 1 December 1979 there was a 25 per cent increase, the highest increase on record, bringing the cumulative increase to 90.1 per cent. On 1 December this year this legislation will authorise a further increase of 15 per cent, bringing the overall increase in air navigation charges since 11 November 1975 to 118.63 per cent. This 1 19 per cent increase in air navigation charges has been implemented by a government which, when in opposition in 1975, said:

Because of the serious and detrimental effect the 80 per cent recovery policy is having on aviation, a Liberal-National Country Party government will immediately halt the program until proper studies and comparisons of cost recovery with other forms of transport are made.

That policy promise of the 1975 election campaign, like a myriad of other promises of the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), has been broken; it has been repudiated. No public examination of aviation cost recovery has been made. Instead, the Liberal-National Country Party Government has increased air navigation charges with an unparalleled vengeance, at the expense of air travellers. The 80 per cent cost recovery objective, which it opposed in 1975, has been superseded by this Government’s 100 per cent cost recovery target- a target which TAA and Ansett have constantly objected to and to which I will refer later.

The third item of increased fuel costs arising from this Government’s massive fuel pricing policy has hit the airlines hardest of all. Fuel costs have more than doubled. Ansett and TAA burn about 2 per cent of Australia’s annual oil consumption, but with that 2 per cent they carry about 10 million passengers annually. No alternative fuel is available for their aircraft. Hence the Government’s policy of massively taxing fuel for airlines simply imposes a heavier burden on airline costs, which is reflected to some extent in higher fare levels. Five years ago fuel costs comprised about 15 per cent to 17 per cent of total airline costs. Today they comprise about 26 per cent of total costs and almost 40 per cent of the direct operating costs of Ansett and TAA. It is worth noting that TAA’s more fuel efficient Airbus, the purchase of which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is trying to prevent, will consume–

Mr Calder:

– You would sell out to the EEC, I take it.

Mr MORRIS:

– It appears that honourable members on the Government side are most selective in their approach to the European Economic Community and that they are vigorously opposed, by means of this legislation, to a better deal for air travellers in this country. That would be understandable if there were more consistency in the Government’s approach to trading with EEC, but we are seeing, in respect of the Government’s possible ban on TAA’s purchase of the Airbus from the EEC, a selective, reckless and irresponsible action. I ought to mention that the Airbus is powered by American engines and that the Qantas Boeing aircraft are powered with EEC engines. There has been no comment by the Government in respect of the EEC Fokker F28 jets being purchased by East- West Airlines, which sleeps almost in the same bed as honourable members on the Government side. There has been no mention of a ban on that purchase - only of a ban on the purchase by TAA of the Airbus, which would give TAA’s competitor in the provision of major airline services a tremendous advantage in the market place. Therein lies the real reason for singling out TAA and the Airbus for criticism and comment by the Deputy Prime Minister.

It is worth noting that TAA’s more fuel efficient Airbus will consume about 12 litres of fuel less per passenger on a flight between Melbourne and Sydney than would the Boeing 727 aircraft currently in use. In a year each Airbus is expected to save about 5.5 million litres of fuel worth approximately $1.3m. If there were to be any consistency in the Government’s approach to fuel conservation, one would have thought it would be doing everything it could to speed up the delivery and operation of the Airbus in the Australian domestic aviation scene rather than trying to hinder its purchase by a spurious claim with regard to trade negotiations. In this respect we should also mention that the Government could not ban trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - the gravest threat to world peace, in the words of the Prime Minister - because that would harm our trade. But when it comes to damaging airline facilities and travel arrangements the Government is quite happy to hop in and to try to develop what has been called by the Australian Financial Review ‘ocker diplomacy’ in blocking the purchase by TAA of the Airbus from our oldest trading partners. We would have expected from the Government a more responsible and sophisticated approach to the development of international trade and of our markets abroad.

I want to return for a few moments to the comment in the Minister’s second reading speech relating to negotiations between the Government and the airlines in respect of the new airlines agreement. At no stage has the Parliament been informed of proposed changes to the Government’s two-airline policy. There has been a series of inspired leaks of information to the Press about the proposed changes by, it appears, the Minister’s office. It appears also that the Government had proposed to remove the freight provisions from the policy, a move which the Opposition supports. It appears further that the Minister had intended that increases in air fares be approved automatically, thus reducing further still the existing rubber stamp procedure for fare increases. If reports in the Australian Financial Review of 22 August 1980 are accurate, the Minister proposed an amendment to the air fare fixing procedures that would handicap the ability of a future government to contain unjustified fare increases. That must be labelled as a ludicrous proposition. It reveals yet again this Government’s determination to put the interests of its friends in the airlines ahead of the interests of air travellers.

The Opposition totally rejects the Government’s proposals for automatic fare increases. A Labor government would require all applications for fare increases to be subject to public scrutiny by the Prices Justification Tribunal. At the same time we believe there is a role for public participation in the aviation decision-making procedures. We intend to give air travel consumers a voice in those procedures.

The other changes that the Minister for Transport had hoped to make to the two-airline policy are not stated. However, the Parliament can be sure that they were contrary to the interests of air travellers. An assurance of that is clear from the remarks that the former General Manager of Trans-Australia Airlines, Mr Lyn McKenzie, made in an important transport seminar organised by the New South Wales section of the Chartered Institute of Transport in Sydney on 10 September. In respect of the Government’s decision to permit Ansett and TAA to buy different wide-bodied aircraft, Mr McKenzie, who is a highly respected and regarded aviation industry executive, said:

I believe the choice of different aircraft is unfortunate from the national point of view. It will prove costly because of the need for expensive duplication of spare parts, engines test cells, flight simulators, engine overhaul and in the provision of various facilities … I don’t believe it will eliminate parallel schedules although it may help a little but it is a big price to pay particularly as the current attitude of the airlines seems to be towards seeking strong Government support for reducing competition to improve yield by enforcing the elimination of all marketing initiatives so much in evidence only a short time ago. The extra costs will have to be passed on in fares.

Therein lies the crux of what the Minister for Transport has been negotiating with the airlines because Mr McKenzie was until recently the General Manager of TAA and was a party to the discussions between the Department of Transport, the Minister, Trans-Australia Airlines and, probably on a more general basis, Ansett Airlines of Australia. I repeat that Mr McKenzie stated: the current attitude of the airlines seems to be towards seeking strong Government support for reducing competition to improve yield . . .

I have said in the Parliament repeatedly on behalf of the Opposition that when the exorbitant and speculative prices were being paid for Ansett’s shares last year - more than double the price that had prevailed on the stock exchange early last year - of $2.50 compared to $1.06 in February of last year, I said then that air travellers in this country should not be called upon to foot the bill for speculative ventures into the airline industry. Mr MacKenzie has revealed that that is exactly what is happening. He used the words ‘to improve yield’. He means to improve the yield on the $2.50 a share paid for Ansett shares in the latter part of last year and early this year. That increased yield means that fares will have to be increased. That is what this Government is attempting to achieve.

In respect of the Ansett Boeing 737s, Mr McKenzie had this to say:

The Boeing 737 does not provide the benefits of lower noise levels and fuel efficiency available in new technology aircraft now planned for early production.

The replacement of DC9s with 737s appear to be a very expensive move. These aircraft will be more costly to run than depreciated DC9s.

Mr McKenzie in his remarks on the Boeing 737 aircraft said that that meant more noise for the resident in the Mascot area, not less noise. It meant higher air fares still for travellers should this Government be returned to office. There is a clear distinction between Labor’s aviation policy and that of the Fraser Government. Under the policies of this Government, with its preference for airline interests, air fares will be substantially higher. There will be significantly less public accountability by the airlines and there will be no public participation in the determination of the price, quality and availability of air services. More specifically in respect of industry infrastructure and cost recovery Mr MacKenzie had this to say:

The airline industry is the only mode of transport required to make a full recovery of infrastructure costs and other services provided by the Government, on a strict accounting basis. Some quite heavy charges are incurred without agreement by the airlines while others are fixed by the Government on a national basis.

New and expensive airport works will place a still heavier burden on the industry, forcing fares up even further.

The Minister for Transport, following that comment made by Mr McKenzie, announced recently a $1.2 billion program for airport construction. The Minister was asked: ‘Where will the money come from?’ He said: ‘It will come from Consolidated Revenue. Money is no problem. It will come back by cost recovery.’ That is a rather naive statement. It raises the questions of: When will the money be collected from Consolidated Revenue? From whom will it be collected? Who will make the contribution to Consolidated Revenue? What effect will that development program have on air fares and the rate of cost recovery and more specifically on the level of air navigation charges? It is clear from the statements of Mr McKenzie, which now confirm what the Opposition believes to be the real intent of the Government’s aviation policies, that air fares will continue to rise rapidly under a Fraser government if by some mischance, it is re-elected to government on 1 8 October.

In the brief moment remaining I want to refer to the same subject and draw a comparison between the Government’s readiness to implement increases in air navigation charges and increased charges of the airlines, and its reluctance to raise the limit of accident compensation for air travellers should an air traveller or an intending passenger be injured on the ground or in flight. The maximum compensation available in the event of personal injury or death was set in 1976 at $45,000. That figure includes legal and medical costs. It is a pittance. If anybody were unfortunate enough to be seriously injured or if a breadwinner were to lose his or her life in an aircraft accident in this country, the family remaining would be beggared by the policies of this Government. The limit of $45,000 is grossly inadequate and is further evidence of the Government’s scant regard for the interests of air travellers.

The Opposition believes that the limit of air accident compensation should be raised to at least $100,000 and should be indexed to take account of inflation. The additional cost to TAA and Ansett of raising the limit to $100,000 would be about 20c a passenger- almost nothing. The Government’s reasons for not raising the limit of compensation in the past has been that it would mean additional costs for the airlines. When it comes to providing public protection and an adequate level of compensation for victims of an aircraft accident the Government refuses to act, on the basis that it would mean increased costs for the airlines. On the other hand, when it comes to looking to its own revenue and to its own cost recovery program the Government has no reluctance whatsoever in increasing air navigation charges by a mammoth 1 19 per cent in a little over four years. I make that contrast again. When it comes to Consolidated Revenue the Government puts its own interests first before the interests of the airline passengers.

I make another comparison. Earlier this year the Minister for Transport, the Government and one of the airlines had a great deal to say about increased competition between the airlines. We saw the introduction of free speciality foods and free alcohol for those people up front. The costs were borne by the people who ride in the economy section of the aircraft. The additional costs involved were about $5m. Those additional costs have now been built into the fare structure by the three fare increases that have been granted since February this year. To claim that this is competition is a complete misrepresentation. Mr McKenzie gave the lie to the Government’s policy in respect of increased competition in the airlines when he said that the proposals under consideration between the airlines and the Minister for Transport were designed to reduce the level of competition.

The Opposition’s policy on aviation is to raise the level of compensation at least to $100,000 and index it annually. The Opposition will ensure that the airlines are properly accountable to the Parliament and to the public for their financial performance. The Opposition’s policy is to ensure that air travellers have a say in decision-making procedures of the industry, that they have a say in the determination of the price, quality and availability of airline services. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Before I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory I advise the House that this is likely to be the honourable member’s last speech to Parliament. I am sure he will be extended the courtesy of the House.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should like to quietly mention something which appears to me to have been overstated by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). I refer to his figures concerning return air fares. In July 1976 the air fare from Sydney to Perth was $327.20 and in September 1980 it was $337.90. That is not a very great increase in that time. The fare from Sydney to Melbourne in July 1976 was $82.60 and in September 1980 it was $93. Once again that is a small rise over that time bearing in mind inflation and everything else. On the other hand the fare from Sydney to Brisbane has gone up from $86.40 to $96.90. Once again that is a small rise comparatively speaking. I do not wish to be controversial so I will not go on to attack the honourable member for Shortland as I may have done on previous occasions. The Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill, with which the Opposition agrees, is a machinery Bill. Since 1961 all governments, including a Labor government, have agreed to the policy of full cost recovery. A rise of 15 per cent would increase airline cost by about one per cent. This legislation makes no provision for increases in navigation charges for international airlines, rural airlines or general aviation. That, after all, is very significant. I note that along with Hobart, Townsville and Norfolk Island are included in this legislation. The legislation also deals with zone factors for international operations. It appears that Norfolk Island is being forced to take international jets. Under this legislation, the charges in respect of Norfolk Island will be reduced eightfold.

This Government has come under great criticism for envisaging a jet service to Norfolk Island, albeit only an F28 4,000 series jet service. A general fear is being engendered among Norfolk Islanders that Boeing 737 type aircraft or even

Boeing 707 type aircraft will be used. I think the Norfolk Island Government would be in a position to look after its own affairs with regard to the type of aircraft which use an upgraded airstrip. I ask the Government and the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) to bear in mind the capacity of the island’s environment to withstand any really heavy jet aircraft. I know that the length of the runway would not allow anything much more than a Boeing 737 to put down. Indeed, the length of the runway now restricts F27 aircraft operations to Norfolk Island. As is the case with Lord Howe Island, the environment of Norfolk Island is very fragile and the flora and fauna are unique. I hope that the Federal Government will back the local government in its efforts to stop too many heavy jets and too many tourists swarming on to Norfolk Island. I know that this is not a problem at Lord Howe Island because of the restrictions imposed by the length of the strip. To some extent I think the length of the strip at Norfolk Island will also safeguard that island.

We should bear in mind that it is not possible to go by road to Norfolk Island. The island has little or no harbour facilities and, therefore, the only communication is by air. Anyone who has been to Norfolk Island in either DC4 aircraft or F27 aircraft - the F27 500 series operate from Sydney and F27 100 series operate from New Zealand - knows that in the event of some sort of engine failure there would be a disaster. Therefore, no matter what the environmentalists say, those types of aircraft have to be replaced from a strict aircraft safety point of view.

As you, Mr Deputy Speaker, pointed out, this could be my last speech in this place. I have not been here, nearly as long as many other members who are not seeking re-election. However, I feel that as one who represented a new era in the involvement of the Northern Territory in Federal politics, I should make a few comments and express a few appreciations before I go. I have served the Northern Territory in this place for almost 14 years.

Mr Bourchier:

– And very well.

Mr CALDER:

– I thank the honourable member for that. Much has been achieved during this period. But those achievements have been the result of teamwork as is the case with most achievements in this Parliament or in any parliament. As Fred Daly used to say, you are a rooster one day and a feather duster the next; there are show ponies and plodders; there is the whole box and dice of us. Every person in this Chamber is different. On the one hand we are working to put a point of view and on the other hand we are working sincerely to benefit the nation. That is the way I felt when I came here and I am certain that is the way the game should be played. I do not say that is the way it is being played at the moment. But one expects those sort of things when we are coming up to an election. I have been greatly assisted by many people from Prime Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers–

Mr Bourchier:

– The Whips.

Mr CALDER:

– Ministers, members of parliament and ever the Whips from both sides of the House. I have been a member of this place since 1966. 1 would like to thank the people who have kept me here since 1966.

Mr Bourchier:

– You kept yourself here by your work.

Mr CALDER:

– I thank the honourable member for that. I would like say thank you to those who have worked with me and for me during this long period, including my staff in Canberra, Alice Springs and Darwin and all the other people who have helped me during my parliamentary life.

I feel that parliamentary life is not confined to this chamber. It is not even confined to the electorate. There are many pluses and minuses to a parliamentary career. I will not talk about the minuses at this time to any great extent. The pluses do not relate to the great headlines that one might achieve. I do not really remember receiving too many.

Mr Bourchier:

– You deserve them.

Mr CALDER:

– I thank the honourable member again. One plus is the people that one meets whether inside the Parliament, around the nation or overseas. Most of us would not meet these people if we were not members of parliament. I feel that one of my great personal gains has been the chance to visit many parts of the world and many parts of Australia. I have been able to meet and work alongside many members of parliament on committees of all sorts. Some of the tasks have been arduous; some have been pleasurable. We all know that most committees are hard work.

Dr Jenkins:

– When you talk about it being arduous, you are talking about the paddling down Macquarie Marshes.

Mr CALDER:

– I certainly remember that. I was going to mention the honourable member for Scullin. I certainly will if I can get through my notes. I would like to mention not only members on this side of the House but also such men as the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) the honourable member for Griffith (Mr

Humphreys), the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) and many others. The honourable member for Scullin spoke about paddling on the Macquarie Marshes with members of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation which was concerned with kangaroos. The honourable member was a very prominent member of that Committee.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works which recently travelled to Norfolk Island was headed by its Deputy Chairman the honourable member for Burke. The honourable member handled the situation straight down the line. There were no party politics; it was just a job to be done by a parliamentary committee. It was a delight to work with those people because we endeavoured to do a job on behalf of the Government. There were no petty politics on either side.

Debate interrupted.

page 1342

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Hunt:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1342

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr CALDER:

– I thank the House. I will not take the time of the House for much longer. I cannot leave here without mentioning the staffs of both chambers, the staffs of the Parliament, who in all divisions make a tremendous effort to see that the members are able to do their jobs. On some occasions they make the job even better, and I refer to some of the games of tennis that have been arranged for me on Wednesdays by certain members of staff. This all helps the parliamentary scene, and I think that, amongst other things, it helps certain members like myself to stay fit. If honourable members are to stay in this place for 14 years they have to be fairly fit.

I cannot go without mentioning the House of Representatives and Senate transport officers who are tremendous, the Joint House staff in the refreshment rooms, and the printers who every Friday go through a broadcast made by me, reduce it, and do all sorts of strange things to it. How they get through it I do not know. I also mention the Hansard staff, and all the other people - I cannot mention them all - who play a tremendous part in a backbencher’s parliamentary life. I say thank you to all those people.

Before I close, I wish to refer to the Bill. I am led to believe that it is just as well to do that, or I have been told by various Speakers and Deputy Speakers through the years that that is the idea. I ask the Minister again to bring his interest and influence to bear on the domestic airlines and the policies which will emerge from the coming inquiry to see that Australia’s great outback is assisted and evenly served. At the moment air services are pretty ragged, bearing in mind the distance, the isolation and the great need to upgrade all facets of life in outback Australia. Finally, I thank all the people who have showed such terrific sympathy for me and my family in the last week.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

– I am sure that the House will join with the Chair in wishing the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who is a distinguished airman, clear skies and tail winds into the future.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I join with you in your remarks to the retiring member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Shortland may proceed.

Mr MORRIS:

– The previous speaker referred to the figures for fares that I quoted. The figures are not comparable. The ones to which I referred were first and economy fares; his were some kind of concessional fares. The information that I provided to the Parliament was given to me by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt).

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I take the opportunity in this debate on the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill to raise with the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) a specific matter which is of extreme concern to the area I represent and the area the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) represents. Some 10 years ago it was decided that Geelong, which is the seventh city in Australia and certainly the second biggest non-metropolitan area in Australia, should have a public airport, as is the case with most cities in Australia. Three years ago a submission was made to the Government which related to an airport in the local ownership plan. Two years ago a formal submission was made, and since that time, the local committee, the Geelong Regional Commission, and other interested parties have consistently sought answers on whether the Government will include the Geelong area in the local ownership plan.

I understand that for the last three months the matter has moved from the Minister’s Department to the Department of Finance and letters and phone calls have been exchanged about the matter. For three years the matter has been in the hands of the Department of Transport in one form or another. Certainly a specific submission has been in the hands of the Government for the past two years, without any concrete response. The feeling abroad now in Geelong is that if a decision cannot be obtained soon, red tape will have so strangled the project that resuscitation will be completely impossible. I ask the Minister whether he will raise the matter. I do not want to belabour the point in the House, but I am certain that the Minister for Industrial Relations will have raised the matter with him over a period. The airport is to be located in his electorate but it will serve a significant number of people in my electorate - most likely three times as many as in his.

Geelong is one of the substantial cities of Australia, and at the moment I think it is the only area in Australia with a population in excess of 18,000 that has not been included in this plan for funding. The delays are becoming an irritant, and I think that three years is long enough to wait for a concrete plan. I understand that the Minister’s Department has supported the submission, but it is still sitting somewhere in the Department of Finance. As seems to be the wont, it is difficult sometimes to get anyone to pull things out of the bureaucracy, whether it be the Minister’s fault or the bureaucracy’s fault. I ask the Minister whether he can do something to expedite a decision on this matter because it is one where considerable concern is being expressed and it is an area where Geelong feels it has been badly treated.

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

– in reply - I can well understand the concern of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). In fact, my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has discussed this matter with me on one occasion. I will make sure that the honourable member for Corio has an answer tomorrow about the state of that application.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1344

ADJOURNMENT

Nature of the Workforce - 1980 General Election - Proposed Psychiatric Unit at Long Bay Gaol

Motion (by Mr Hunt) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I want to draw the attention of the House to the rapidly changing nature of the workforce, something that I have spoken about a number of times in this House, and to point out the need to evolve new forms of employment if we are to maintain the right of significant work for all those people who wish to work and are able to do so. I had hoped to be able to raise these issues again if and when the House debated the report ‘Technological Change in Australia’ produced by the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia. The Myers report - all four volumes of it - has fallen like a dead bird. Its terms of reference were far too narrow, its membership too restricted, consisting as it did of two metallurgists and the secretary of a technologically-based union, and provided with what could loosely be described as intellectual support from that gung ho ministry, the Department of Productivity. But it is now clear that the Myers report will not be debated in the thirty-first Parliament and its seems increasingly likely that it will be ignored in the thirty-second Parliament.

As I told the House in my maiden speech, I have been urging the adoption of new methods of analysing the labour force. I have proposed a four sector analysis of the paid labour force, that is, those people actually offering for employment and being paid for it. The four sectors are: Firstly, primary - extractive; secondly, secondary - manufacturing and construction; thirdly - tertiary - services not based on the transfer of information; and, fourthly, quaternaryinformation including printing. The tertiary sector provides ‘hard’ or tangible economic services involving the processing or the transfer of matter and/or energy - services which are easily quantifiable and have a precise economic value to consumers. The information sector - the transfer, the processing, the collection and the dissemination of information - really involves the processing of symbols and/or symbolic objects of various kinds. That sector includes librarians, teachers, office workers, people in consultancy, members of parliament, public servants, advertising and many other related information based activities.

But I have gone further with my work and suggested the adoption also of a five-sector analysis which should then take into account the value of domestic production, the value of work done in the home, because economists and statisticians never recognise the value of work done inside the home. If a housewife goes out and works for one half day a week in the greengrocer’s, she is regarded as economically significant for the work that she does at the greengrocer’s, but she is totally ignored regarding the work she does for the other six and a half days a week inside the family. So, the five sector analysis would mean: Firstly, primary - extractive; secondly, secondary - manufacturing and construction; thirdly, tertiary - tangible economic services not based on the transfer of information or analogous to domestic employment; fourthly, quarternary - information processing; and fifthly, quinary - domestic and quasi-domestic servicing or making. That would include services performed within the home or services which are analogous to services provided within the home.

I have done this work on a national basis in which figures have been aggregated but, more recently, I have been concentrating on disaggregating the figures and looking at them electorate by electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard - it is much too complex to read it out now - a chart which I have prepared on sectoral change in specific seats, 1966, 1971 and 1976 censuses. I have a four sector analysis and a five-sector analysis for those three census years for the seat of Kooyong, the seat the Lalor and the seat of Mallee - three Victorian seats which illustrate the diversity of employment within the Commonwealth, Kooyong is perhaps the poshest Liberal seat in Victoria, Lalor a hard core Labor seat and Mallee, a National Country Party seat.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I thank the House. The point I wish to make is that, if one looks at the main industrial employment areas in particular in specific seats- for example, employment in the primary sector, in agriculture, in Malle and in secondary industry, manufacturing, in Lalor- one sees a long term secular decline. Of course, the change in the nature of the figures is much more striking when one disaggregates the figures. When we talk about technological change or technological unemployment and we aggregate figures, the nature of the change tends to be disguised. It is only when we disaggregate them and see them electorate by electorate that we realise that we have to begin proper social planning for what people will be doing throughout the 1980s.

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

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– At a time when my parliamentary coleagues occupying the Opposition benches are obsessed with ‘raising standards’, I draw the House’s attention to the calibre of candidate that the Australian Labor Party has endorsed in several Victorian electorates. Let us take the seat of Hotham - the Federal electorate which I represent and which I will continue to represent. The ALP candidate is a typical example of the Labor hopefuls in this election who are seeking to sit in the back seat of the triumvirate’s troika. His name is Lewis Bata Kent: By occupation, a railway station master; by political leaning, a mouthpiece of the socialist left. However, this is not his only claim to fame. Kent is also renowned for his strange views on world events. After the socialist left bloc successfully defeated a motion condemning the persecution of Russian dissidents at the November 1978 ALP State conference, Kent went on record as saying that it was none other than Jimmy Carter who actually shot Martin Luther King.

Kent is a man who loses credibility as soon as he opens his mouth. He is content only when assaulting the capitalist system and advocating in its place the false Utopia of the socialist state. Kent is a slave to the philosophy of self-management by the people for the people. Yet, in his post-war youth, after leaving Yugoslavia, he said that it was the luxury of individual liberty’ in Australia which appealed to him. It is certainly no secret who cracks the whip. As recently as last weekend the socalist left faction again reiterated that it had control of the Labor Party in Victoria and that it intended to use that power to push policies which the present, though not for long, Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) Baulks at accommodating. Let me quote another of Kent’s comrades, none other than the chairman of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Crawford. He said:

The dominant policies of the Victorian branch today emanate from the socialist left and the dominant policies of the party federally emanate from Victoria.

That means that the Leader of the Opposition is run by the socialist left. Meanwhile, the State secretary of the Victorian branch of the ALP, Bob Hogg, has repeatedly made hollow claims that the socialists are confident in their bid to snatch seats in certain Melbourne suburbs. Seriously, how can my constituents swallow such a claim from such a fragmented, disoriented party? How acceptable are the policies of men who belong to a faction responsible for drafting a proposal which sought to compel all Australians to disclose publicly their bank accounts? Indeed, how fitting are the endearments of the present Labor aspirant for the Federal seat of Wills, Mr Hawke, who has referred to members of the socialist left as phonebox minorities’ and ‘gangrenous cankers’ within the Australian Labor Party.

Let me turn briefly to the seat of La Trobe held by my Liberal Party colleague, Mr Marshall Baillieu. The Australian Labor Party has seen fit to endorse another proud supporter of the socialist left. According to the May issue of the Labor Star newspaper, the Labor candidate does not see his political leaning within the Labor Party as a problem because he is confident that he can show the voters of La Trobe that they should not be frightened of socialism. Needless to say, that socialist will not find that task necessary as he will not win La Trobe.

The Australian Labor Party’s folly does not end there. If we examine the activities that have taken place in the electorate of Burke, we find that the ALP not only has withdrawn endorsement of the sitting member, Mr Keith Johnson, but also has allowed him to be cannibalised by the recalcitrant leftists. The new candidate is Mr Andrew ‘somebody’, a self-professed radical socialist. He had this to say:

I am here highlighting the serious fact that Mr Wilkes attempted to disown, rather than defend Labor socialism . . .

If Mr Wilkes is not prepared to do this, he should be replaced. For the socialist issue will not disappear.

Labor claims to be an alternative government. It claims to be able to manage this country. How can it manage anything when it cannot throw off its own subversive, destructive, and un-Australian millstone of socialism? I challenge the de facto Leader of the Opposition, Bob Hawke, to take a stand against the socialist left. He is already spokesman for ALP policy. Is it not time now for him to speak out for the good of Australia and for all Australians to remember what socialism stands for and how far worse is the socialist left? Wake up Australia and throw all those socialists out. All those socialists must go.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I regret that again this evening I have to stand up and respond to the kind of denigration and abuse that we have just heard from a previously unheard of member of the back bench opposite. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a pity, particularly knowing your views on the conduct of the Parliament, that you have been subjected to this kind of discussion again. I would have thought that the members of the back bench opposite - the silent majority - would be better able to devote their time to something constructive. I notice that the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) has just left the chamber. It appears that he is more concerned with denigrating people outside the Parliament. He says that these people do not worry him but obviously they are of great concern to him in his electorate, otherwise he would not have raised the matter here tonight. I suggest to the honourable member who has just departed from the chamber that he would be better off making those kinds of comments back in his electorate without the protection of the privilege of this Parliament.

The honourable member referred to a Mr George Crawford being the President of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party. That is false. Mr Kevin Hardiman is President of the Labor Party in Victoria. That indicates the ignorance of the honourable member and the nonsense spoken by him. The honourable member spoke at some length about the Yugoslav origin of Mr Kent, whom I have not met. I understand that Mr Kent is sincere in his views. If Mr Kent has views he is entitled to put those views. After all, Mr Urbanchich, who is regarded by most people in Australia as a former nazi, is a practising and very active member of the Liberal Party of New South Wales. He also is a spokesman for the Government parties opposite. If the kind of comment that has been made by the honourable member is to be applied to Mr Kent we will just put Mr Urbanchich in the same category.

The honourable member mentioned Mr Theophanus, the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate for Burke, a man well accredited in academic circles and a man of Greek origin. I pose the question: Why are people of Yugoslav and Greek origin - two of the largest groups in this nation who have come from overseas - being singled out for denigration and abuse by Government back benchers? If the Government has such an intense dislike for people of Yugoslav and Greek origin, let it have the courage to stand up and say it on the campaign hustings, not send an almost silent back bencher into the Parliament to deliver a stream of personal abuse against people unable to defend themselves.

I return now to Mr Urbanchich. Mr Urbanchich is one of the uglies, as defined by the former Secretary of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Last year Mr Urbanchich was involved, along with a number of other members of the Liberal Party in New South

Wales, in threats of death to other members of the Liberal Party. The New South Wales Labor Government had to provide police protection for three members of the Liberal Party who had been threatened with death by other members of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. That shows the calibre of those people who sit opposite. Yet they have the temerity and the impudence to come into this chamber and to attack on completely spurious grounds people outside the Parliament who are unable to defend themselves.

Mr Neil:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member made certain statements about a person outside the House and then attributed the same character and motivations to members of the House. Members of the House have no responsibility whatsoever for persons outside the House such as those to whom the honourable member referred.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! There is no point of order.

Mr MORRIS:

– I listened in silence to what was said. I have just put to the chamber the same kind of proposition as was put by the honourable member who has fled from the chamber. The honourable member for St George listened in silence and nodded his head in agreement with what he was saying, but when a similar matter is put in respect of his own party membership he wants to dispute it. I ask him to be a little consistent. If we are to talk about–

Mr Neil:

– Be a little careful.

Mr MORRIS:

– Do not threaten me, my friend. You are a little small for that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George will remain silent and the honourable member for Shortland will address the House.

Mr MORRIS:

– When it comes to dirty tricks and denigration we have to go no further than the dirty tricks trio. I refer to the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) and Mr Eggleton of the Liberal Party’s national secretariat and the presentation of fabricated documents to this Parliament - documents which were purported to be genuine. The information contained therein could have been obtained only by illegal means from the public consultants of the Australian Labor Party. We should not have any more of that kind of discussion. If honourable members opposite want that kind of discussion in the adjournment debate, rather than informative, constructive discussion, we will be happy to join them, but honourable members opposite should remember that they are initiating it and they have a lot more to receive than they are able to give.

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

– A shroud of fearful anticipation that has every possibility of becoming a reality will fall on every resident of the eastern suburbs of Sydney when the New South Wales Labor Government presses on with its plan to build a complex at Long Bay, near Maroubra, to house the criminally insane. In 16 June 1980 I wrote to the Minister for escapes, Mr Haigh, who is responsible for the containment of prisoners in gaols in Sydney, which is now recognised as the escape capital of the world. Despite much prodding it was not until 28 July that I received a reply. Mr Haigh informed me that the recommendation of the royal commission into New South Wales prisons had been approved in principle by his Government and that a planning committee had been established to implement the recommendation. The committee consists of members representing the Health Commission of New South Wales and the Corrective Services Commission and of those people responsible for the drawing up of the plans for these permanent buildings to accommodate inmates requiring psychiatric treatment, which work is currently in the hands of the Government Architect Branch. I understand that the Public Works Department also has been consulted.

Mr Haigh relies on the report of the royal commission into New South Wales prisons, which was conducted between 1976 and 1978, to justify the erection of a permanent building that will house psychopathic killers. The royal commission’s report states in part:

The use of the present observation wing at Malabar should cease immediately. This is of the highest priority.

The royal commissioner goes on to criticise that establishment. There can be no doubt that conditions in the observation wing, which I have inspected on numerous occasions, certainly are Dickensian and I agree with the royal commissioner’s findings. The curious situation is that the observation section was used only as a transit camp, as it were, for those who were psychiatrically disturbed and were either awaiting trial or were thereafter being sentenced and were awaiting removal to a permanent home for the criminally insane.

Mr Haigh would have the people believe that this statement by the commissioner gives him a mandate to build a new and permanent institution at Long Bay to house the most dangerous psychopaths in the State. His record as Minister for Corrective Services is deplorable. Escapes from prisons by violent and dangerous prisoners seem to be in the order of the day. Escapes from this hospital that will house the criminally insane will be inevitable. In this event a pall of fear will grip the people of the eastern suburbs as never before. Bolted doors and windows, with people being terrified to go out at night, will be the natural consequence.

It is now or never for those people to voice their condemnation of the scheme to build a hospital on their doorstep. I would hold real fears for their safety when an escape occurs, as it must. Security cannot be tight as medicos and nurses will comprise 50 per cent of the staff. Indeed, this in itself is most alarming. Extensions to Morisset, where the mentally ill are detained already, would be an alternative. Mr Haigh knows as well as I do that several country towns have made representations to him for the establishment of a prison system. Now that he has pushed on against the wishes of the people at Parklea that site could also be considered. He has kept the people of the eastern suburbs in the dark and this attempt to justify the building by using the royal commission’s report is a blatant and spurious attempt to mislead.

I believe the Mayor of Randwick, Alderman Ken Finn, and Aldermen Dillon, Newman, Price, Matthews and Munro are bitterly opposed to the erection of this complex, as indeed I am. I call upon the new council to reject the State Government’s plans and to resist the bulldozer tactics which will inevitably follow the council taking its stand. Labor politicians will learn the hard way that they are the servants of the people, not their masters. I call upon all my constituents to petition the State Government immediately before it is too late. I intend to call a public meeting in the near future in a gigantic rally so that the voices and the will of the electorate will be heard and acceded to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1348

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Groom to move That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament, namely, the construction of an aircraft corrosion control facility, RAAF Base Richmond, New South Wales.

Mr Groom to move That, in accordance withe provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament, namely, the modernisation of fleet base and dockyard, Garden Island, New South Wales, stage 1.

Mr Groom to move That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committe 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, namely, the construction of a manufacturing and repair workshop for the Government Aircraft Factories at Fishermens Bend, Victoria.

page 1349

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 6 September 1 980, pursuant to statute:

Air Navigation Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 269.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Act - Regulation - Statutory Rules 1980, No. 266.

Australian Bureau of Statistics Act - Australian Bureau of Statistics- Proposal for collection of information - 1980 - No. 7 - Surveys of handicapped persons, February-May 1981 .

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act - Regulation- Statutory Rules 1 980, No. 268.

Customs Tariff Act - Orders - Developing country -

No. 4 (1980).

No. 5(1980).

Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinances- 1980-

No. 28 - Workmen’s Compensation Supplementation Fund.

No. 29 - Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment).

No. 30 - Sewerage Rates (Amendment) (No. 2).

Wheat Marketing Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 267.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1350

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Answers to Questions (Question No. 6099)

Mr Holding:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

When can I expect answers to (a) questions Nos 5313, 5315, 5318, 5319, 5363 and 5364, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 19 February 1980 and (b) question No. 5674 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 9 March 1 980?

Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Questions Nos 5315, 5318, 5319, 5364 and 5674 were answered in House of Representatives Hansard on 22 May 1980 (see pages 3196, 3197, 3200 and 321 5);
  2. Questions Nos 5313 and 5363 were answered in House of Representatives Hansard on 19 August 1980 (see pages 395 and 396).

Australian Capital Territory: Charges for Health Services (Question No. 6122)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

  1. What has been the (a) cost, (b) gross yield and (c) net gain in money terms, from introduction of charges for (i) consultations and (ii) other services at (A) Australian Capital Territory community health centres and (B) outpatient departments of hospitals or elsewhere in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. What surveys have been carried out among (a) patients and (b) staff at the centres and clinics referred to in part ( 1 ) to determine what proportion of the decline in demand following introduction of charges can be attributed to limited means deterring patients from obtaining treatment which (i) could prevent later, more costly, disability (ii) would provide reassurance, relief, preventive health information or other worthwhile benefits and (iii) was unnecessarily demanding of skills and resources thereby denied, delayed or downgraded to others in need of them or unfair to the staff members involved.
  3. Will a thorough cost benefit analysis be undertaken to establish criteria for proposed trials of alternative payment and health insurance systems.
  4. Are the doctors who left salaried positions in Australian Capital Territory centres to enter fee-for-service practice providing more or less services in each cost category than before, and to what degree, based on Medibank records.
  5. How do those doctors’ incomes and other entitlements compare with those in their previous positions.
  6. Have the doctors given reasons for the change; if so, what are they.
  7. What changes in numbers of (a) fee-for-service and (b) salaried general practitioners in the Australian Capital Territory have occurred since charges were imposed at community health centres.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. (a) The cost of introducing charges at health centres and hospital outpatient departments cannot be ascertained. Costs involved in administering charges were absorbed into pre-existing labour and systems costs of health centres and outpatient departments.
  2. 1 ) (b) The gross yield from the introduction of charges for consultations and other services at health centres and outpatient departments is as follows:
  1. (c) In the absence of costs data the net gain in money terms is not obtainable.
  2. No surveys have been carried out by the Capital Territory Health Commission.
  3. No such cost benefit analyses have been conducted or are planned which could be used for the purposes suggested.
  4. There are three doctors practising in a fee-for-service capacity at Australian Capital Territory Health Centres who were formerly salaried medical practitioners. No record is kept of the movements of medical practitioners who may once have been in salaried practice but who no longer practice in an Australian Capital Territory health centre.

Complete data on the level of services rendered by private medical practitioners are not available to the Capital Territory Health Commission. Consequently I am not able to provide comparative figures on services provided.

  1. The Commission has no access to data on the incomes and other entitlements of medical practitioners in private practice.
  2. Some reasons given for the change from salaried to private practice are- conditions of salaried employment too restrictive in respect of working hours and the lack of complete freedom to choose the professional services performed. accompanying spouse leaving the Territory; wish to practice interstate.
  3. Since the introduction of the 1 November 1978 charges the only changes in the numbers of salaried and fee-for-service general practitioners have been that two salaried practitioners changed to fee-for-service so that at the present time there are 19 salaried and 15 fee-for-service practitioners practising at nine health centres.

Victoria: Adult Education Statistics (Question No. 6174)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 21 May 1980:

  1. Can he say (a) how many persons were aged between 17 and 24 years in each Federal Electoral Division in Victoria as at 31 December 1979 and (b) what percentage of the total population in each Division these persons represented.
  2. How many persons were engaged in studying at university or college of advanced education in each Federal Electoral Division in Victoria on 31 December 1979 and what percentage of the total population of each Division did these persons represent.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Population estimates by aged for Federal Electoral Divisions are available only for the dates of the population censuses, and so the latest information that can be supplied is for 30 June 1 976. The number of persons aged between 1 7 and 24 years enumerated in each Federal Electoral Division in Victoria at the last census is shown in the table below, together with the percentage of the total population in each Division that these persons represented.
  2. The table also shows the census data for persons studying at universities or colleges of advanced education.

When comparing these population census data it should be remembered that persons were counted in the census, where they actually were on the night of the census, which was not necessarily the place of their usual residence. Persons who do not live at home while attending a university or college of advanced education would therefore have most probably been counted at their term-time address. Four colleges of advanced education were on holiday at the time of the census - those at Ballarat, Footscray , Longerenong and the RMIT.

Department of Defence: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 6202)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, 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 three years; if so, how many have remained unfilled in each year.

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

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 6194 which appeared in the House of Representatives Hansard for 22 May 1980 (page 3263).

Vacancies for Qualified Nurses (Question No. 6229)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. How many qualified nurses were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service at the latest date for which details are available.
  2. How many vacancies for qualified nurses were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service at the same date.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. A total of 310 qualified nurses (that is, general nurses with at least three years training) were registered with the Professional Employment Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service as at 1 August 1980.
  2. A total of 309 vacancies for qualified nurses (that is, for general nurses with at least three years training) were registered with the Professional Employment Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service as at 1 August 1980.

Australian Natural Gas Utilisation and Transportation Study (Question No. 6238)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. Has the Department of National Development and Energy completed a study of the updated Australian Natural Gas Utilisation and Transportation Study, referred to in the Sixth Annual Report of the Pipeline Authority (pages 14-1 5); if so, will the report be tabled in the Parliament.
  2. If the reportwill be tabled, when will it be tabled.
  3. Does this revised study have any effects on the critical dates for national decisions on natural gas supply options, which were identified in the original report; if so, what are the effects.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of National Development and Energy has completed its examination of the document Australian Natural Gas Utilisation and Transportation Study referred to in the Sixth Annual Report of the Pipeline Authority. But as indicated in answer to the honourable member’s question No. 5112 there are no plans for publication of this study.
  2. See (1).
  3. The National Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC) is very soon to publish a paper titled ‘Natural Gas- The Key Issues’ which examines, inter alia, natural gas supply and demand and the timing necessary for exploration and development of new reserves.

Wholesale Price of Super Grade Petrol (Question No. 6249)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

What is the wholesale price in Sydney at which super grade petrol is actually being sold by each of the nine major oil companies to (a) independent dealer operators, (b) lessees or licensees and (c) commission resale agent dealers.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

Maximum justified wholesale prices for petrol are determined for each of the oil companies by the Prices Justification Tribunal. If companies choose to supply petrol to resellers at prices below the maximum wholesale prices found to be justified by the Prices Justification Tribunal, that is a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned. Such lower prices do not need to be justified to the Prices Justification Tribunal and this information is not, therefore, available tome.

It should be noted that the New South Wales Prices Commission also determines wholesale prices for petrol sold by the oil companies in that State.

Age Pensioners (Question No. 6250)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

How many old age pensioners per 1 , 000 persons of pensionable age were there as at 30 June 1979.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The number of age pensioners per 1,000 persons of age pension age as at 30 June 1979 was 779. At the same date, for every 1,000 persons of age pension age, there were 866 receiving an age, invalid, widow’s or wife’s pension or Repatriation service pension.

Port Kembla, Australian National Line Terminal (Question No. 6253)

Mr West:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. What have been the annual tonnages dispatched from the Port Kembla New South Wales Australian National Line (ANL) Terminal, since the commencement of its operation.
  2. Did these tonnages comprise steel; if so, what types.
  3. What were the major port destinations.
  4. What have been the annual freight costs since the commencement of operations.
  5. What were the comparative costs of alternative transport such as road and rail during these years, particularly to Westernport, Victoria.
  6. Can he state whether, to the knowledge of the Australian Shipping Commission the New South Wales Government has offered concessional freight rates to local steel producers, such as Australian Iron and Steel.
  7. What is the local profitability level of the Port Kembla Terminal (a) with regard to combined stevedoring and transport operations and (b) per tonne of steel transported to Westernport, Victoria.
  8. What effect does the Australian Shipping Commission expect the future electrification of the rail line to Port Kembla will have on its operations, for example, from competition offered by rail transport to Port Botany, New South Wales.
  9. What are the future annual predictions for despatch tonnages from the ANL Terminal to 1985.
  10. Is any consideration being given to future curtailment or closure of the Port Kembla Terminal; if not, what are the contingencies if any curtailment or closure were to be contemplated by the Commission.
  11. In what other transport areas does the Commission have a financial interest.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (9) The Australian National Line’s Port Kembla Terminal commenced operations in January 1971 and was designed to meet the requirements of a long term contract entered into with John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd (JLA) during 1970-71 for the carriage of steel and finished products. In the period prior to 1973-74, when Lysaght Endeavour and Lysaght Enterprise were commissioned, ANL annually moved a minimum of 125,000 tonnes of steel products for JLA in Trader class ships. The tonnages carried in the years since have been: 1973- 74- 577,000 tonnes 1974- 75- 452,000 tonnes 1975- 76-450,000 tonnes 1976- 77-450,000 tonnes 1977- 78-450,000 tonnes 1978- 79- 585,000 tonnes 1979- 80- 8 15,000 tonnes 1980- 81-850,000 tonnes (estimated)

It is anticipated that the Line will carry a minimum of 1,000,000 tonnes per annum from 1981 onwards, given reasonable stability in external factors.

  1. Raw steel coils, finished products in coil and pack form, and steel slabs.
  2. The major destination for steel was Westernport, Victoria. A minor quantity was shipped to Port Adelaide.
  3. , (5) and (7) Freight rates negotiated with JLA for the carriage of its products, whether by road, rail or sea, are commercially confidential. Similarly, the cost to ANL of operating its Port Kembla Terminal is commercially confidential.
  4. The Australian Shipping Commission is not aware of freight rates offered by the New South Wales Government to steel producers at Port Kembla.
  5. and (10) ANL has a long term contract with JLA for the carriage of steel products. At the present time ANL does not expect any changes to its JLA operations at Port Kembla, and has no contingency plan to curtail or close its Port Kembla terminal operations during the currency of the agreement.
  6. ANL operates coastal and overseas shipping services. Ancillary to these functions, the Line is also a terminal operator, and provides stevedoring and shipping agency services. The following table illustrates the companies with which ANL is directly or indirectly involved.

Tree Ferns (Question No. 6255)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the article headed Lush gullies sacrificed to suburban appetites in the Age, 31 July 1980, page 3.
  2. Can he indicate whether either the Forestry Branch of his Department or the Division of Forest Research, CSIRO, has made any study of the extent of the marketing of tree ferns from the Otway Ranges, Victoria, or any other area in Australia.
  3. If this study has been made, did it examine the claims made in that article by the Geelong Environment Council and others that wholesale plundering of tree ferns could lead to erosion, salination and permanent damage to forests.
  4. Is he able to state whether any State Governments have ordered similar studies by any authorities under their control.
  5. If State studies have been made, can he also state when, where and by whom they were carried out and what recommendations were made by these studies.
  6. In view of reported public concern over the marketing of tree ferns, and the prominence given to it by the Age, will he (a) consider an urgent referral of this matter to the Australian Forestry Council and (b) give an undertaking that the results of any consideration by the Council will be released publicly.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I have been advised that no such studies have been made by the Forestry Branch of my Department. Enquiries by officers of that Branch indicate that the Division of Forest Research, CSIRO has not undertaken studies of the marketing of tree ferns either.
  3. N.A.
  4. No.
  5. N.A.
  6. (a) All aspects of the management of forests including any marketing of tree ferns are a State responsibility. The primary function of the Australian Forestry Council is to consider matters where the exercise of Commonwealth powers and responsibilities affects forestry development in the States. Therefore, I consider it inappropriate to refer the matter to the Australian Forestry Council.

    1. N.A.

Lead Free Petrol (Question No. 6283)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the submission of the Department of Transport to the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources into the replacement of petroleum-based fuels, in which the Department reportedly stated that a study undertaken by the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions (COMVE) indicated that the most cost effective way of reducing exhaust emissions to the levels specified in the third stage of ADR 27A would be to use unleaded petrol and fit catalytic converters to cars, that results of this study indicated that for proposed emissions standards, unleaded petrol could provide significant fuel savings at the motor vehicle level and that the fuel conservation supposed benefits of leaded petrol would appear to be in doubt.
  2. In view of the fuel conservation, air quality and public health benefits of using lead-free petrol, will the Minister encourage the nationwide introduction of unleaded petrol.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A report on the above-mentioned study of COMVE was considered by the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) meeting of Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers in February 1980. The COMVE report was published by the Department of Transport in March 1 980.

At their Febraury 1980 meeting, ATAC Ministers endorsed Comve’s recommendations to complete work on its study this year for final consideration by ATAC in February 1981. ATAC Ministers made it clear that further work proceeding did not consitute a commitment at this stage to the proposed strategy. The work would encompass refinement of studies, drafting on an appropriate design rule and the development of implementation arrangements.

Minister further agreed that COMVE’s studies should be given as wide a circulation as possible. Work is proceeding in COMVE on the detailed work needed to support a decision on a national emissions strategy.

Upon completion of COMVE’s final report, consideration will be given to the adoption of a national long-term vehicle emissions strategy, with full consideration of the energy, health and air quality aspects involved.

Crude Oil (Question No. 6286)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. Did the Minister say in answer to question No. 5820 that persons outside the oil industry have not been involved in any discussions in relation to the crude oil allocation and absorption policy (Hansard, 14 May 1980, page 2770).
  2. Can the Minister say whether the Industries Assistance Commission report on crude oil pricing dated 30 September 1976 indicate that the allocation system had given rise to a number of problems including, inter alia, the subsidisation of some foreign consumption of Australian oil, the question of equity between various parties, and the fact that changes in the allocation arrangements frequently result in changes in assistance to industries which are not subject to public scrutiny.
  3. Is it a fact that the implementation of the allocation formula has provided advantages to certain oil product consumers, and disadvantaged others, and it is therefore a matter of interest to oil product consumers as well as refiners and marketers; if so, has the Government failed to seek the involvement of persons from outside the oil industry in discussion on the crude oil allocation and absorption policy.
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. The Industries Assistance Commission report dated 30 September 1976 did refer the issues listed as problems. At the time of these comments, indigenous crude oil was priced substantially below international price levels.
  3. Since the introduction of Import Parity Pricing for all Australian produced crude oil in August 1978, the advantages to certain oil consumers and disadvantages to others which previously existed have largely been eliminated. The policy has also largely eliminated the subsidisation of small quantities of foreign consumption of products derived from Australian crude oil. The allocation arrangements result from voluntary agreement between producers and refiner/marketers and as a result of the import parity pricing policy have little impact on the final consumer, although they do underpin supply security. In these circumstances, further involvement of persons outside the oil industry was considered unnecessary.

Intensive Care Unit Nurses (Question No. 6230)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports of a shortage of intensive care unit nurses.
  2. If there is any substance in the reports, what is the likely explanation, in view of the large numbers trained in the past.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. If such reports are accurate, I can give no authoritative explanation at this time. At the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference held in Sydney in May 1980, it was agreed to establish a National Nursing Manpower Task Force to follow up the report of the National Survey of Nursing Personnel tabled in the Parliament on 13 November 1979. Because the Survey results indicated that many nurses with post basic qualifications were not using them, this matter would be one that could well be considered by the Task Force.

Influenza Vaccine (Question No. 6235)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. Has his Department changed the prescribing restrictions on influenza vaccine; if so (a) why and when was this decision made and (b) were pharmacists or the Pharmacy Guild consulted about the decision.
  2. Are orders for the vaccine non-returnable.
  3. Have pharmacists in the past had to order the vaccine in advance; if so, how much vaccine had already been ordered when the reported decision to change the prescribing restrictions was announced.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. The restrictions applying to the availability of influenza vaccine as a pharmaceutical benefit were changed as from 1 April 1980 upon the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to:

Persons at special risk of adverse consequences from infections of the lower respiratory tract.

  1. The PBAC reviewed the availability of influenza vaccine in the light of an application from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL), the manufacturers of the vaccine, requesting that the restriction be eased to include additional groups in the community at risk besides those covered by the previous restriction.

The change to the restriction was recommended by the PBAC at its meeting held on 14- 15 February 1 980 and approved by me on 2 1 February 1 980.

  1. No. This change was made on medical grounds and was considered unlikely to significantly affect the total prescribing of the vaccine as a pharmaceutical benefit.

    1. CSL do not accept influenza vaccine for credit.
    2. Some wholesalers may have required orders for the vaccine to be placed in advance to facilitate ordering from CSL. As the vaccine is distributed by pharmaceutical wholesalers throughout Australia it is not possible to ascertain how much vaccine had been ordered by pharmacists prior to the introduction of the new ‘Specified Purpose’ listing on 1 April 1980.

Meteorological Recording and Forecasting (Question No. 6302)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

Has his attention been drawn to the reported concern of fishermen on the far south coast of New South Wales that inadequate meteorological recording and forecasting is seriously hampering their efficiency and competitive ability, as well as threatening their safety; if so, what action will he take.

Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

The Director of Meteorology has made extensive enquiries in the far south coast region among parties with a close interest in meteorological services, such as fishermen’s organisations and the media.

He has informed me that he has been unable to locate the source of the concern referred to by the honourable member.

Health Insurance Act (Question No. 6327)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

  1. What are the provisions of the Health Insurance Act concerning the communication of information relating to the number of claims received in relation to specific items of the medical benefits fees schedule from a named (a) individual, (b) company or (c) medical practitioner.
  2. Do these provisions contain any restrictions; if so, what are they.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Section 130 of the Health Insurance Act 1973.
  2. Sub-section 130 (1) of the Health Insurance Act provides that a person shall not, except in the performance of his duties or in the exercise of his powers and functions under the Act, divulge or communicate to any person information concerning the affairs of another person acquired by him in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his powers or functions under the Act. In this context, the ‘affairs of another person’ includes the affairs of any person, company, or medical practitioner. Further, sub-section 130 (2) provides that a person shall not be required to divulge information or produce documents acquired under the Act to a court.

These provisions are, however, qualified in the Act. Subsection 130 (5) provides that there is no prohibition against the publication of statistics by the Commonwealth as long as it is not possible to identify, from these statistics, an individual patient or practitioner. Sub-section 130 (3) provides that information acquired under the Act may be divulged in three circumstances. These are:

  1. where the Minister for Health certifies that it is necessary in the public interest that the information be divulged;
  2. where information is to be divulged to an authority or person prescribed by regulation (medical registration boards have been so prescribed); and
  3. where the Minister for Health is of the opinion that the person to whom the information relates has given his authority for the information to be obtained.

However, sub-section 130 (4) provides that a person to whom information is divulged in any of the three circumstances provided for in sub-section 130 (3) is in turn subject to the same secrecy provisions of section 1 30 against its further divulgence as the person originally acquiring it.

National Plan for Aboriginal Health (Question No. 6330)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. Has the Government given consideration to the conclusion reached in Dr L. R. Smith’s Report on Aboriginal Health that there is no prospect on present trends of Aboriginal foetal, neonatal or post-neonatal mortality being reduced to the levels of the general population by 1983 or 1984 as called for in the National Plan for Aboriginal Health.
  2. Does the Government accept the analysis of the report that, if current trends continue, (a) 66 per cent of the Aboriginal still births, (b) 60 per cent of the neonatal deaths, and (c) 76 per cent of the post-neonatal deaths that occur in 1986, would be deaths that would not occur if the general population rates applied.
  3. What action has the Government taken, or does the Government propose to take, to ensure that at least the objectives called for in the National Plan for Aboriginal Health are achieved.
  4. What additional funds have been allocated to achieve the objectives referred to in part (3).
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Dr Smith gave evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs during the course of its inquiry into Aboriginal health and his views were also taken into account during the inquiry by the

Program Effectiveness Review taskforce. The reports are currently being considered by the Government. However, I am advised that Dr Smith’s conclusions, as he has pointed out, are based on less than adequate statistical details. Later details from Western Australia and the Northern Territory suggest that the position is not as bad as the earlier inadequate information suggested. That is not to say that the Government is satisfied with the position. Until such time as the Aboriginals have similar socio-economic and environmental conditions as are enjoyed by the majority of the non-Aboriginal populations, trends in Aboriginal still births, neonatal deaths and post neonatal deaths cannot be expected to equate with those for non-Aboriginals.

  1. and (4) Currently the Government is considering the report on Aboriginal health prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs together with other associated reports and I am hopeful that constructive measures to tackle the many problems associated with Aboriginal ill-health will be announced in the near future. The Government is committed to continuing efforts towards an overall improvement in the health of Aboriginals. However, as the honourable member will appreciate, this is a matter for consideration by the Commonwealth and State Governments with, of course, Aboriginal involvement.

Job Tests (Question No. 6377)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the letter to the editor published on page 12 of the Age of IS August 1980 headed Trickery in job test is wrong’ from a Kate Nash of Hawthorn.
  2. If so, has he ordered any investigation by his department of the job test referred to in that letter.
  3. If any investigation has been held, can he state (a) which company conducted the job interview and test, (b) how long this company has been using the alleged trick question in its job tests and (c) how many prospective employees have been (i) passed and (ii) failed by the company since the inception of this type of job test.
  4. Has his Department made any investigations of any similar job test practices by other companies; if so, can he state how widespread this practice is throughout Australia.
  5. If no such investigations have been carried out, will he give urgent consideration to ordering his Department to carry out such an investigation.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Not until the honourable member drew the matter to my attention.
  2. No.
  3. See (2).
  4. No.
  5. No. The selection criteria used by employers can vary considerably, depending on the type of vacancy concerned. There are indications that employers are showing more interest in using general ability and aptitude tests in the staff selection process. In the final analysis, the criteria used to select staff is a matter which must be left to the good sense of employers.

Moscow Olympic Games (Question No. 6404)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1980:

Did he send a congratulatory telegram to successful medalists at the Moscow Olympic Games without hesitation; if not, why.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

I sent the following personal messages to the respective gold medal winners following their success at the Moscow Gaines:

Neil Brooks, Mark Tonelli, Peter Evans, Mark Kerry

You know that I did not, and do not, approve of Australia being represented at these Olympic Games.

I do want to say, however, that your performance in the relay was a truly great sporting achievement. My personal congratulations.

Malcolm Fraser

Michelle Ford

Many congratulations. I salute a great sporting victory.

Malcolm Fraser

Leisure Time (Question No. 6406)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1980:

Did he say at a breakfast meeting in Brisbane, Qld, on 4 June 1980 that he was not sure that most people want an increase in their leisure time, as reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of S June 1980; if so, has he made any attempt to obtain statistical confirmation of this.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

I said at a breakfast meeting in Brisbane, Qld, on S June 1980 that I was not sure that most people want an increase in their leisure time, as reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 6 June 1980.

In response to the second part of the question, I refer the honourable member to the results of the Morgan Gallop Poll published in the Bulletin of June 10, 1980. Of those interviewed, SS per cent stated that the standard working week should be kept at 40 hours, 29 per cent favoured gradual reduction to 35 hours and only 13 per cent favoured reduction now to 35 hours.

Snake Bite Kits (Question No. 6417)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 August 1980:

  1. Has the National Health and Medical Research Council recently investigated snake bite kits and issued recommendations on the course of first-aid treatment for snake bite.
  2. If so, did the Council, in the course of its investigations, ascertain the extent to which medical students receive formal lectures or training on the subject; if so, in what States is this instruction given.
  3. If this aspect was not considered by the Council, will he take urgent steps to ensure that the Council or the appropriate body will advise all teaching hospitals throughout Australia to include formal instruction on the treatment of snake bites in their medical courses.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The recommendation was adopted at the 87th Session of the National Health and Medical Research Council injune 1979.
  2. and (3) The matters before Council were:

    1. The principles of first-aid treatment of snake-bite; and
    1. The marketing in Australia of kits for its treatment which were ineffectual or dangerous to the victim.

However, it is understood that formal instruction in the treatment of snake bite is included in the curricula of certain Australian faculties of medicine. The decision on subjects to be included in the curricula rests with the Committee of Deans of Medicine to whose attention this has been drawn.

Appeals from Australian Courts (Question No. 6424)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 August 1980:

  1. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to reported remarks of His Honour Mr Justice Zelling, a senior member of the South Australian Supreme Court, in the unreported case of Crook v Mason (1980) Reform at page 78, that appeals to a foreign Court are demeaning to the status of Australia as a sovereign nation which no Australian Government should permit to continue and that he believed speedy steps should be taken to end a state of affairs which was contrary to the dignity of Australia so that ultimate appeals from Australian Courts would go to the High Court of Australia, whose proper status had been recently re-emphasised to all Australians by the opening of its new building at Canberra by Her Majesty the Queen, as Queen of Australia.
  2. Is there substance to these remarks; if so, what steps does the Attorney-General propose to take for the purpose of expediting the attainment of the objective stated by Mr Justice Zelling.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commonwealth Government supports the establishment of the High Court as the final Court of Appeal in all cases, and it has supported discussions in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General with a view to producing that result. These discussions are proceeding.

Aircraft: Sale by Tender (Question No. 6435)

Dr Klugman:

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

Further to his answer to question No. 6068 (Hansard, 19 August 1980, page 440), (a) what number of aircraft were offered in the tenders closing on 22 July 1980, (b) were all of the available aircraft included in the re-opened tender; if not, what happened to the remainder of the aircraft and (c) were any reasonable offers to purchase the aircraft received.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. Ten.
  2. Twelve Hercules aircraft were originally declared surplus by the RAAF and offered for sale by public tender. Following the failure of Parmax Inc. to finalise the purchase and removal of these aircraft the RAAF advised that two of the aircraft could be used as training aids. Subsequently two aircraft located at RAAF Base Richmond were handed back and the remaining 10 offered for sale.
  3. As tenders are still under evaluation I cannot comment on this matter at this time. However, I propose to make a public statement concerning the disposal of these aircraft at a later time.

Health Surveys of Workers at Aluminium Smelters (Question No. 6451)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 August 1980:

  1. ) Has the Government received copies of the health sur.vyes of workers at (a) Bell Bay, Tasmania, (b) Point Henry, Victoria, and (c) Kurri Kurri, New South Wales, aluminium smelters which were carried out in 1 972 and 1 973 by a medical team from Prince Henry Hospital, Sydney; if not, will he take urgent steps to obtain these reports.
  2. What were the (a) recommended maximum and (b) actual levels for (i) aluminium metal and oxide, (ii) aluminium pyro powders, (iii) aluminium welding fume, (iv) aluminium soluble salts, (v) aluminium alkyls (not otherwise classified), (vi) fluoride, (vii) fluorine, (viii) hydrogen fluoride, (ix) sulphur dioxide and (x) particulate polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons at each of these three smelters in (i) 1973 and (ii) 1980.
  3. If Comalco, Alcoa and Alcan will not release the reports, will he order current and comprehensive health surveys of all workers at these smelters to be carried out under the direction of the National Health and Medical Research Council; if not, why not.
  4. If the health survey reports referred to in part (1 ) have been obtained by the Government, is he able to say (a) what the findings are, (b) what changes were demonstrated in workers (i) respiratory, (ii) circulatory and digestive systems and (iii) bones and joints, (c) whether there was evidence of dental and neurological abnormalities and (d) whether there was shown to be an increase in the incidence of cancer compared to average rates in the community, and, if so, what types of cancer were prevalent.
  5. Can the (a) Commonwealth and (b) any State Government introduce statutory controls over the various pollutants produced by aluminium smelters; if so, are any proposed controls designed to regulate (c) the health of aluminium workers and (d) public health standards in areas surrounding present or proposed aluminium smelters.
  6. Does the Council have any guidelines for the levels of atmospheric contaminants produced by the aluminium indutry; if not, will he direct the Council to produce such guidelines; if not, why not.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. No. Steps are being taken to obtain the requirement information.
  2. , (3) and (4) See (1) above.
  3. (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) and (d) I have not been informed of any proposals to amend the existing statutory controls to promote occupational and environmental health in those engaged in or living near aluminium reduction processes.
  4. Yes. For the atmospheric contaminants which can be identified as causing a potential health hazard.

Home Savings Grants Scheme (Question No. 6465)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 28 August 1980:

  1. How many grants under the Home Savings Grants Scheme have been made in (a) Australia and (b) Victoria in each year since 1976-77.
  2. What was the average waiting time between approval and payment of a grant in each case as indicated in part ( 1 ) .
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. The number of Home Savings Grants that have been approved and the number paid since 1976-77 in Australia and Victoria are:
  2. In 1976-77 and 1977-78 grants were paid shortly after approval of applications. The waiting period between approval and payment was very brief.

A waiting period of approximately nine months has applied, since August 1978, between receipt of applications and payment of grants. However, applications received in August and September 1978 were paid in July 1979, eleven and ten months later respectively.

The nine month waiting period will apply in 1 980-8 1 .

Recycling of Oil (Question No. 6467)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 28 August 1980:

  1. What firms in Australia are engaged in the recycling of oil.
  2. Is the Minister able to say whether the Le Roc Company of Victoria (a) has closed down and (b) was the major oil recycler in Victoria.
  3. What action is the Government taking to encourage oil recycling.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) There are a large number of firms in Australia engaged in recycling used lubricating oil. The oil industry itself, through a scheme set up by the environmental arm of the Australian Institute of Petroleum, is responsible for the recycling of waste oil in most of the capital cities in Australia by blending it into fuel oil.
  2. (a) I understand that the Le Roc Oil Company Pty Ltd is still in existence, marketing lubricating oils and collecting waste oil for disposal to oil companies, (b) During 1979 the oil industry recycled 2,745,963 litres of used lube oil in Victoria. I do not know how much of this Le Roc handled.
  3. The Government is actively encouraging oil recycling as an energy conservation measure. In this regard, I have written to the Chief Executives of all oil companies in Australia seeking their co-operation in recycling waste oil and indicating my belief that considerable scope for improvement exists in the collection and acceptable disposal of the available waste oil. I have also approved a National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council grant to fund a study to determine what is happening to the unaccounted-for waste oil in Australia and to determine the potential for its economic recovery. The matter has also been drawn to the attention of the State Ministers responsible for energy matters.

Bundaberg Irrigation Scheme: Employees (Question No. 6477)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 9 September 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report in the Bundaberg News-Mail of 23 August 1980, that the Queensland Water Resources Committee would give notice of retrenchment of one to two weeks to 10 employees from the Bundaberg Irrigation Scheme due to limitation of funds, with a possibility of more retrenchments from the 80-man workforce as a result of the State budget.
  2. Will the Minister specify, before the 1980 Federal and Queensland State Elections, (a) where the S25.6m uncommitted Federal water funds will be allocated and (b) why the 5-year Federal water funding program is not sufficiently up to schedule to preserve the experienced workforce.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) $22.9m of the $25.6m referred to in the Budget papers as uncommitted has now been allocated to the States for already approved projects as follows: New South Wales $5. 59m, Victoria $3.00m, Queensland $4. 54m, South Australia $5.73m, Western Australia $3. 84m and Tasmania $0.235m. In Queensland, $ 1.05m has been allocated for the State’s water resources assessment program, $2.50m for the Bundaberg Irrigation Project, $0.876m and SO. 120m for flood mitigation works on Kedron Brook in Brisbane and on the Proserpine River respectively.

    1. The objective of the National Water Resources Program is primarily to assist the States with the development of their water resources. In so doing, it has made a significant contribution to works programs and the continued employment of the workforce of the water authorities.

National Service Registration (Question No. 6486)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 September 1980:

  1. Has the Government commenced action for the reintroduction of national service registration, for example, the printing of registration forms.
  2. If so, is it anticipated that the age for registration will be from 18 to 22 years.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See(l).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 September 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800916_reps_31_hor119/>.