House of Representatives
17 September 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 1359

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Abortion

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

That the government will act to prohibit the use of all public monies for the killing of unborn children. That the said use of government monies is an unacceptable government endorsement of a great national tragedy - the deaths annually of at least 80,000 unborn children.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Bouchier, Mr Burns, Mr Calder, Mr Fisher, Mr Garland, Mr Howe, Mr Hyde, Mr Barry Jones, Mr Lloyd, Mr O’Keefe and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Preston Institute of Technology

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

Whereas a fully-accredited degree course in chiropractic has been established at Preston Institute of Technology, and

Whereas three hundred students who pay their own fees are in all five years of the program, and

Whereas students and the profession can no longer carry the financial burden amounting to over $1,000,000 per year, and

Whereas a debt of $240,000 is being incurred in 1980, and

Whereas if funding is not approved by August the course will close and student’s 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 Baume, Mr Cadman, Mr Carlton, Mr Dobie, Mr Malcom Fraser, Mr Kerin, Mr Macphee and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Hilton Hotel Bomb Disaster

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

That they want the victims of the Hilton bomb disaster to receive a fair and just compensation. They remind the Prime Minister and his Government that they found the sum of $ 190,000.00 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 Mr Clyde Cameron, Dr Cass, Mr Dobie, Mr Howe, Mr Hurford, Mr Morris, Mr Ruddock and Mr Uren.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly, Mr Howe, Mr Martyr and Mr Sinclair.

Petitions received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman, Mr Fife and Mr Lloyd.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove Life Insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of $2,500.

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

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

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

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 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 Hayden, Mr Morris and Mr West.

Petitions 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 off shore 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 ) Declare the whole Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975,
  2. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region (as defined by the 1975 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act),
  3. Retain full Federal Government control over the whole Great Barrier Reef Region,
  4. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Auth ority with staff and resources sufficient for effective management of the Region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr N. A. Brown and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Aboriginal Rights

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

That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the Federal Government has the power conferred on it by the 1967 Referendum to intervene on behalf of Aboriginal people in any conflict with any State or Territory Government.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Federal Government will assume its full responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs, and use the powers conferred on it by the people of Australia in the 1967 Referendum to intervene on behalf or Aboriginals in any conflict with any State or Territory Government;

That the Government respond to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional legal affairs on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders on Queensland reserves which sets our precisely the Commonwealth Constitutional and legal position under Section 51;

That in addition the Government fulfil its stated policy of self-determination and self-management for Aboriginal people, by funding all housing, health, education, legal, employment strategy and welfare matters concerning Aboriginal people directly through Aboriginal Community based Community controlled organisations.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Dr Everingham and Mr Howe.

Petitions received.

Tertiary Education

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 current maximum level of TEAS ($45. 1 5) is some $26.00 below the Henderson Poverty Line ($71.80), and that only 8 per cent of all post-secondary students are eligible for this amount.

That the reintroduction of tuition fees would add a significant financial burden to the already low finances of students and that categories of students currently underrepresented in tertiary education would be most disadvantaged by fees.

That the introduction of a comprehensive loans scheme would severely threaten the basis of TEAS and impose further financial hardship upon students.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. 1 ) That TEAS be immediately upgraded to cover all basic living costs of students.
  2. That fees be not reintroduced.
  3. That a comprehensive loans scheme be not introduced.

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

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 action 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 UNO 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 Fife.

Petition received.

Privacy Legislation

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

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

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should legislate to protect the private and confidential nature of medical records from scrutiny except on the express and informed consent of the patient or an order from a presiding judge.

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

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. 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.

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

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

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 Trans Australia Airlines for the provision of essential air services.

The Federal Liberal Party policy objective of selling Trans Australia 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. by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

Guaranteed Minimum Income Scheme

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled in the House of Representatives, Canberra the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that through thorough investigation there is an increasing number of people in Australia living in extreme poverty.

We believe that there is a need for a Guaranteed Minimum Income Scheme throughout Australia.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament will implement a Guaranteed Minimum Income Scheme as soon as possible.

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

Petition received.

Migrant 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 Dr Cass.

Petition received.

page 1362

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Right Honourable Reginald Prentice, P.C., M.P., Minister for Social Security in the Government of the United Kingdom. On behalf of the House I extend to Mr Prentice a very warm welcome.

Honourable members - Hear, hear!

page 1362

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Les McMahon proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The notice of motion is out of order.

page 1362

HOUSING

Notice of Motion

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

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

That this House condemns the disastrous policies of the Labor Party and commends the successful policies of the Fraser Government particularly in relation to welfare housing–

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. To remove any curiosity I may have or, even worse, any suspicions I might harbour, can you explain why the notice of motion of the honourable member for Sydney was ruled out of order for being critical of Government policy but the honourable member for Darling Downs can recall the period of the Labor Government and condemn its housing policy with impunity in his notice of motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Leader of the Opposition has failed to understand two things. The first is that the notice of motion of the honourable member for Sydney was ruled out of order for a different reason from that ascribed by him. Secondly, the notice of motion of the honourable member for Darling Downs relates not to the Labor Government of the past but to the Labor policy of the present. So far, the notice of motion is in proposition form. I will listen to it and see whether it is in order.

Mr McVEIGH:

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

That this House condemns the disastrous housing policies of the Labor Party and commends the successful policies of the Fraser Government particularly in relation to welfare housing and interest rates.

page 1363

YOUNG UNEMPLOYED

Notice of Motion

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

That this House rebukes the Minister for Special Trade Representations for his action in condemning the young unemployed as tax evaders.

page 1363

ANZUS TREATY

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That this House condemns the Australian Labor Party for its failure to give total and unqualified assurances as to Australia’s commitments under the ANZUS Treaty, its failure to guarantee unequivocally the long term tenure of United States bases in Australia, and its recent claim that the Australian Government’s actions in negotiations on the B52 issue are ‘irresponsible’.

page 1363

RAIL TRANSPORT

Notice of Motion

Mr UREN:
Reid

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

That this House -

Notes that railways use less than 2 per cent of oil consumed in Australia, whereas the motor car accounts for 35 per cent of oil consumption;

Condemns the Prime Minister’s proposal to proceed now with the electrification of the Sydney- Melbourne railway at a likely cost of$1 billion as a gross misallocation of resources;

Deplores the Government’s cutback of 44 per cent since 1974-75 in spending in urban public transport; and

Calls on the Government to drop the Prime Minister’s costly election proposal and instead proceed with a program of significantly upgrading public transport in Australia’s major cities.

page 1363

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Hodgman proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is out of order.

page 1363

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

That this House condemns the failure of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to commission work in his Department on the social consequences of youth unemployment.

page 1363

BEEF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS SCHEME

Notice of Motion

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

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

That the House expresses its dissatisfaction with the failure of the Minister for Primary Industry to answer questions placed on notice on 6 March pertaining to possible payments to the following Ministers: Messrs Fraser, Street, Anthony, Adermann, Hunt and Nixon- under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme.

page 1363

YASSER ARAFAT

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That this House calls upon the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition to make a full statement in the Parliament as to why he recently met with the infamous Yasser Arafat, and what was discussed at that meeting.

page 1363

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Holding proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The notice of motion is out of order.

Mr Holding:

– On what basis, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman should consult the Standing Orders and form his own conclusions.

Mr Holding:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Holding:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have already ruled on the point of order.

Mr Holding:

– Mr Speaker, you have not heard my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have heard the point of order.

Mr Holding:

– You have not heard my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 1364

PENSIONS: MEANS TEST

Notice of Motion

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

That this House condemns the Government for maintaining that its policy is abolition of the means test, while in practice it imposes a means test on pension increases for persons over 70 years of age.

page 1364

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ruled the notice of motion of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports out of order. I failed so to rule in relation to the notice of motion of the honourable member for Denison. I should have done so. I regret that I did not do so. The error has been brought to my attention. I will ask the Clerk to remove that notice of motion from the Notice Paper.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Speaker, as you have ruled in that way about the previous notice of motion may I now put my notice in terms which you will accept?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will call for further notices.

Mr Holding proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The notice of motion is out of order.

page 1364

HEALTH SCHEME

Notice of Motion

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

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

That this House condemns the Government for its failure to provide a universal, fair and equitable health scheme for all Australians.

page 1364

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Neil proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The notice of motion is out of order.

page 1364

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY POLICIES

Notice of Motion

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

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

That this House congratulates the Australian Labor Party for its announced policies and its honest costing of those policies and, in particular, wishes 35 members of this House more success in the future than they have enjoyed in this place, namely, the honourable members of St George, Denison, Holt, Lilley, Franklin, La Trobe, Brisbane, Perth, Macarthur, Bendigo, Isaacs, Canberra, Kalgoorlie, Swan, Phillip, Kingston, Henty, Sturt, Ballarat, Deakin, Fadden, Wilmot, EdenMonaro, Bowman, Calare, Herbert, Macquarie, Wide Bay, Hotham, the Northern Territory, Barton, Dawson and McMillan, the right honourable member for Lowe and the Ministers for Employment and Youth Affairs, Housing and Construction and Science and the Environment.

page 1364

AGED PERSONS ACCOMMODATION

Notice of Motion

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

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

That this House condemns the manner in which the Government maintains it has established a three-year, $225m program for aged persons accommodation when its record establishes that it has cut spending by half since the program was announced.

page 1364

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1364

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I remind the Prime Minister of his remarks at the weekend denying that his Government was considering the reintroduction of conscription. In view of the Prime Minister’s denials, what can he tell the House of a confidential military study which was undertaken within the Department of Defence and completed early last year, which is code named Project Manhaul and which concerns new procedures for the introduction of conscription?

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

– I will say something on this question and I will ask the Minister for Defence to add to what I say. I will repeat the position quite plainly and clearly so that all honourable members will know what the answer is and so that, if people want to repeat what is totally untrue, they do so in the plain knowledge that it is totally untrue, having heard this spoken in this Parliament. I do this because the goldenhaired boy from New South Wales, Mr Wran, has repeated the falsehood. I suggest that he has repeated it knowing it to be totally false. The matter is not under consideration; it has not been considered; I do not foresee the circumstances in which it would be considered.

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

– I was asked a question on this issue last week by my friend the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. I thought that on that occasion I answered him clearly, in the terms announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister: There is no proposal for the reintroduction, or the introduction, of conscription.

Mr Holding:

– And it has not been considered?

Mr KILLEN:

– I only hope my honourable friend will contain himself so that I may address what I would have thought the majority of people would regard as a very serious issue. The honourable gentleman, to my dismay, in a personal explanation said that I had misrepresented him. As my friend will recall, I had referred to a newspaper known as the Labor Star. It is perfectly true that a member of my staff contacted the honourable gentleman’s office to find out what the Labor Star was. I tell him in all candour that I would never have thought that such nonsense could have been put out in the name of the Australian Labor Party. The honourable gentleman said:

Knowing of the Minister’s interest in this matter and being a member of the Administrative Committee of the Victorian Branch of the Labor Party, I had the author of that article questioned by my office.

I do not know who or what questioned the author of the article. I am left to conclude it must have been the filing cabinet, because the honourable gentleman continued:

The author stood by both the veracity of his article and its contents and he confirmed the source.

I turn to this article because it is pertinent. I cited the fact that this article was in existence. Its author stated:

Already the Puckapunyal Army Base is being refurbished at an undisclosed cost- we are talking in millions- to cater for the many thousands of recruits the present advertising campaign is supposed to raise but won’t for our Reserve Force.

The author of the article is a little warm with his use of the word ‘cater’. The only alterations being made at Puckapunyal today are to air condition the catering corps premises. If the honourable gentleman is in some doubt about that, I invite him to go there with the distinguished member for Bendigo, who represents the seat, to see what is going on. But, as the Prime Minister has said, even the Premier of New South Wales has joined in this issue as some sort of flute obbligato. I say to the Premier of New South Wales with whom I have enjoyed friendship over a long period of years: This is nonsense’. I say to the House and to the country clearly and, I trust, without ambiguity, that the people who peddle this nonsense can only be described as a positive threat to intellectual hygiene.

page 1365

QUESTION

MANPOWER PROGRAMS

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs whether he can inform the House how the Government’s manpower programs are costed and verified.

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

– I can inform the honourable gentleman that the Government’s manpower programs are costed by my department, the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. As in any budgetary process they are verified by the Department of Finance. I adopted precisely that approach when I sought to cost the Labor Party’s job creation proposals for this election campaign. They were costed within my Department by officers about whom, as I have informed this House before, I have no doubt as to their competence or integrity. Those figures, I inform the honourable member for Forrest, were verified by the Department of Finance which, of course, verifies all the costings of any budgetary proposal.

As I pointed out to the House before, the Labor Party’s election proposals must be costed as if they were budgetary proposals. It was on that basis that my Department advised me that the cost of the Labor Party’s job opportunities or job creation proposals was $ 1,000m at least. That figure has been verified by the Department of Finance. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition waved in his hand a document which he alleged came from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my Press statement yesterday. If it happens that the document he has is one in which the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet referred to some costings of the Opposition’s proposals, the honourable gentleman will see that the figure of $592m which he referred to is the amount of $330m - the actual cost by the Opposition - to which is added, at least as there must be added to it, the cost of materials and equipment. If we are to create jobs then we must have something to work with. I would have thought that the Opposition would know that people who work’ have to work with something. That is what the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet did.

Mr Hayden:

– Don’t you realise that there is a lot of materials available?

Mr VINER:

– Your failed to include in your costings anything for equipment and materials.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will direct his answer through the Chair and not use the term ‘you’. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to remain silent throughout the answer.

Mr VINER:

– As I pointed out to the House before, already we have had two figures quoted by the Opposition as the cost of its job creation proposals. Firstly, there was a figure of $180m and secondly, a figure of $330m. The language of campaigning from the Opposition now comes out that its proposal is to create 100,000 jobs. Let me remind the House of a document that was published on 11 August 1977. It was issued - I am sure honourable members will be interested in this - by Gough Whitlam, Leader of the Australian Labor Party at the time, and Bill Hayden, spokesman on economic management. That is Bill Hayden, the Leader of the Opposition. This was the cost of the Labor Party’s proposal for the 1 977 election - and I quote:

The plan is to place more than 50,000 in work in a full year. The gross outlay is $800m in a full year. Savings on unemployment benefits combined with additional revenue from income tax receipts will total at least $250m. The net cost over a year will be no more than S550m.

I repeat that the amount is $550m. If in 1977 the Leader of the Opposition could propose to create 50,000 jobs at a net cost of $550m, by what sleight of hand, let alone mental agility, does he today try to tell the people of Australia that he will create 100,000 jobs for either $180m or $330m. I leave honourable members and the people of Australia to make their own judgment after they have read the proposals of the Labor Party for 1980. The Opposition has said that what it will do is to create firstly, by the community service corps, 50,000 jobs at $200m plus 20,000 jobs at a cost of SI 10m.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr VINER:

– Whom are we to believe? Are we to believe what Gough Whitlam said in 1977 or the Leader of the Opposition in 1980, who in 1977 was the spokesman on economic management? I think I know what the people of Australia will say. Very simply, that is that they cannot believe the Leader of the Opposition.

page 1366

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Defence follows on the question asked by the honourable member for Corio. Is it a fact that a study exists known as Project Manhaul which is a military study carried out on the planning and logistics of expanding the Australian Army and the Australian Reserves by 75,000 in 1 8 months? Was this expansion of 75,000 considered to be stage 1 ? Did stage 2 of the program envisage the expansion of the Army to a quarter of a million by ‘selective enlistment by ballot’ or, as it is more commonly known, conscription? Was this conscription to be carried out under legislation to parallel the National Service Act of the 1950s with the important exception that selective enlistment was to be for continuous full time military service for such periods as directed by the Government?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The Government has no consideration under examination whatsoever relating to conscription. The honourable gentleman has used a code name. I am not aware of it. I have never heard of it.

Mr Hayden:

– It will be like North West Cape, will it?

Mr KILLEN:

– I speak, I trust, after a quarter of a century in this place, with utter frankness. I have never heard of the code name. Every month of the year I attend meetings of the Council of Defence, attended by every Chief of Staff. I will undertake to find out within the next ten minutes whether such a code name exists and I will reply to the honourable gentleman. I only hope my staff heard what I had to say.

page 1366

QUESTION

SOUTH KOREA

Mr HODGMAN:

– Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs give the House any information as to the proceedings in the treason trial in South Korea of Kim Dae Jung and Australia’s reaction to the said trail?

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

– A decision has been reached in that trial. The Government utterly deplores the imposition today of the death sentence on the Korean Opposition Leader, Mr Kim Dae Jung, following a trial in which political considerations appear, regrettably, to have played a prominent role. It will be recalled that, following civil unrest in May this year, Kim Dae Jung was arrested and charged with sedition and violation of laws relating to national security and foreign exchange control as well as violation of martial law decrees. To the best of my knowledge and recall, 23 others were arrested on that occasion or were arrested on associated charges and were tried with Kim. The

Australian Embassy in Seoul has been monitoring and observing the trial. The Government’s concern about the trial was made clear by Senator Carrick in the Senate on two occasions, last month and this month. The Government’s concern has been made clear to the Government of the Republic of Korea since June. I know, through letters written to me on the subject, that this concern is shared by many Australians.

In reiterating the Government’s strong concern about the fate of Kim Dae Jung and his codefendants, I note that there is provision under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea for the President to alter Mr Kim Dae Jung’s sentence. There are provisions also for judicial review. We certainly hope that the decision of the court will be changed. Our relationship with the Republic of Korea has grown rapidly in recent years. Our relations have continued to be based on a warmth of personal contact which began 30 years ago when Australians went to the defence of the Republic of Korea as a free and independent society. It is our earnest wish that this basis of warmth should continue. It could be eroded if the death sentence were carried out.

page 1367

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister which is supplementary to those questions already asked by the honourable member for Corio and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I ask the Prime Minister if the military study within the Department of Defence known as Project Manhaul–

Mr Dean:

– Didn’t you hear what he said?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– But he is on a track. He can’t get off it.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The Prime Minister is talking into the microphone. He should turn it on and let the people hear what he has to say.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will proceed with his question.

Mr Sinclair:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition is in concurrence with the view that both microphones should be live constantly so that the inanities of the Leader of the Opposition can be heard. Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you might accede to this request and instruct the officers operating the broadcasting system to permit both microphones to be live for the purpose of recording constantly for the people of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, I will not give such a direction. If I give such a direction other honourable members might require their microphones to be left open and we will finish up with bedlam in the place. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, you could always call on the Minister to act as umpire because of his reputation for fair dealing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will start again. I have a question for the Prime Minister which is supplementary to those questions asked earlier. I ask the Prime Minister whether the military study within the Department of Defence known as Project Manhaul was carried out on the basis that those eligible for conscription into the Army would be men aged 18 to 34 and single women without children in the same age bracket. Did Project Manhaul envisage that the administrative process of conscription would be handled throughout the country by officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service, with an appeal system similar to the draft board process in the United States of America? Will the Prime Minister now table in this Parliament the final report of Project Manhaul? Will he say to what purpose this report has been put? If he claims it is to serve no purpose, will he say why such an extensive and expensive exercise, producing such a comprehensive report on such a politically contentious matter, was undertaken?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– It distresses me to find that my honourable friend seems to be under desperate pressure. I have already indicated to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I would seek that information. I trust that within the course of the next few minutes I will have it. I do not hide anything from the honourable gentleman. I have never heard of the study. If it is in existence–

Mr Young:

– They are carried out without your knowing?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent.

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide is the only person I know who has been reduced from boss of the board to tar boy. I have some good news for him; they will bring him in as the fourth for cooncan. I have told the honourable gentleman that I will get that information. I will provide it. But I will give two cogent arguments against the reintroduction of conscription in this country. It would cost $2,400m. Is the Labor Party prepared to vote for that? It would call also for the breakup of six battalions–

Mr Hurford:

– How do you know?

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member asks how I know. Unlike the honourable gentleman I have the cerebral curiosity to inquire.

page 1368

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE: PENSIONS

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Under the policies of this Government have pensions reached higher levels when compared with average weekly earnings over the past 25 years? What percentage of average weekly earnings do pensions currently represent? How does this compare with proposals presented by the Australian Labor Party?

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

– I think that will be the last question that the honourable member for Lyne will ask in this House. I think the honourable member is the father of the House. I, along with honourable members from both sides of the House, would like to convey to the honourable member all the best in his retirement.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr- HUNT- I would like to thank him very much for the help he gave me when I became a member of this place. I wish him all the best. I know that the honourable member has had a great interest in social welfare issues.

It is true that age pensions have reached the highest level in relation to average weekly earnings for the past 25 years. The single standard rate of pension is now 23.6 per cent of average weekly earnings. It so happens that I have compared the Government’s present policy with the Labor Party’s social welfare promises. Firstly, I refer to Mr Hayden ‘s promise. On the AM program of 26 August he had this to say:

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

The cost of this promise alone is an additional $500m at today’s costs. The Leader of the Opposition is now endeavouring to wriggle out of his policy announcement by saying, as reported on page 1 296 of Hansard:

There is no statement that we will do it in the first Budget or as soon as we gain office.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:

We will do it as we can and as quickly as we can . . .

Now he wants to project the responsible image. The Leader of the Opposition can have it his way. If he were to lift pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings the cost would be no less than $500m at 1980 prices. Of course, should Labor get into office the pensioners would probably have to wait to see whether the promise would in fact be honoured.

Another area in which the Leader of the Opposition apparently is prepared to be costed is the family income supplement scheme. The cost of this scheme is an additional $250m. Those two items alone account for $750m. We can add to that the mother’s-guardian’s allowance, which is a further $26m. So the total additional expenditure in the social welfare area under Labor’s promises is $776m.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr HUNT:

– Mr Speaker, in concluding my answer’ to the question asked by the honourable member for Lyne in respect of comparisons, under the incredible scheme that has been advanced - the family income supplement scheme - a family on average weekly earnings would be lucky to get $1 a child a week. The larger the family the less likely it would be to benefit.

page 1368

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE: COMPUTERS

Mr UREN:

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. By way of preface I point out that the question concerns a statement attributed to a computer systems officer in the Public Service Board in June 1980 that it was his opinion that the total Australian Public Service should be standardised on systems network architecture’, or SNA which is exclusive to the IBM organisation. Is a fact that SNA is incompatible with international standard X25, which Telecom Australia has stated will be used for the public data network? Is the Government through the Public Service Board, which interfered with the recommendation for purchase of the computer system for the Department of Housing and Construction, seeking to bypass the public data network and eventually to link Public Service computer communications with a Packer owned satellite system in which IBM has recently taken a commercial interest?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

– The honourable member for Reid has referred to a technical report. I am not aware of the details of that report. The fact is that the Government is now in the process of purchasing a computer for the use of the Department of Housing and Construction. Two interdepartmental committees have been looking at it.

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am asking the Prime Minister about a statement made in June 1980 by a Public Service Board officer. The Public Service Board is under the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister and he will take responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat.

Mr Uren:

– I want to know about that statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member has asked his question and that he is entitled to do with the call. He does not have an entitlement to decide how the question will be answered. My responsibility is to make sure it is relevant, but I cannot-call upon the question to be answered as the honourable gentleman would want.

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, the point I am making as a point of order relates to the relevance of the reply. The question was directed to the Prime Minister and it related to an officer under his administration, not under the administration of the Minister for Housing and Construction.

Mr SPEAKER:

– So far the Minister has been relevant. I call the Minister for Housing and Construction.

Mr GROOM:

– As I was saying, the Government is in the process of purchasing a computer for the use of the Department of Housing and Construction. The matter is being handled with great care. Two interdepartmental committees, involving all of the relevant departments, are involved in assessing the relevant tenders.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The reply that the Minister is giving is not relevant. I want to know the whole basis. The fact is that we are changing to a systems network architecture which is incompatible with the international standard X25. It is a statement made by–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I have listened to him make a point of order. He has made his question clear. The Minister is entitled to answer it and he ought to be allowed to answer it without interruption.

Mr GROOM:

-The honourable member refers to particular comments which he alleges have been made. I do not know the details of that matter. I will have those particular comments checked out to see whether he is accurate. I make the point, since the honourable member is concerned about this issue, that the matter is being handled with absolute care by the Government. We have apointed two interdepartmental committees to examine the issue in great detail and those committees have prepared a report. The honourable member for Reid must not jump the gun. The fact is that those reports will be before the Government at the appropriate time, together with a report–

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear the honourable member for Reid on a point of order but I warn him that if he continues with points of order I will have no alternative but to discipline him.

Mr Uren:

– My question is in relation to a statement made by a computer systems officer in the Public Service Board and it is in relation to–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I heard the question.

Mr Uren:

– With due respect, Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Reid to resume his seat.

Mr GROOM:

– As I was saying, these two interdepartmental committees have looked at this matter. As well as that Professor Brookes of the University of New South Wales has been appointed as an independent assessor to examine the matter. The Government therefore has the best possible advice before it and the honourable member for Reid must be patient in this matter. In due course the Government will make a decision. No doubt it will be the right decision based on the expert evidence that is available to it. The assessment - perhaps this is the point that the honourable member wants to hear - of these tenders has been going on for many months now. No doubt comments have been made by a whole range of individuals involved, such as tenderers and public servants. It is inappropriate for me to comment on the points he has made. As I have said, he must be patient and in due course the Government will make a decision.

page 1369

QUESTION

MEDICAL TREATMENT POLICY

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Can he advise the House of the full cost of providing free medical treatment to expectant mothers and children?

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

– Honourable members will recall that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition questioned the basis of the Government’s costing of the Australian Labor Party’s alternative health scheme, commonly known as kiddybank. Let me point out again that kiddybank applies to children under 16 years of age, to dependants over 16 and to expectant mothers. The Labor Party costed that scheme at $130m. Of course what it did not add to that cost - it is quite surprising that Labor did not add it because it is talking about truth and honesty in government is the additional costs which would accrue due to the dropout from the health insurance funds which would result from the implementation of the Labor Party’s policy.

If we look at that situation, we can determine the number of people affected by the Labor Party’s plan. The total number of people covered by hospital insurance at present is about 8.7 million. If we assume that 6 per cent of children under 16 years of age are presently insured, that would give us 2.4 million people. If we take student dependants, the figure is 400,000. If we take females in the 20 to 35 age group and assume that 80 per cent are married and 60 per cent are insured, another 800,000 will be added. That is a total of 3.6 million people, without the males, covered or affected by the Labor Party’s kiddy bank proposals. Now, that represents about 40 per cent of presently insured people. It is quite obvious that with the massive incentive for people covered by this plan to drop their health insurance, it is a conservative estimate to say that 1 5 per cent of them would drop their health insurance.

Dr Blewett:

– Total fantasy.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– The honourable member says: ‘Total fantasy’. I have given honourable members the figures which were arrived at not by me but by the Department of Health and not any other department. These figures were checked by the Department of Finance. If they are correct - as 1 say, they were decided upon by the Department of Health, which is the responsible department in this area and checked by the Department of Finance and are correct - that represents an extra $250m, in addition to the $130m mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. That is only part of the deal, because in August this year the Leader of the Opposition stated that Labor will get back to full Medibank within three years. How much would that cost? In November last year, the Leader of the Opposition said that it would cost an extra $600m My Department says that it would cost over $900m on today’s prices. Who is going to pay for that? The extra $900m will be paid for by the taxpayers of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question was not about Medibank; it was a question on medical treatment for women and children. The honourable gentleman has already answered the question.

Mr MacKELLAR:

- Mr Speaker, I make the final point that the costs provided by the Minister for Finance were provided to him by my Department, the operative department, based on a 1 5 per cent dropout from the present number of people insured with registered health insurance funds; and that is a conservative estimate.

page 1370

QUESTION

MEDICAL TREATMENT POLICY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister a question which is supplementary to the one that he has just answered. I refer to a document of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet listing costing of the Australian Labor Party’s various programs. Is the Minister aware that the departmental costing shows a net cost of $1 80m and not the $380m that he is quoting? I ask also whether there is a footnote (b) which reads:

Secondary effects estimated by the Department of Health at $250 million include an insurance drop out rate of 15 per cent with the full cost of these persons’ medical services being met by the Commonwealth. Current expenditure would suggest a lower drop out rate of 5 per cent.

Also existing hospital operating arrangements include subsidies to the uninsured through cost sharing arrangements (since patient charges do not fully recover costs) and through the $16 subsidy to private hospitals. Taking both these factors into account, the cost of secondary effects reduces to roughly $50 million.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman should be seeking information, not giving it.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister: In the light of that, does he now recognise that he is vastly overstating the cost of our proposed program by some $200m above the figure which the Department of Health says is more realistic and might I say the more honest?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

- Mr Speaker–

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I ask the honourable members for Canberra and Cook to remain silent and I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to engage in exchanges of views across the table. I call the Minister for Health.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– The Leader of the Opposition is obviously a very slow learner. That is probably why he needs to have two props around all the time. I will go through the arguments again for him. The Department of Health supplied the figures which the Leader of the Opposition has just read out. In fact, he has endorsed the figures supplied by the Department of Health. I refer honourable members to footnote B on the document which the honourable gentleman has acquired in some way. He must be very proud of his capacity to accept stolen documents! The fact of the matter is that the operative department has costed a 1 5 per cent drop out rate.

Mr Hayden:

– Five per cent is realistic.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– It is a 1 5 per cent drop out rate, costed by the operative department and endorsed and verified by the Department of Finance.

Mr Hayden:

– You told them to cost IS per cent, and they didn’t like doing it.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The facts are that the Minister instructed the Department to use 15 per cent and the Department resented that because it is unreliable.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman is not taking a point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– It pointed out that 5 per cent is responsible.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yesterday I had to ask the Leader of the Opposition to remember that this is the national parliament and that there are Standing Orders to be observed. I again ask him to do so.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I point out again that the total number of people affected by the Australian Labor Party plan would be about 3.6 million, which is about 40 per cent of the insured population of Australia today. There is a strong incentive for those people affected by that Labor Party plan to drop their health insurance. If only a third of them did that, which is a very realistic estimate, that would be about the 1 5 per cent - in fact, it is 14 per cent - which the Department of Health had costed. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, those figures supplied by the Department of Health are accurate.

page 1371

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Treasurer provide to the Parliament any information which would compare the Australian economy with those of other developed nations? Is Australia’s situation improving or declining compared with those of other nations? I ask these questions because this information would be an important indicator to all Australians of their future living standards.

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

– As it happens, some information has recently come to light which compares the inflation rates of countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The most recent comparison of inflation rates is the OECD area demonstrates that this country’s inflation rate is still slightly more than 2 per cent below the average of the industrialised world. That is a very major improvement on the situation of a few years ago when our inflation rate was about 5 per cent worse than the average of the industrialised world. I think comparative inflation rates will be a very important element of the debate that will take place in this country in the coming weeks because it is abundantly clear at the moment that, of the three alternatives available to pay for the additional spending that a Hayden Labor government would introduce, the Leader of the Opposition’ preference is for a higher rate of inflation. As honourable members on this side of the House know, if a government spends more money there are only three alternatives: It can increase taxation - he says he believes in lower taxation; it can borrow more money, which means higher interest rates - he says he believes in lower interest rates; or it can turn the handle a bit faster and print some more money. AM appears to be a problem program for the Leader of the Opposition. On that program the other morning he said that he would indulge in a modest expansion of the money supply. We all know what a modest expansion of the money supply, seasonally adjusted for the Australian Labor Party, represents in terms of the inflation rate in this country. I repeat that this country is doing better than the average for the industrialised world in the inflation stakes.

In recent months - indeed, in recent weeks - the honourable member for Gellibrand has said a lot about growth. He has said that the Government is very willing to talk comparative statistics inside the OECD area insofar as inflation is concerned but does not wish to do so insofar as growth is concerned. The latest estimates from the OECD indicate that growth in the OECD area generally in 1980-81 will be almost zero. By contrast, our anticipation of growth in this country is in the order of 31 per cent or more. I say to the Opposition that we certainly are not reluctant to talk about growth prospects in this country, underpinned as they undoubtedly will be after 1 8 October by the anti-inflationary policies of this Government. Not only on the score of inflation but also on the score of growth, this country stands up extremely well in any OECD comparison.

page 1371

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER PURCHASES

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I direct my question to the Minister for Administrative Services, whose responsibilities include all administrative aspects of tendering for government computer purchases. Firstly, I ask him whether it is a fact that the basic policy on purchasing on Commonwealth account by the Department of Administrative Services states:

The procurement process shall aim at obtaining the best values for the money spent- accordingly the lowest suitable tender should be accepted.

Secondly, what did his Department do to ensure that the recommendation for the purchase of the computer system for the Department of Housing and Construction complied with this policy? Thirdly, was Professor Cyril Brookes appointed to advise on the purchase of the computer system for the Department of Housing and Construction? Was this an attempt to overcome the embarrassment of the Department of Administrative Services that the policy of recommending the ‘least cost technically feasible tender’ was not adhered to by the Department of Housing and Construction? Finally, is it a fact that in the course of a review of the tenders conducted by Professor Brookes at the University of New South Wales in June this year a senior member of the Department of Administrative Services stated that Professor Brookes is ‘our shield and buckle’?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– As my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction has said at least twice today and, I think, once yesterday, this matter is still under examination by the Government and a final decision has not yet been made. I cannot add to that, except to say that Professor Brookes is the independent assessor. We have engaged him on a previous occasion. He provided excellent professional advice on that occasion. I do not know whether someone in my Department said what the honourable member for Lalor alleged was said. I would not have any idea about that, but I would think not. Finally, the procurement processes do state that we will accept the lowest suitable tender. I underline the word suitable’.

page 1372

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF FOR WHEAT GROWERS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the continuing severe drought conditions being experienced in parts of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland? Is this causing deep concern to wheat growers in these areas? Has any consideration been given to providing assistance through discounted payments to growers in drought affected areas?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– Towards the end of August I visited Goondiwindi and Tallwood, which is about 60 miles west of Goondiwindi, to look at the drought at first hand. At a meeting at Tallwood that night the possibility of providing a discounted wheat payment to growers was raised with me. It was raised again the next day when I officially opened the Queensland Graingrowers Association meeting at Toowoomba, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Darling Downs. I put the question to study immediately I got back. Of course, the Wheat Board is responsible for payments to the growers. At the moment it is looking at the prospect of a discounted payment to growers in areas suffering as a result of the drought. I should point out that the drought is more extensive than some people realise and that the hardship being created as a result of that drought is very extensive. The Wheat Board is looking at this matter with some sympathy, to see what can be done.

Honourable members will realise, of course, that some cost would be involved if a discounted payment were made to growers in circumstances which are different from those in which payments are normally made and that, therfore, other growers would be paying that cost. Those are the matters under consideration by the Wheat Board. I hope to be in a position to say something about that in due course. As yet no decision has been made on it. I can inform the House that the Board is currently contemplating making a $10 a tonne payment for the 1977-78 pool and a $14 a tonne payment, less handling and storage charges, for the 1978-79 pool over the October-November period. As I said, 1 will make available information about further discount payments when it comes to hand.

page 1372

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to add to an answer?

Mr KILLEN:

– I undertook during Question Time–

Mr Hayden:

– Will the Opposition have a chance to respond to any statement made by the Minister?

Mr KILLEN:

– I am not making a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I should point out that it has been my practice to allow a Minister, when he has indicated that he will call for more information, to add to that answer at the end of Question Time without its becoming a statement. It is done by indulgence. I have followed that practice.

Mr Hayden:

– I merely point out that it is a contentious matter and that it is a very one-sided arrangement–

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not regard it as such.

Mr Hayden:

– In the circumstances, if the answer is unsatisfactory or if the Prime Minister seeks to get himself off the hook.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Defence.

Mr KILLEN:

– I hold myself available for any further interrogation by the honourable gentleman. I have consulted with all the Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary to the Department of Defence, the Chief of Army Personnel, the head of the Manpower Policy and Requirements Branch and the head of the Programs and Budgets Division. None of them has heard of Project Manhaul.

Mr Yates:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact that Question Time in this House is supposed to last for one hour. Mr Speaker, you will appreciate that today a large number of notices of motion were given and that, therefore, the time for giving those notices of motion went into the time allotted to Question Time. Mr Speaker, would you agree that you could consult with the Leader of the House to see that Question Time lasts for the correct time for the benefit of all honourable members?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. However, on a point of elucidation, it has been the practice of the House throughout the period that I have been a member to have questions without notice for 45 minutes, not for one hour.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is this a point of order?

Mr Hayden:

– I merely want to make the observation that such a report does exist. 1 can assure the Minister of that, and he will hear more about it.

page 1373

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) ACT

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 and in accordance with the Federal Government’s federalism policy for direct personal income tax assistance to local government, I present the recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual councils by the States Grants Commissions for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Honourable members have already been advised of the allocations within their own States. Payments to the States in respect of these recommendations have been made earlier this month by the Treasury.

page 1373

BURDEKIN PROJECT ECOLOGICAL STUDY REPORT

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Special Trade Representations · New England · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present an assessment by the Commonwealth-State Executive Committee of the Burdekin Project Ecological Study Report. Copies of the more detailed study report are available for perusal by interested members at the Table Office and the Parliamentary Library.

page 1373

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Special Trade Representations · New England · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present a statement relating to the Government’s consideration of the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on the Commonwealth Government and the Urban Environment, together with a schedule of Government responses to the recommendations of the report.

page 1373

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962, I present the interim annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Honey Board.

page 1373

PIG MEAT PROMOTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975, 1 present the fifth annual report of the Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee for the year ended 30 June 1980.

page 1373

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

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

page 1373

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, 1 present the tenth annual report 1980 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation.

page 1373

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report for 1980 of the Department of Finance.

page 1373

COMMISIONER FOR EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the interim report for 1979-80 of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation.

page 1374

ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to section 12DD of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 I present a review by the Academic Salaries Tribunal of salaries for part-time academic staff. Funds will be provided as necessary to enable the payment of salaries at the rates set out in the determination and report.

page 1374

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

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 the Department of Administrative Services.

page 1374

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (NUCLEAR CODES) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 I present the code of practice on radiation protection in the mining and milling of radioactive ores 1980.

page 1374

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KERIN:

– I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr KERIN:

– On page 1334 of yesterday’s Hansard the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) said:

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 197S the Hayden Budget did not allocate one dollar for the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty.

I refer honourable members to page 143 of House of Representatives Hansard of 19 August 1975 where, in respect of Appropriation Bill (No. 1), it was stated:

The Nitrogenous Fertiliser Subsidy was introduced in 1966 and is payable in nitrogen contained in natural sodium nitrate and in manufactured nitrogenous substances produced in Australia and sold for use in Australia as a fertiliser. The Act under which the subsidy was paid was due to expire on 31 December 1974, but was extended to 31 December 1973 pending a report on the subsidy by the Industries Assistance Commission. It is estimated that $6.5m will be paid between 1 July 1975 and 31 December 1975.

The statement made by the honourable member for Darling Downs is misleading and an untruth.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr LLOYD:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr LLOYD:

– It has been drawn to my attention that the Australian Labor Party’s shadow Minister for agriculture has included in the Labor Party’s rural policy a completely inaccurate statement in reference to my views on plant variety rights. It has also been drawn to my attention that he is putting out Press releases to that effect in a number of newspapers. He has claimed that I was quoted in the Griffith Area News of 7 August as saying that once plant variety rights were introduced into Australia, specially bred wheat from the United States would become available, wheat would be included in plant variety control and this was contrary to the views of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie) and others.

The shadow Minister, as usual, is wrong. I have never said that wheat would be included in plant variety rights legislation. That is a decision for the Australian Agricultural Council which has said that at least in the beginning - I think for all time - wheat would not be included. To add to that, I have never made such a statement. Senator Walsh based his allegation on an incorrect and confused statement that was put out by a representative of the Australian Democrats. He used that as the whole basis of that section of his policy and of his articles. All I can say is that I believe the rest of the Labor Party’s rural policy is of the same standard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now arguing the issue.

page 1374

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Report

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, together with minutes of proceedings:

Report relating to proposed works within the Parliamentary zone.

Order that the report be printed.

page 1375

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I present a report, together with the transcript of evidence and extracts from the minutes of proceedings, from the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into energy in the Australian Capital Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr FRY:

– by leave - The report I have just tabled indicates that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has been unable to complete its inquiry into energy use, distribution and conservation in the Australian Capital Territory and recommends that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory be reappointed in the next Parliament and that this matter be referred again to the Committee. As indicated in the report, the Committee has already held five public hearings on this inquiry and has received over 60 submissions.

Even though the Committee has not been able to complete its inquiry, it is worth noting that there have been a number of relevant developments. One notable matter was the announcement by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) on 10 April 1980 of the establishment of a fuels advisory committee. The inquiry has also indicated the need for energy conservation. I regret that it was not possible for the Committee to hold further public hearings; but, as I said yesterday when presenting the report on the 72nd series of variations to the plan of Canberra, the Committee has been very involved during recent times in inquiries into changes to the city plan and has already this session presented three reports on such variations.

page 1375

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY

Report

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety I present the report of the Committee on progress in its program of inquiries.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr KATTER:

– by leave- The report that I have just tabled presents a brief summary of the work undertaken by the Committee and its predecessors since the first select committee on road safety was appointed by the House in 1972. The Committee has made substantial progress in its program of inquiries, having presented seven comprehensive reports. However, more remains to be done to bring further improvements in this vitally important field of road safety.

The report recommends that a standing committee on road safety be re-appointed in the next Parliament - and makes suggestions as to what investigations a re-appointed committee might undertake. I would like to thank the members of the Committee. Each of us realises that this Committee, probably of all committees, deals with the great tragedy of the constant killings that occur on the roads. One of my great regrets, shared by members of my Committee is that the governments in many States will not take seriously the urgent necessity of introducing random breathalyser testing. I repeat, because it is tremendously important, that in Victoria over a given period this year there have been 100 fewer deaths on the road. This is due to a very great degree, I am sure, to random breathalyser testing. If a government is not going to introduce that testing I think it should come clean and say why it is not introducing it and why it would ignore what is happening in Victoria and elsewhere in the world. We conducted an inquiry that took the best part of two years, and one fact that did emerge was that there was absolutely incontrovertible evidence that the introduction of random breathalyser testing did reduce the number of deaths on the road. If it causes the saving of one life, then I say there is a very severe obligation on the State governments which find fit to talk about their sovereign rights and to throw our evidence to the wind, to introduce random breathalyser testing.

I conclude my remarks by again thanking the staff of our Committee, that is, the secretary, Mrs Ballard and Robyn Mack, the little typist whom we do not see much of but who does a lot of hard work behind the scene. I thank them exceedingly. I am very pleased to see the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) entering the chamber. I again say that I most sincerely hope that this Committee which has such a vital responsibility will continue its work in the new Parliament.

page 1375

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Reports

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

– I present the 182nd and 183rd reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– by leave- These reports are most significant. The first report, the 182nd, reports our findings on chemists’ remuneration under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme while the second report, the 1 83rd, details the follow-up action taken on the Committee’s recommendations and conclusions from our investigations of major aspects of computer acquisition and the Public Service Board’s Mandata project. The response to the Committee in the form of a Department of Finance minute was prepared by an interdepartmental committee specially created for the purpose and received by the Committee only last Thursday, 1 1 September. We are concerned that it took the Public Service Board nearly two years to respond to one report, that is, on the acquisition of computer systems, and almost a year for the other on Mandata. These reports were tabled in November 1978 and October 1979 respectively.

Because of the importance of the reports and the interest shown by the computer industry in the outcome of our investigations, the Committee decided to table the Department of Finance minute immediately and to report its detailed examination of the minute at a later date when its next report on automatic data processing - coordination and control in the Commonwealth public sector is tabled.

I refer now to the pharmacy excess payments report. In accordance with its terms of reference the Public Accounts Committee has investigated not only the circumstances of the excess payments which the Parliament referred to the Committee, but also the general administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by the Department of Health and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs respectively.

The last 20 years has been a period characterised by Commonwealth Government involvement in the retail pharmacy industry and in the remuneration of chemists through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Following its investigations the Committee has reached three general conclusions and has made, throughout the report, a series of detailed recommendations. First, the Committee found that there have been serious inefficiences which have arisen from the rapid introduction of new computer processing technology. These inefficiencies have been in all aspects of ADP processing and have led, in this instance, to errors which have resulted in the apparent excess payments to chemists by the Commonwealth Government of up to $253m, and to the inefficient provision of manpower requirements. Secondly, there is a marked lack of co-ordinated, objective analysis and investigation of health matters generally, and health economics in particular. Total expenditure on all health services services last financial year was an estimated $9,000m of which the Commonwealth Government paid nearly one-third. Yet there appears to be no overview of the various aspects of health care aimed at achieving maximum efficiency in expenditure on health services. To overcome this deficiency, the Committee has recommended the establishment of a bureau of health economics.

Thirdly, the remuneration of chemists under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has been characterised by an excess of concern by the Commonwealth Government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia for secrecy in all discussions, especially within the Joint Committee on pharmaceutical benefits pricing arrangements. The Public Accounts Committee regards this secrecy as totally counter-productive. It has led to a situation whereby chemists are not aware of many matters affecting the payments they receive under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and this had led to undue criticism by them of the Commonwealth. In addition, it has effectively excluded from the Joint Committee discussions on any points of view other than those of the Commonwealth Government or the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Given that more than $650m per annum is spent on pharmaceuticals in Australia, the Committee’ considers that it is essential for the well-being of the retail pharmacy industry and individual chemists, that a more open system be developed. The Committee has therefore recommended major changes to the remuneration arrangements to remove the secret and restrictive procedures currently in existence.

I turn now to the major findings and recommendations of our inquiry. These are presented at the beginning of our report. First is the matter of excess payments. As to their amount it cannot be quantified with any certainty. Accordingly, the Committee accepts the estimates of the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) who stated previously that these could be as high as $253m. The Committee has been unanimously advised by three legal sources, including the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, that all payments made to chemists under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme were valid payments made under determinations and thus they are not recoverable.

I turn now to the reasons for the errors. Investigation of the origins of the excess payments disclosed serious deficiencies in the operations of the Automatic Data Processing Branch of the Department of Health. The Public Accounts Committee believes that there needs to be stricter adherence to performance standards in ADP work. In addition, the Committee is not satisfied that adequate provision of staff has been made, particularly for the evaluation of standards and their internal control. Accordingly, the Public Accounts Committee has recommended that these matters be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

I deal now with the interim basis for remuneration. The Committee’s investigations have established that not once over the past 20 years have the Commonwealth Government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, been able to agree on a lasting basis for determining chemists’ remuneration. Despite seven separate attempts and an admitted expenditure of well over $2m for the last two surveys all attempts by the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements to establish an objective base have ended in protracted and at times bitter negotiations. The Committee has therefore recommended that the figure of $1.31 agreed in April of this year by the Guild and the Government should be used as a present basis for adjusting fees.

The Committee considers that chemists’ remuneration should be determined by an open and public process accessible to all interested parties, not only the Pharmacy Guild and the Commonwealth Government. The Public Accounts Committee has therefore recommended that the Commonwealth Government establish a health fees tribunal to determine chemists’ remuneration. Such a tribunal would be accessible to all interested parties. It would conduct public hearings and would give reasons for its decisions. It would be headed by a person with the status of a deputy president of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Committee envisages that the health fees tribunal’s activities would be expanded to include the determination of all health remunerations, for example, for doctors and optometrists.

As discussed in my introductory comments, the health industry and the Department of Health have been characterised by a general lack of objective analyses, especially in the field of health economics. Accordingly the Committee has recommended that a bureau of health economics similar to other economic bureaus already existing in the Commonwealth sector be established. The Committee considers this recommendation is critical to the long-term development of efficient health services in Australia and that this bureau should be established within 12 months. The Committee sees two major functions for such an organisation. The first is to undertake a continuing analysis of the Government’s expenditure on health to ensure that moneys are being spent wisely. If a bureau of health economics could achieve a one per cent saving in health costs it would enable $80m to be redirected to other pressing needs. Secondly, a bureau of health economics could explore not only the issues relating to central aspects of health care but also those aspects that cross the boundaries between the different areas of health operations.

I turn now to the retail pharmacy industry. Many witnesses at the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry indicated that the retail pharmacy industry contained many uneconomic pharmacies. The Committee noted that by international comparisons the industry had an extremely low population to pharmacy ratio. In addition the Committee noted that previous efforts at establishing lasting objective methods for determining chemists’ remuneration had been unsuccessful and restricted in both their consideration and methods of assessment. The Committee therefore recommended that the Government establish a public inquiry into the structure of the retail pharmacy industry in Australia, including a specific task to examine methods of determining chemists’ remuneration.

The Committee has recommended that the Department of Health should be given total responsibility for the administration and claims processing of the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs retaining policy control for the scheme. By the full integration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme administration and processing the Committee expects that the utmost economy commensurate with sound management and high standards of service will be achieved. I conclude by mentioning that it is the policy of governments to achieve an efficient retail pharmacy industry that will maintain an adequate level of pharmacy services to all Australians, especially those in isolated areas. The Committee believes that the findings in its report, and its recommendations will preserve and enhance these objectives. I commend the report to honourable members.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– by leave- I congratulate the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the report that it has brought forward. In three fields I think it is deserving of commendation. First of all, it highlights the fact that over 20 years governments and the pharmacy organisations have not been able to reach an agreed method for objectively determining the basic level of remuneration to be paid to chemists. The other evening in this House, in what I thought was for him a disappointing contribution to health matters, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) tried to suggest that the Australian Labor Party had had notoriously difficult relations with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. He was corrected on his facts the next day by my colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham). But this report that has just come forth shows that this has been a long running sore between governments and the pharmacy organisations. I do not wish to make any distinctions between governments in this matter. On both sides of the House we have failed to arrive at a satisfactory solution to this problem.

Secondly, the report deserves to be commended for the thorough analysis of the excess payment of $235m to pharmacists. I am very glad to read a report which does not have those kinds of weasel inverted commas around the words excess payments. The report acknowledges the excess payments quite openly and clearly. It is prepared to accept the maximum figures brought forward by the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) and also the related amount from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I think it offers a fairly clear explanation of why that error arose. Again it arose very much because of the pressures in the 1972-73 period when the program was being prepared. The failure to find that error for four or five years resulted, as the report makes quite clear, from failures to increase staff levels in the appropriate fields. I think we now have a clear bipartisan account of why and how that error occurred. It also dismisses any suggestion that criminal, malicious or mischievous intent led to it. It is one of those failures in government to which we need to have attention drawn because increasingly we will be moving into this technological field and relying on computers more and more. I think this is an important and useful analysis.

Most important and most valuable, I think, are the recommendations that have been made by the Committee. There is a whole series of recommendations relating to regular review of automatic data processing procedures, the establishment of clear cut standards for ADP procedures and recommendations in relation to the audit of ADP procedures. I think these recommendations are not only of value to the Department of Health but also of value to all governmental departments using ADP procedures. I think that part of the report is extremely thorough. I welcome, though of course the Opposition will have to give more consideration to it, the suggestion of opening up the inquiry into the determination of the remuneration to be paid to pharmacists under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and to involve other groups in that determination. Certainly I am sympathetic to the ideas that not only should further groups be involved but also it should be opened up to public scrutiny. We in the Opposition certainly will look at this matter very seriously in the next few weeks. I hope that in November or December we may begin to think of implementing it when we are in government.

The notion of a bureau of health economics is something that this country has needed, as the Committee points out. The amount that this community - not just governments - is spending on health needs to be scrutinised. We need a much more effective analysis of that $9,000m which this community spends each year on health. Many of us have believed for some time in the development of an effective bureau of health economics. As the Committee report points out, this should involve not only economists but also other forms of expertise in the field of assessing that massive expenditure which is now more than 8 per cent of the gross national product. The Opposition welcomes the proposal for a bureau of health economics.

The third major recommendation is, of course, for a further inquiry into the retail pharmacy industry in Australia. We will have to look at this proposal fairly carefully because I believe that an enormous amount of information on the retail pharmacy industry is now available to governments. There is no doubt that it is recognised on all sides of politics - 1 think this is recognised also by most of the pharmacy organisations - that a need exists for rationalisation of retail pharmacies. What governments and pharmacy organisations have to face up to now are reasonable, well thought out ways of implementing a rationalisation scheme. I would like to see any inquiry that was established very much focused on solving that problem- I am sure honourable members on both sides of the House agree it is a problem facing this society. I think responsible pharmacists share that concern. I welcome this report. 1 have not yet had a chance to analyse all the recommendations in detail, but certainly they are fruitful contributions to the health care problems of this society.

page 1378

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Report

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– I present a report, together with transcripts of evidence and minutes of proceedings, from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiries.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1379

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Report

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

– I present a report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiries.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– by leave- I wish to make a very short statement in connection with this report. I do so to indicate the nature of the unfinished inquiries which have been undertaken by the Committee which presumably will be held over until the next Parliament. Inquiries into Commonwealth Government purchasing activities and the Australian National Railways Commission were unfinished. Also unfinished was the first inquiry conducted into the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Department of Administrative Services. There are a number of other inquiries which began only a short time’ before it was announced in this House that there was to be an election on 18 October. They were inquiries into aged persons accommodation and other matters. I would like to read the last three paragraphs of the report because they will be suggestions which we will put to the House in the next Parliament. The report states:

When the Prime Minister introduced the motion to establish the Expenditure Committee he expressed the hope that within the life of the Thirtieth Parliament the continuing existence of the Committee would be assured by an appropriate amendment to Standing Orders. He said it should not be left to decisions of governments at the beginning of each Parliament to determine whether a committee of this type should be reconstituted.

He made that statement on 8 April 1976. It is to be found on page 1498 of the House of Representatives Hansard of that date. The report continues:

Given the importance that is attached to financial scrutiny by the Parliament, the place of the House in that scrutiny and the position of the Expenditure Committee as an agent of the House, the Committee is of the opinion that its resolution of appointment should become part of the Standing Orders. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that:

During the life of the Thirty-Second Parliament the Resolution of Appointment of the Standing Committee on Expenditure becomes part of the Standing Orders.

On 9 May 1979 the Committee resolved as follows:

That the Committee record its formal appreciation of the significant contribution made to the work of the Committee by the late Hon. Francis E. Stewart, Deputy Chairman of the Committee.

He was very well respected. The report continues:

The Committee places on record its appreciation of the work done by staff and advisers during the workings of the Thirty-First Parliament.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave - I would like to support the words of the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure with regard to the work done by the late Frank Stewart. Obviously, honourable members on this side of the House have a great emotional attachment to the late Frank Stewart. As a member of that Committee, I understand fully the great work that he did and I support the remarks of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). I would like to say a few words about paragraph 14 of the Committee’s report. I do not know the exact wording of the paragraph but it refers to an unresolved dispute which the Sub-committee investigating the Auditor-General’s efficiency audit into the property division of the Department of Administrative Services has, at the moment, with the AuditorGeneral, inasmuch as the Auditor-General has shown some reluctance to come before the Committee, to give evidence and/or put in a submission.

What has been said by the honourable member for Lilley in this report underlines a very important principle which members of this Parliament should be mindful of. For some reason, the Auditor-General has had a fairly cosy arrangement with another committee of the Parliament, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, under which he has not given evidence before the Committee since 1951, but has always acted in some sort of relationship as an adviser at Committee inquiries. The members of this Sub-committee that has been formed within the Expenditure Committee feel that we are now dealing with a different sort of ball game. We are not dealing with financial audits. We are dealing with efficiency audits. Our inquiry involves as much the efficiency of the Auditor-General’s report as it does the Audit report to that Department. Because of the peculiar nature of that situation - that is, the Auditor-General’s report involving a fair deal of value judgment without too many clear recommendations - I have some negative conclusions about whether the Auditor-General should give evidence to the inquiry in a formal way in order for our report to be a valid one. At this stage, the Auditor-General is showing a marked reluctance to do just that. He puts it to us that, in fact, he is an officer of the Crown and that he is not a servant of the Parliament. In legal terms that might well be correct. I hope that other honourable members in this Parliament share my concern that the Parliament should remain the supreme authority and that any officer of the Crown, be it the Auditor-General or whoever, should not have to be coerced to give evidence to a parliamentary committee but that he should volunteer to do so. I hope that in the period of the parliamentary recess the Auditor-General and his Department might think very cogently on this subject and perhaps come to a conclusion which aligns with ours, that is, that he should volunteer to give evidence without the necessity of the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee the next time around having to ask the Parliament to force the Auditor-General to do so: I throw in as a matter of interest that, whilst I support the report that the Chairman has brought down, this is a very important principle about which this Parliament might think very strongly. We must maintain our superiority over all members of the Public Service, whether they consider themselves to be officers of the Crown or officers of the Parliament, and whether they consider that they should answer to the Parliament. This Parliament must maintain its total integrity and total superiority in these areas. I hope that the Auditor-General takes note of my remarks.

page 1380

AUSTRALIAN LIVING STANDARDS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

- Mr Speaker has received letters from the honourable members for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), Denison (Mr Hodgman), 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 Gellibrand, namely:

The sustained fall in living standards of most Australians caused by the Fraser Government’s policies.

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

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– The Opposition brings this matter of public importance before the House because it believes it is an extremely important one. In the period of the Fraser Government’s control of the economy and this country there has been a considerable reduction in the living standards of the great majority of Australian people. That is a pretty telling indictment of any government but particularly it is so as this reduction in living standards has been greatest for those who can least afford any reduction in their living standards- that is, those people on low incomes and those people who have dependent families. Low income families in this community have suffered worst of all. We have a development in almost five years of Fraser Government - it is a crushing indictment of any government - where it has succeeded in making the great majority of the people poorer than they were when this Government came into office. They now have less real disposable income than they had when this Government came into office and receive less also by way of expenditures which provide benefits to people but are not benefits of a monetary kind.

How has all this come to pass? It has come to pass because of a whole array of policies produced by this Government, all of which have had the effect of reducing living standards. This Government’s wages policy has been designed to reduce the real level of wages and therefore to reduce the purchasing power available to wage and salary earners. Its income tax policy has been designed to increase the income tax burden of people on lower and middle incomes. Despite the promises made at the last election, the Government most certainly has brought about a considerable increase in that income tax burden. In fact all taxpayers who pay income tax as a single person and who will earn less than $1 6,000 this year will pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than they paid in 1975-76. If they have a dependent spouse and they earn less than $24,000 they will be paying a higher proportion of their income in tax this year than they paid in 1 975-76.

The increase in the petrol tax, which has been absolutely staggering under this Government- a trebling in five years of the total petrol tax revenue- has added to inflation and, of course, reduced the purchasing power of people, particularly those on lower incomes because the cost of a litre of petrol is the same regardless of income. Those on the minimum wage and millionaires pay the same tax on a litre of petrol. This trebling of the petrol tax has had a very substantial impact on the living standards of people on low incomes.

The freezing of family allowances, after the readjustment in 1976 of the form in which they were paid and while prices have moved up over 40 per cent, has meant that there has been a vast reduction in the real value of family allowances and therefore the benefit to families has been considerably reduced. There has been an increase in medical insurance costs. This has come about through the abolition of the 40 per cent subsidy for medical insurance in the last year. Of course, the subsidy was 85 per cent when this Government first took office. Now there is no subsidy at all for medical services costing less than $20. Medical insurance, therefore, has increased very considerably in cost. All of that has reduced substantially the living standards of those with jobs, those with a substantial income. But what effect has it had on those who do not have an income through employment or some other form? The number of unemployed people has increased greatly since this Government came to office. There has been an increase of 170,000 in the number of unemployed. Obviously, the living standards of the unemployed are reduced by the fact that they are unemployed. This is so -especially if the unemployment benefit is frozen, as it has been for the whole of this Government’s term of office for 16 and 17-year-olds and since May 1978 for the single unemployed aged 18 years and over.

The failure to index the rent allowance paid to pensioners has meant that there has been no increase since this Government has been in office in the allowance paid to pensioners who have no other income and who pay rent. That and the less than full adjustment of the child allowance for pensioners and the non-adjustment of the amount of income allowable before the pension is reduced have tended to reduce the living standards of pensioners. Finally, we have the reduction in the social wage. As I mentioned before, there has been a considerable reduction in government expenditures in a whole array of areas which impact on the living standards of people in a non-monetary way - that is, through cutbacks in government expenditure on urban and regional development, education, child care and various other areas.

Many of the policies which have combined to bring about a considerable reduction in the living standards of the Australian people are the result of broken promises and broken pledges to the Australian people. The wages reduction results from the breach of the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in May 1975 to support wage indexation. The increase in income tax goes totally against the 1977 promise to reduce income tax. The increase in the petrol tax goes against the promise to move gradually to import parity, not to do it in one fell swoop. The increase in medical insurance is a breach of the promise to maintain Medibank. As I have said, instead of an 85 per cent subsidy for medical services we now have none for services costing less than $20. As to unemployment, the pledge was to create jobs for all who want to work; in fact, we have a 70 per cent increase in the official level of unemployment. We were told that interest rates would go down by 2 per cent in 1977; in fact, they are considerably higher than they were when that promise was made. The reduction in living standards that has occurred is the result of a whole array of broken promises to the Australian people by the Fraser Government.

There can be no doubt whatever about the fact that there has been a considerable reduction in the living standards of people in employment. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table headed Fall in living standards for low and middle income earners under the Fraser Government’.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

  1. 1975-76 disposable incomes are adjusted for the increase in the CPI (excluding hospital and medical costs) of 45.9 per cent from 1975-76 to 1979-80, and the costs of medical insurance are included when calculating changes in real disposable income.
  2. The cost of medical insurance is taken as the average of state premiums weighted by population for 100 per cent Medibank private medical cover ($3.60 a week single and $7.13 a week family) - the equivalent cover to that provided out of general revenue in 1975.
  3. Income tax paid less family allowances received. The rates of allowances are:

All tax figures are based on the tax rates applying for 1 979-80 as a whole, i.e. 33.07, 47.07 and 6 1 .07 cents.

Rebates for dependent children claimed in 1 975 were: 2 children- $350.

Mr WILLIS:

– This table shows the level of income in 1975-76 and 1979-80 for five income groups: Those on the average award rate, average weekly earnings, H times the average weekly earnings, twice the average earnings, three times the average weekly earnings. It looks at the increase in the tax burden and at the change in real disposable income after tax and medical insurance, taking account of family allowances in the case of a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children. Part of the table deals with taxpayers without dependants and the other part deals with a family taxpayer.

The table shows that the real disposable income of a person on the average award rate who pays tax as a single person was reduced by $8.75 a week of 6 per cent in 1979-80 as compared with 1975-76. He needs a $13.05 increase in his wages to get him back to the same after-tax income as he had in real terms in 1975. The reduction in the case of a taxpayer on average weekly earnings is $3.60 a week or 1 .9 per cent. That taxpayer needs a $5.35 wage increase. For the taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children the reductions are much more severe. The real disposable income of a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children and on the average award rate has been reduced by $15.50 or 9.3 per cent. He needs a $23.15 a week wage increase in order to give him now the same after-tax income in real terms as he had in 1975. A family taxpayer on average weekly earnings is $10.40 a week or 4.8 per cent worse off in real income. He needs a $ 1 5.55 - almost $ 1 6 - a week increase in his gross wage to give him an after-tax income at the 1975 level.

These are very substantial and real reductions. They compare markedly with the situation for those on high incomes, as is shown in the table for a single taxpayer on three times the average weekly earnings. Assuming his wages went up only in line with average weekly earnings, he is $22.25 a week better off after tax. So there has been a tremendous change in the distribution of after-tax income while this Government has been in office. People on high incomes have done very nicely, thank you, even if their gross wages have only kept up with wages generally, mainly through the operations of the tax changes. But people on low and middle incomes have suffered a severe reduction. We must bear in mind that this is not something that happens every now and again as part of the normal operations of government. This is the first time that there has been a prolonged and substantial reduction in the living standards of the Australian people since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This is the first time we have had such an event and it is therefore of tremendous importance to note that this has occurred.

It is important to note that the cut-off point for a taxpayer without dependants is $19,000 a year. In other words, all taxpayers who earned less than $19,000 in 1979-80 and who had paid tax as a single person are worse off and the more they are below that $19,000 the worse off they are. The cut-off point for a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children is $26,000 a year. Those who earn below $26,000 are worse off as a result of the operations of this Government. The further they are below that $26,000 mark the greater has been the reduction in their real incomes. These are staggering figures. Two-thirds of the wage and salary earners earn below average weekly earnings. As I have mentioned, a family taxpayer on average weekly earnings is $10.40 a week worse off after tax.

The Government is enormously embarrassed by this evidence. I regret the fact that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has not the guts to come into the House and debate this issue with me, rather than leaving it to back bench members. The Treasurer has issued Press statements in which he has pointed out that what we have been saying about reductions in living standards is not true. What the Treasurer has been saying simply does not stand up to analysis. His figures are totally and absolutely misleading. He says, firstly, that the figures for per capita increases in private consumption expenditure and household disposable income show that there has been an increase in living standards, giving a $7 a week increase in the living standards for a family of four. These figures, of course, are gross, aggregate figures which do not pay any regard to the fact that there has been a change in the distribution of income, as I have pointed out. We are not denying that some people, those on high incomes, have done much better but the great majority have not improved their living standards, as we have already shown from those tables. The aggregate figures hide this change in the distribution of income.

An important fact to bear in mind is that a large part of the increase in real houshold income can be ascribed to the inclusion of an imputed rent on owner-occupied dwellings. This is a purely statistical concept which attempts to place a value on the services derived from dwellings by their owners, but which in no way adds to personal, disposable income. It also includes a very large increase in farm income. By using this imputed rent concept, the Treasurer is trying to tell us that we all have more disposable income. What an absurd kind of argument that is.

Furthermore, the Treasurer chooses for his periods of comparison specific dates which give a totally misleading view of what has actually happened. He looked at the movement in incomes from December 1975 to June 1980 and used payasyouearn deductions, payable at that date, as representing the tax burden on wage earners at that time. Very simply that is not a valid way of looking at the situation. His starting point disregards the substantial tax cuts brought in by the Labor Government in the 1975-76 Budget- the Hayden Budget - which applied from 1 January 1976. So the Treasurer looks at wages in 1975, takes the PAYE tax applying at that time and thereby avoids the fact that there were large tax cuts coming in the beginning of the next calendar year which affected the total tax payable for the year 1975-76. If he is to be honest about it he ought to take the total tax which was payable on that kind of wage across the whole year, 1975-76. That is the relevant factor, not the actual PAYE deductions in December 1975. If honourable members do that they will find that instead of a tax of $31.05 a week for a taxpayer on average weekly earnings at that time - $167.40 a week - the tax would be only $23.50. So he grossly inflates the tax which would apply at the beginning of this period so as to distort this result.

At the other end of the scale the Treasurer takes December 1975 to begin with and June 1980 as the latest period of comparison for average weekly earnings. Of course, again he . takes the pay-as-you-earn tax payments as being indicative of the tax burden But, in fact, the PAYE tax at that rate is at 32c in the dollar but the tax rate for 1979-80 was 33.07c in the dollar. Again he gives a totally misleading result by using the PAYE figure of a particular time rather than the total tax rate applicable to that income year. It is a totally and utterly misleading argument by the Treasurer and we reject completely and totally the figures which he has used in the Press statements that he issued on 5 September. I regret enormously that he has not had the decency to come into the House and debate the matter with me. He also misleads by making no specific allowance for the cost of medical insurance and uses the consumer price index as a whole which understates the impact of medical insurance on real disposable income.

Finally, a Labor government, will take measures to restore the reduction in real living standards of the Australian people. Various measures which we have in mind will bring about considerable increases in living standards. Such increases will be through the health insurance program which will increase living standards by up to $1.70 a week and family allowances by $6 for a family of three and on an income of about $200 a week. The petrol pricing policy will reduce the pay-out by some $2 a week, tax cuts will amount to some $3 a week from early next year and our housing program will give considerable benefits of up to $14 a week for people taking advantage of Labor’s home onwership grant of $3,000. There programs will greatly help to overcome the reduction in living standards which has occurred under this Government.

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– Those of us who have heard this re-run of the speech of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) of 9 September complete with his table which I understand was incorporated in Hansard on that day are only disappointed. Let us face it, there was nothing unpredictable about his speech. We are not disappointed about its total predictability. Those of us who are concerned about the standing of the honourable member for Gellibrand are disappointed that he should have fallen into the same trap, the same techniques that his leader has demonstrated in this House, that is, of using the sort of language that simply does not fall easily or well from his lips. It is unusual in this House to hear him adopt pejorative phrases like: ‘It is a pity the Treasurer has not got the guts to come into this House’. Is that not an interesting turn of phrase? I mention it because even a member as honourable and reputable as the honourable member for Gellibrand has been influenced by this dirty style of politicking which has emerged from the other side of the table and from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden).

I simply suggest that when the honourable member for Gellibrand recognised that he had fallen into that slightly lower standard than he normally adopts he, in fact, corrected the phrase later and said that he wished the Treasurer (Mr Howard) had had the decency to come in. That is more in the style of the honourable member for Gellibrand and I hope that in future he does not fall into that lower standard. It is unlike him. I do not mind his personally insulting me by saying that the reply is left only to a back bencher.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Private member.

Mr BAUME:

– He said ‘a back bencher’. He may denigrate me as much as he likes; it does not worry me. What concerns me are the facts of what is really happening. The honourable member for Gellibrand has used in his tables the tax figures alone. That is very interesting because he falls into the very trap that he has falsely accused the Treasurer of falling into. He has totally ignored the half million Australians who, as a result of the Government’s changes in tax policies, are not paying tax and who would have paid tax under the previous Labor Government’s tax scales. This is a terribly simple proposition. According to the honourable member for Gellibrand if this Government wipes tax out for a large number of low income people, they will no longer be counted; they will no longer be included in any discussion on what total tax revenues are and how people are doing. Because we removed tax from these people he then ignored them and said that the taxpayers were worse off. He does not talk about the people who are not paying tax. They are not paying tax only as a result of the farsighted and humanitarian policies of this Government, which have resulted in half a million people, who would have paid tax under the Hayden tax scales of 1975, being removed from tax altogether.

The honourable member for Gellibrand may well lean back with a smile. The fact is that there have been two elections since the honourable member for Gellibrand was a member of the Government and in neither of those election campaigns was there an offer to change the tax scales of people at the lower end of the income scale.

There were two opportunities for the Australian Labor Party to say that it would reduce taxes and it did not accept those opportunities. There is no indication, no promise and, let us face it, they are famous promisers. There was no promise ever in those two elections on which the people could judge the Labor Party. There was no promise to reduce the taxes at the low end of the income tax scale. I point out that in the latest tax changes by this Government there is now a situation where no tax whatsoever is paid on income up to $6,500 a year by a person who has a dependent spouse. No tax is paid whatsoever. But those people, whom the honourable member for Gellibrand professes to support, professes to be interested in, are wiped out of all calculation in what he claimed to be an objective, fair and proper discussion. It is extraordinary that the people who do not pay tax, who are the low income earners, do not rate a mention from the honourable member for Gellibrand in this question of living standards.

Let us see what has really happened to Australia. Let us recognise that the figures he has produced selectively are accurate. I do not want to try to deny or denigrate the figures he has produced. They are quite true. It is just that they do not include a very significant portion of the Australian electorate, a particular portion- that is the low income groups - which this Government has gone to great lengths to assist. For example, pensions have now been lifted to 23.6 per cent of average weekly earnings, the highest for 25 years. The honourable member for Gellibrand ignores that situation when he says that people are worse off and that living standards have fallen. What absolute nonsense! If pensions are at the highest rate of average weekly earnings that they have been for many years, of course their living standards have not fallen. In fact there has been a 21 per cent rise in social security and welfare expenditure in real terms since this Government came to power. That figure of 21 per cent is after inflation has been taken into account.

I think it is a good idea to look at the people who are not included in the honourable member’s tables before we accept this pretty slapdash approach in which the honourable member has accused the Treasurer of being misleading. If the honourable member for Gellibrand is concerned that the Treasurer has taken the December 1975 pay-as you-earn tax scales, perhaps he would like us to take the 1974-75 tax scales. Let us face it: That year under the Labor Government produced a magnificent result for taxpayers! Their real PA YE tax went up by only 17.8 per cent in 1973-74. In 1974-75, after account is taken of the effect of inflation, their real PAYE tax- the workers tax - went up by 18 per cent. Honourable members should compare that result with the fact that this financial year the workers’ tax is budgeted to increase by 2.9 per cent. Now, the honourable member for Gellibrand may say that that does not tell the full story because there are all those other nasty taxes which this Government has introduced. Permit me to draw his attention to the reality.

The previous Labor Government, as honourable members know, believed in a big type of government administration. The honourable member for Gellibrand has a fixation about big government. In his speech on the subject last year - and he had repeated this view today- he expressed his concern about the willingness of the electors to support the proposition of gib government and big taxes. I remind the House that the Labor Party has now promised to reduce taxes. The reality of the situation is that under the previous Labor Government total tax revenues, including all indirect taxes, in real terms after inflation, went up by 24 per cent in only three years. That is a simple average - not a cumulative average - of some 8 per cent a year for all taxes. In the five Budgets that have been presented by this Government, total tax collections have increased by 22 per cent, which is an average of just over 4 per cent a year.

The rate of increase in tax receipts has been reduced to almost half by the present Government. Yet honourable members opposite keep talking this nonsense about how much worse off people are now than they were when this Government came to power. The facts are that pensioners clearly are getting a bigger slice of the cake than they were, and so they should. I hope they can get an even bigger slice of it. There is no doubt that people who do not pay tax any more are getting a better deal. Certainly people receiving superannuation who are also entitled to the pension are doing far better as a result of the tax changes.

There is also one very significant improvement. That is the number of people at work. Honourable members will remember that, in the last year of the Labor Government, there was a fall in the number of people at work. In other words, the number of jobs fell. When we are talking about living standards, I think that we ought to consider employment. Let us face it: Without a job, living standards are as good as they ought to be in a country like ours. How many more people are employed due to this Government ‘s policies? It is quite interesting to note that, since August 1975, 439,000 more people now have jobs. Those are strictly comparable figures on a seasonal basis.

They show that, under this Government, there has been an increase of 439,000 in the number of employed people. Of that figure, 325,000 are in the private enterprise sector. That is a dramatic change from the situation under the Labor Government which at times had increases in employment. The bulk of that increase under Labor was either in the Public Service or in job creation schemes. The Labor Government was endeavouring to hide the real unemployment figure. Despite its earnest endeavours, let us see what happened to private sector employment. In the 12 months to May 1975, the number of people employed in the private sector fell by 3.6 per cent. In just one year, the number fell from 4.5m people at work to only 4.42m people at work in the private enterprise sector. Surely this Government, by encouraging the growth of the economy and particularly by encouraging a growth in private enterprise - and that area employs 75 per cent of all Australians - is doing more to raise the real standard of living in this country than the Opposition has ever come close to doing. There is no doubt that the Opposition showed some great skill in increasing pay-as-you-earn tax - workers’ tax - by the largest amount in real terms of income in two consecutive years than has ever happened in the history of this nation. That is a fascinating situation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables of statistics which demonstrate that, according to the real indicators, the standard of living of Australians across the board has increased.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows -

  1. 1 ) Child Endowment in 1 975.
  2. Adjusted using the CPI.

There is, according to this calculation, an increase in real disposable income of $3.27 a week, in June 1980 prices.

On the basis of the present tax scale and assumptions about income and price movements contained in the Budget papers, a further real increase can be expected this financial year. By June 1981, real disposable income is likely to be slightly more than $5 higher than in December 1 975.

Mr BAUME:

– One of these tables shows that, for a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children on average weekly earnings there has been approximately a $3.27 a week real rise in disposable income. The honourable member for Gellibrand has said that these figures are untrue because they are an average and they show a distortion or, as he said, a change in the distribution of income. It is true that they show a change. While he says that they show a change only in what the taxpayers at the top end of the scale receive, he has left out half a million people at the bottom end of the scale. He has left them out of his criticism. It is reasonable to suggest that this is a fair enough offset. In fact, I believe that if the figure of half a million people was included, we would find that people are doing even better. It seems to me that the validity of this table has certainly not been challenged by a member who conveniently forgets the half a million people who pay no tax whatsoever.

Let me deal briefly with consumer prices. Inflation is the greatest challenge and the greatest threat to living standards. What happened under the previous government? I shall tell you what happened by referring to the second table that I have incorporated. In 1974, Australia’s consumer prices were increasing by 1 .5 per cent faster than those of the rest of the world. By 1975, under Labor, they were going up 4.9 per cent faster than those of the rest of the developed world. I refer there to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. This has now fallen steadily under the present Government to a situation in which consumer prices in the OECD developed countries are increasing at the rate of 2. 1 per cent higher than Australia. We have dramatically changed the situation. Inflation in Australia is now far lower than it is for the rest of the developed world.

I turn to interest rates. For heaven’s sake, let us have the reality in this respect. There is no doubt that interest rates in the private sector in Australia, before the previous government came into power, were far lower. The housing loans interest rate of 4 per cent bounced up to 10 per cent under the previous government. Such rises have not continued under this Government. I stress this point: In all the areas where it matters- that is, in household disposable income and in all the ares that the honourable member for Gellibrand objects to - it is clearly self evident that for the bulk of Australians, particularly in the lower income groups, there has not been this nonsensical reduction in living standards. By the way, the Opposition cannot even agree on the figures in this respect because it has given three different versions over the last few months of what the alleged cut in real living standards has been. In fact it is largely nonsense. As the Labor Party itself says, its figures are rubbery.

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

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– It is appalling that when we have a major debate in this House on the question of family living standards and the economic policies of this Government, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is not even able to come into the chamber and defend himself against the very serious attacks made against him by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). It seems that the Treasurer has been caught out. He has discovered that because of his Press statement of 5 September when he attempted to demolish the case of the Opposition, he has been caught out. He has found out that everyone else has discovered that he has caught the disease of his predecessor. Honourable members will remember that his predecessor must have been the first Treasurer in history actually to admit to the fact that he produced a Budget which contained rubbery figures. Now we have the latex Treasurer mark 2, who has caught the same disease, and because he is now in a spot, he has retorted to the usual practice of Liberals. When they are trapped they never like to spoil a good story with the facts. That is exactly what has happened on this ocasion; so the Treasurer was not prepared to come in here and defend his statement and the Government’s position; all he could do was send in the junior partner of a failed sharebroking firm, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). The Government’s veracity has fallen to a new low.

Let us consider some of the points which the honourable member raised today. He made a great play of the fact that at some time the scales were changed so that a certain number of people did not have to pay tax. The simple fact is that in a situation of rising incomes, unless the bottom level at which tax first becomes payable is continually changed, people who did not previously pay tax will begin to pay tax. The scales always have to be changed if the same people who did not pay tax are to remain tax free. Apparently, that simple fact has avoided the honourable member for Macarthur altogether. Despite the fact that the scales he talked about were introduced several years ago, and have resulted, he said, in 500,000 people being free of tax, he still says that the same 500,000 people are free of tax. That means that the incomes of those people have not increased, if they are still the ones who are paying no tax. It is ludicrous to say that changing the scales to ensure that the same people who did not pay tax before continue not to pay tax is any great advance. Of course, it is nonsense. The honourable member for Macarthur really seemed to be saying that he wanted everybody to be free of taxation. He would achieve that by ensuring that nobody earns any more than the basic tax free level of income; that is, he does not want anyone to earn more than about $4,500 a year to ensure that the whole population is tax free.

That seems to be the acme of the economic policies of the honourable member for Macarthur. He went on to refer to what the situation would be if the Whitlam or Hayden tax scales were still operating. I invite him to look at what would be happening now if the famous McMahon tax scales of 1972 were still operating. How many people would be paying tax, and at what level would they be paying it? It is absolutely nonsensical to peer back into history and extrapolate those tax rates without taking account of the necessary changes which would have taken place in the meantime. He then said that pensioners were much better off, and that they were now getting more in terms of the average weekly wage than ever before. The simple fact is that pensioners, God bless them, still have to drive motor cars. They still have to fill up their petrol tanks every week and pay $14 more than they did in 1975 to fill up their cars. I wonder whether the generosity of the honourable member for Macarthur extends to ensuring that they are able to fill up their petrol tanks now for the same amount that it cost them in 1975. Of course, it does not.

It is the total tax revenue that the Government raises which is important. Let us not worry about just income tax revenue; let us look at the total tax revenue. The Opposition has explained time and again that this government raises more tax as a percentage of the gross domestic product than any government in history. Indeed, it raises substantially more than the Government which preceded it. That is the important comparison that has to be made. The honourable member went on to talk about the work force. It is interesting that he should enlighten us with some figures on the work force. The Government is so embarrassed by the official statistics on the work force that it has suspended the publication of the series of statistics which tells us what is the real position. The series which was of acute embarrassment to the Government was that which indicated a reduction during the last four years of 10,000 in the number of people employed in the private sector. Let us not hear any more of this nonsense; let us not hear any more of this resorting to shonky figures by the honourable member for Macarthur or the Treasurer.

I am indebted to the honourable member for Macarthur for having included in Hansard the Treasurer’s statement which gave the basis for his calculation of determining the rise or fall in living standards over the last five years. As the honourable member for Gellibrand clearly pointed out, we find that the Treasurer either did not know or did not care what tax rates he used to make those calculations. As the honourable member for Gellibrand pointed out, in the tax year 1975-76, the Treasurer used the six months tax rate, not the 1 2 months tax rate. The reason given for that was that by using the six month tax rate he got a better story. It meant that, as a result of using shonky figures, he got a figure which was $8.97 in his favour. Is the Treasurer really that dishonest; is the honourable member for Macarthur prepared to implicate himself in the Treasurer’s dishonesty in this way? Is this just a bit of innocent miscalculation or is it a deliberate attempt to provide shonky figures to support a very shonky case on behalf of the Government? However, that is not the only problem with the table that the honourable member for Macarthur has incorporated in Hansard. He gets the figures wrong for the 1979-80 tax year where, instead of citing the level of taxation as 33.07 per cent he cited 32 per cent as being the level of taxation. Will anyone tell me that the Treasurer does not really know what the real tax rate was? Can anyone convince us that the Treasurer, who is responsible for gathering the total revenue of this country, does not even know what the tax rate is? If that is the case, it is a specific argument for his immediate resignation.

Of course, that is not true. He knows what the truth is; he is trying to obfuscate and mislead. He has tried to cook the figures in order to provide a better argument for himself and for the Government. The argument against him goes on and on. He forgets to make the appropriate adjustment in relation to health costs. Further, the honourable member for Macarthur tried to confuse the argument by resorting to the Treasurer’s attempt to look at the aggregate figures. He started to talk about the way in which incomes have changedthat is, the way in which income distribution has changed. That is the real problem with the Treasurer’s approach. He has tried to use the aggregate figures which take no account of the fact that income distribution has changed very markedly. Apparently the Treasurer is satisfied that some of his mates- some of the people who are avoiding taxation and who are the tax bludgers of this country- have had increases in their incomes but he is totally disinterested in the fact that living standards of ordinary people have declined. It is true that some people are very much better off. The friends of this Government have been looked after very nicely, thank you. A person on $80,000 a year is $60 a week better off. That is terrific. The friends of the Treasurer and the honourable member for Macarthur are $60 a week better off. Apparently, by some magical process, that is meant to mean that the living standards of the whole community are better. Of course, that is absolute nonsense. Some people are very much better off than they were and other people are very much worse off.

Let us not be diverted by these masters of obfuscation. No matter how hard they try to confuse us and cook the books, they will never deceive the ordinary men and women of this country into believing that their living standards have not declined, because it is those people who are paying the bills and they know that if they are on average weekly earnings their real wages have declined in the last few years. They know that it now costs $14 more than it did five years ago to fill their petrol tanks, and they know that it now costs them $12 a week more to have the sort of basic health care that they had five years ago. It costs $26 a week more in unavoidable expenses to run a motor car and to keep the family healthy. It costs $26 more than it cost five years ago. I wonder how long it is since the Treasurer has had to fill up a motor car to drive to work. Yet there are millions of people in this country who have no alternative but to fill up their cars if they want to drive from home to work. The value of family allowances has been depleted. Since 1976 it has declined by nearly $7 for a family with three children. One could go on and on.

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

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-This matter of public importance is about the living standards of people. It would be wrong and completely in error to argue this whole matter in terms of a statistician’s figures and to ignore everything else. There is certainly in the philosophy which surrounds people when they pursue living standards. The greatest attempt over recent years to maintain living standards has been - I want to refer to it for two minutes- the rebellion by the Polish workers at Gdansk. This has a relationship to what is going on here today. The Polish workers of Gdansk rebelled for two reasons. They rebelled because their country is run by a communist government and they rebelled because of the effects on them of a centralist government in Poland. Honourable members may ask what that has to do with the matter of public importance proposed by the honourable member for Gelligrand (Mr Willis). It has a great deal to do with it because we are within the pregnancy of the next election and it is worth while looking at the attitudes of the Australian Labor Party to the most important ingredients of living standards.

I remind the House of what the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) said when he was removed from his position on the front bench of the.Opposition. He said:

Mr Hayden ‘s only other criticism of me when informing me of my move was that I was too concerned about communism and the effect of left wing rhetoric.

That has affected not only him but also the Labor Party’s economic policy. The matter of centralism is not to be ignored. Poor people have a love of freedom as well as those people who might have a lot to lose. On St Patrick’s Day this year the best known Labor figure in Queensland, Mr Clem Jones, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane for a decade and a half, said of centralism that Mr Hayden’s aim is for central power. In discussing living standards, as proposed by the honourable member for Gellibrand, let us not lose ourselves in a sea of data put out by a statistician. Let us deal with some of the effects upon people, including the effects of the Opposition’s policies upon the people of Australia. That cannot be ignored.

In the minutes left to me I want to deal with three or four items. I want to deal not only with the philosophy but also with one or two errors that have been committed in respect of taxation in the proposition put by the Opposition. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) has demolished in an absolutely brilliant and unanswerable manner the case put by the honourable member for Gellibrand. But the honourable member for Macarthur, in his consistent sense of charity, forgot something. He pointed out that the taxation performance of the Government had been ignored by the Opposition. He pointed out that the Opposition had ignored the half a million people at the lowest level of the income scale who are not now paying tax, but he forgot to mention the benefits that have accrued to many single income households in Australia with the increased spouse rebate. The honourable member for Gellibrand forgets that the Opposition is against increasing the spouse rebate for single income housholds.

The shadow Minister for women’s affairs released a paper on 19 June entitled ‘The Australian Labor Party and Australian women’. This related to a tax benefit worth hundreds of dollars a year that we provided to women bringing up children in this country. In seven positions in that paper doubt is cast upon the worth or the value of the tax rebate. In other words, doubt is cast upon the benefit of several dollars a week to people. Let me quote one point in the paper. The honourable member for Gellibrand would have to deal with such a person as a fellow Cabinet Minister in a Labor government. I ask honourable members to remember that the honourable member for Gellibrand, at a Labor economists conference in 1978, committed himself to big government and to big tax. I spoke at the conference. I got the paper just after he delivered it. He has never retreated from that proposition. I refer to the statement by the shadow Minister for women’s affairs. As to the recent benefit given by this Government, the shadow Minister said:

The assertion which was used by the Fraser government to justify its recent 34 per cent rise in the dependent spouse tax rebate, namely that there is some tax injustice against the single-income family, is arguable.

The honourable member for Gellibrand obviously had not spoken with her about that because that was the sixth reference of that kind within the paper that she presented. She presented it on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. At the bottom of the page she said:

Equity in taxation will not be achieved by penalising the second wage-earner in a marriage.

What is the corollary of that? It is: Do not go worrying about tax rabates for dependent spouses. The Opposition has not got its act together. Its act is for higher taxation. It has warned us that it would be for higher taxation because it loves it.

The third point I want to mention in the last few minutes is that the Opposition has completely ignored families. It has proposed one or two schemes. For example, it has proposed a family income supplement scheme which, for its notoriety, is horrific. When it proposes a scheme it does not know how to go about it. That scheme has about it three penalties that should be exposed to the Australian people. At every income tax level, the size of families is penalised. Once exceeded, it attracts a reduction in income. Let me give an example. Under the Labor Party’s scheme a labourer earning the general award would lose $2 a week if a second child were to be born. Under this scheme a clerk of 24 years of age and over on a general wage level would lose S3 a week if a third child were to be bom. That is a fact. The honourable member for Gellibrand has furrows across his brow. Before the Opposition proposes a scheme it should do some work on it because it has committed horrific and dreadful errors in this proposition. A painter on the award wage would be totally excluded from any family income supplement if he had three or more children. Every union secretary in Australia who seeks a work value adjustment or who tries to get a national wage adjustment for his members with families would immediately have to work out the benefits they might get and the non-benefits that would accrue to members with families under the Labor Party’s family income supplement scheme. The Opposition has been lecturing us for 25 minutes this afternoon about distribution of benefits and distribution of equity.

Mr Willis:

– What will you do about it?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– We have no penal propositions in anything that we either administer or propose. There is penalty against the size of families of all tradesmen and all workers-

Mr Baume:

– Under the Labor scheme?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– That is right. There are penal attitudes on overtime. There are four trigger levels of income- $8,000, $10,000, $12,000 and $14,000 a year- which have a penalty applying to them. Once one goes beyond those levels the supplement scheme for families cuts out.

Mr Baume:

– That is under the Labor scheme?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– Yes. Finally, it would put dreadful pressure upon every union secretary in Australia who was trying to do his job. What would the secretary of a plumbers and a gasfitters union think if he received in the next national wage case the same rise as occurred in the last wage and if, under the Labor Party’s scheme, all his members with families were to be excluded from any benefits? They would be excluded the moment the judgment came down. I ask only that these facts be known and comprehended. They need to be comprehended by the electorate. This situation is as bad as the last election campaign when the Labor Party said that it intended to take away tax deductions which we had passed for the worker and wanted to give them to CSR Ltd, Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, the Bank of New South Wales and Myer Emporium. The Labor Party is on the same tack again. On this occasion it is total ignorance which leads it to be on the same tack and it does not even know in which direction it intends to take the Australian people. Members of the Labor Party are like people who would try to assassinate a policy but also would be totally unable to do so because, in doing so, they would form a circle, face inwards and then fire. They can only kill themselves by their schemes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The discussion has concluded.

page 1390

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Use of House Documents in Courts

Consideration of report presented on 9 September.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– 1 move:

That-

this House, recognising the need for extensive consideration by the House of the report from the Committee of Privileges relating to the use of or reference to the records of proceedings of the House in the Courts, is of the opinion that the report should be considered early in the 32nd Parliament, and

Order of the day No. 1, privilege, relating to a report of the Privileges Committee, be discharged.

The Committee which considered this matter and which submitted this very extensive report to the Parliament has canvassed issues which have been before the Parliament, either directly or indirectly, for quite some time. Out of the Sankey case there arose a consideration of some of the issues of privilege. It certainly is a very important facet of the administration of the procedures of the Parliament. To my mind it is one of the more fundamental of the issues which relate to all the processes of democratic parliaments in Australia. However, because it is such an extensive question and because it relates very much to the degree to which the courts have a power to intervene in that privilege, the Government is concerned that in this winding down of the Parliament there will be an inadequate opportunity for proper consideration of the report. However, I gave to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) an undertaking that there would be some opportunity to debate this matter. Therefore, I felt that a motton of this order would be preferable.

It is not intended that the matter be ignored. Indeed, the whole purpose of the motion is to enable proper consideration to be given, at the beginning of the new Parliament, to what I see as a far wider issue than that which emerges out of this report alone. This report essentially relates to a decision by Mr Justice Begg in the New South Wales Supreme Court in the case of Uren and

John Fairfax and Son Ltd. I believe the Committee has taken Mr Justice Begg’s decision in a far wider frame than is justified. Be that as it may, I am quite sure that this Parliament needs to give a good deal of consideration to how it would see privilege operating in the future. I understand that some consideration has been given to the question of privilege in the House of Commons. The House of Commons has not yet determined its attitude to some variations of waiver, as I understand, of the present privilege of that chamber. Whatever its decision may be, I believe it is for this Parliament to determine its own attitude. Significantly, if Mr Speaker were to advance further consideration of the televising of the proceedings of this place, I believe there would be very important issues on which the Parliament would have to deliberate.

Therefore, the Government makes to the House the recommendation that the matter be raised in the new Parliament rather than our partly debating the matter here today and coming to a decision which I suspect would not be completely satisfactory because the issues are far too wide for us to resolve adequately in the Parliament and because I think we need outside advice. The matter could be raised in the new Parliament and then be referred to a committee of the Parliament for further deliberation as to what changes, if any, might be necessary in the application of privilege. For that reason I have moved the motion to enable the matter to be deferred for consideration early in the thirty-second Parliament.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition does not want to be difficult, but we have a different point of view from that contained in the motion. I can well understand what the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) has said. I do not know how much time we have now to debate this matter, but I guess we have not very much at all. This question of privilege has got the Parliament into a lot of difficulty in the past. It has always been considered on the wrong basis; that is, whether the Parliament can retain its privileges in a court of law. The question first arose in what is known as the Sankey case. Honourable members will remember that petitions were presented in this place calling for certain documents to be produced in that case. They were documents which were tabled as a matter of record in this Parliament. We went through a lot of argument in the Parliament as to who would be the judge of our privilege. With respect, Mr Speaker said that the best thing to do as far as he was concerned was to allow the courts to be the judge of privilege.

Rightly or wrongly - we will assume rightly - the High Court has now said that we have no control over any documents which are tabled in this Parliament and that it is a matter for the High Court to determine the privilege of those documents. We have lost that argument, and we seem to have lost it for all time. I have no quarrel with that. If we are to table documents in the Parliament as a matter of record, why should the courts not say: ‘You have lost your privilege to it’? That shows how far we have advanced when we compare our position with that of the House of Commons which I do not think has yet reached that stage. In the United Kingdom there was a Scientology case which involved discussion of whether the Hansard record should be introduced into the Parliament. The matter reached the stage of saying that, if there was a petition and if the Parliament agreed, that was an appropriate course of action. I draw a distinction between what happened in the Sankey case in respect of documents which were tabled in this place and the decision of the High Court that it, not the Parliament, will judge the question of the privilege of documents. We allowed that to happen. In fact we probably put the public to a great deal of trouble and expense by trying to argue in the Sankey case that the documents were privileged. In that case we argued in a court of law what our privileges are. We lost the case. That is fair enough; we accept that position.

If we look at the present case which is covered by order of the day No. 1 and which relates to whether examination or cross-examination of a member of parliament as to what he said in the parliament is a question of privilege, we will see that it started off in much the same way. In the Uren case a petition was presented calling for the Hansard record and other documents to be produced. An honourable member in this place was involved in a defamation action, and the question was: ‘Could the court have the Hansard record’? We say, as a matter of justice, that no honourable member should be able to say that he did not say anything in the parliament if in fact he said it. It other words, the courts are entitled to have the facts in accordance with the principles of justice.

The question of whether an honourable member can be cross-examined as to what he said is another matter. The position which we face and to which the Committee of Privileges has addressed its mind is that it should not follow, because someone is now a member of parliament - or even if these sorts of circumstances should occur in the future when he is no longer a member - that he should be involved in a court action in which, as happened in the Uren case, he is issued with interrogatories, or questions, relating to what he said in the parliament. In the Uren case a direction was given that the interrogatories be answered. When they were answered it became fairly clear that Uren would be put in the witness box and cross-examined as to what he said in the Parliament. A petition was presented in this place about that matter. We would have said perhaps that the court was entitled to have access to the Hansard record but was not entitled to use the Hansard record in interrogatories or in cross-examination.

With respect to that matter I think the Committee of Privileges has gone to a lot of trouble to try to indicate to the Parliament how it might protect members of parliament. It has done this by saying to the Parliament: ‘By all means allow a petition to be presented but do not act on the petition’. It suggests, appropriately, that the petition then be presented to the Committee of Privileges for its consideration and report. It also suggests that in the course of that consideration we should allow a member or, if appropriate, a former member to appear in front of the Privileges Committee to discuss what he thinks might be the problems arising from the matter. We are suggesting here that at the end of that hearing, we should report to the House our views, that is, the Privileges Committee’s views, on the petition. I think that is very fair. We have had a lot of experience in recent years of how often litigation involving members of parliament comes before the courts and this question. of the use of Hansard will be, I think, a pretty Sequent matter of discussion. So, to the Leader of the House I say this: Our view - and I put it from the point of view of members of the Parliament - is that there would be no harm in passing a motion today which does not use the same words as those in the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Our amendment would say this: the House resolves that -

  1. 1 ) the practice of petitions being presented to the House for leave to refer to House records in the courts, derived from the long-established practice of the United Kingdom House of Commons, should be maintained;

Surely, there would be no objection to that -

  1. upon presentation of a petition, the House shall, at the earliest opportunity, refer the petition to the Committee of Privileges for its consideration and report;

I do not think that we are really breaking any new ground when we are suggesting that -

  1. in considering the petition, the Committee of Prvileges should enable the Member (or former Member) referred to in the petition to be heard on his own behalf . . .

Bear in mind that members have certain rights, that go back as far as the Bill of Rights, to put forward their case-

  1. The Committee of Privileges, at the completion of its deliberations, should report to the House its views on the petition and, in addition, recommend such conditions upon the production of the record or Hansard report as it deems appropriate in all the circumstances’.

In other words, we can indicate to a court of law: Yes, you have the Hansard, but it is on the basis that there is to be no cross-examination or interrogatories made in respect of it’. I think that is what the Opposition feels. I do not put it from the point of view of the Opposition; I feel it is what the house would consider to be a worthwhile motion. I am not pre-judging the issue from the point of the Government. I think it is just looking after the rights of members and suggesting that the proper course of action is to have petitions referred to a Privileges Committee in the first instance where that Committee can analyse the situation and make a report to Parliament which would then be able to judge the situation. I move:

I think I can leave the matter at that. We will let the House deliberate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I want to underline the principle that I know nobody seeks to erode, and that is, that the privileges belong to the Parliament and could not belong to any government.

But we also recognise that this Parliament is coming to an end and that the election campaign is foremost in most honourable members’ minds. Therefore I support the proposal of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) that this matter be considered early in the Thirty-second Parliament. I emphasise the word ‘early’ as included in the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

I turn now to the reference by the Leader of the House to the desirability of having legal advice. I point out to the Minister that there were four lawyers on the Privileges Committee and to have four lawyers agreed on something is not easily achieved. I hope that the Minister’s reference to the need to seek outside advice was not a reflection on the quality of the deliberations of the Committee. Finally, the Minister commented that he would perhaps refer the matter to another committee of the Parliament to examine. I hope that this is not a serious suggestion, but rather simply a reference to a form of words; that it is just something which might have been in his distant mind. We all know what happens when something is referred to a committee - that is about the end of it. As far as the Privileges Committee was concerned we sat in total for more than 600 hours of deliberation. As Chairman of that Committee–

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– No more than 60.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I meant more than 600 hours collectively. We sat 631 hours in committee. Nobody can determine what the next Parliament will hold, or whether I will be Chairman of that committee. But I would hate to see and I would not be prepared to support any proposal which would have the effect of dimply pouring down the drain those very bipartisan and thoughtful considerations which were given to both referrals. In conclusion, I simply want to repeat what I said the other day when I congratulated members on both sides of the House on the Committee for the diligent and responsible manner in which they approached the task given to them.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I want to make only a very few brief remarks in respect of the recommendations contained in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges. I preface my remarks about the substance of the report by saying that I believe it is regrettable that events have so far transpired that we now see this report, which is the product of a committee of this Parliament, being referred to a parliament whose membership will be different, whatever view one takes. The matter of privileges is to be regarded as a matter which takes precedence over all other matters. It is not just a light convention. It rests in the constitutional struggle that took place between the House of Commons and the Crown in order to establish the rights of the Parliament as against the rights of the Crown. Indeed, one of the things that has occurred in Australian society over a period, particularly in this Parliament, is that there indeed has been an erosion of the rights and privileges of the Parliament and the parliamentarian, not in terms of the relationship between the Parliament and the Crown but in terms of the relationship between the Parliament and the Executive, and the Executive and the bureaucracy.

There was a time when the traditional conflict which the constitutional writers would write about was the struggle between the Executive and the Parliament. But, given the nature and the way in which our political institutions have developed, I think it is true to say that the Parliament tends to become increasingly less relevant and the real struggle is the struggle between the bureaucracy and the Executive. Parliament and the parliamentarians are continually placed in a position where they become almost casual bystanders. I do not blame this Government for that. I think it has been a process in which all governments and ali parties have been involved. It has taken place over a period. When I became a member of this Parliament, having had the benefit of serving in another parliamentary institution, I suppose I believed, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you also have had that experience, that because this was a national Parliament, because it was larger and dealt with wider national issues, as a parliamentary institution it would be closer to the conventions, practices and traditions of Westminster and as a parliamentary institution would probably be more effective than the State Parliament from which I came. Having served in this Parliament for three years I regret to say that on a comparative analysis that is not the case. There was a far greater degree of response by Ministers to individual requests from parliamentarians in the State Parliament in which I sat than there is in this Parliament.

There is a practice which I find thoroughly commendable which takes place in many State parliaments and that is that if a member of parliament, on behalf of a constituent, wants access to a file which may well affect that constituent’s rights it is made available. It is laid on the table. It is not a secret document. To get any kind of file out of the bureaucracy in Canberra is like getting gold teeth out of a chicken. The point that I am making is that there has been a continual adoption of practices and standards which have eroded the rights of individual parliamentarians.

Mr Hurford:

– We haven’t been doing badly in getting files.

Mr HOLDING:

– My colleague said that we have not been doing badly in getting files. What I am saying is that it might be better if the files were laid on the table rather than- this seems to be what is happening - dropped off the back of trucks. I can see no reason for an honourable member not being placed in the situation - this occurs every day in the State Parliament in Victoria when they are dealing with the Housing Commission, the State Electricity Commission, or any one of a dozen departments - where he can simply ask the Minister whether he can inform himself of what is happening in the bureaucracy by seeing what is on the file. In Victoria that file is made available as a matter of course but it is regarded as an unheard of practice here.

The point that I am concerned to make is that, when the rights and the privileges of Parliament and of the individual parliamentarians are eroded, also eroded are the rights of the citizens who are represented ultimately by those parliamentarians. Therefore it seems to me - I will wind up on this note - that a great deal more attention has to be paid by this Parliament as an institution to its own rights and prerogatives. Like all conventions, rights and prerogatives, they did not just come out of the sky; they were hard won. They form part of a very noble tradition in the British parliamentary democracy. I think that that tradition puts all of us in a position of high responsibility. We have to ensure that those privileges, those traditions and those prerogatives are not whittled away.

In respect of the report that is now before us - having looked at its contents I think it is a commendable document and I think the Privileges Committee has worked well - I believe we should adopt the approach recommended by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rather than simply saying that we are running out of time and will refer it to an incoming privileges committee in a new parliament. I think that it is more satisfactory to make some decisions on that report. I suggest to the Leader of the House- I do not think this can be seen in any way as a party matter- that the House would be well served by adopting those recommendations. There are underlying issues which perhaps ought to be the subject of more consideration on a continuing basis. That may well be conceded.

I think that the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition which contained four points ought to be adopted by the

House. I think it ought to be adopted partly in fairness to the Privileges Committee which has done a lot of work. It is our committee. It is responsible to this Parliament, not to some other parliament which is differently composed. I think we ought to say yea or nay in respect of that aspect of the report. I think that aspect of the report is certainly very satisfactory. I would be prepared to adopt all the recommendations of the Committee. I have been involved in one aspect of parliamentary privilege recently. A Supreme Court justice in Victoria took the view - I think it was the correct view although I was not the beneficiary in this case- that parliamentary privilege extends to all the things that occurred in the Parliament even if they occurred outside the framework of the Standing Orders and even if they attached to a document which has not been tabled properly. That is a high watermark in terms of interpretation. It is certainly one which has a lot of legal merit and certainly has the weight of convention behind it. I am not asking the House to go this far on this occasion.

I think the Committee has done a good job of work. I think we are giving the Committee less than the credit which is due to it for the work that it has done if we say that the pressure of events on us, as an institution, is such that we will refer this matter to the incoming Parliament. 1 believe that aspects of this report are eminently satisfactory. I believe we can reach a unanimous decision on them. I comment to the Parliament the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps if we do nothing else in the remaining hours of this Parliament we could get some kind of consensus and spirit of agreement on this matter. I commend that spirit of consensus and spirit of agreement to the Leader of the House.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Special Trade Representations · New England · NCP/NP

– The Government does not object in principle to the four proposals submitted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). The very fact that they canvass the proposal and seek to make some modifications to the present practice illustrates the reason why I feel that it is better that the matter be deferred to the next Parliament. That is the reason why the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment at this stage.

Mr Holding:

– It’s not a matter for the Government. lt is a matter for the Parliament.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I will explain that in two minutes. It will be submitted to the next Parliament, not to the next government. I agree with the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) that it is the Parliament’s business, not the Government’s business. As far as the reference to a committee is concerned, let me explain to the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron), who is the Chairman of the Privileges Committee, that I have in mind that it probably will be necessary for this matter to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee as well as by the Privileges Committee. I believe that it will also be necessary to look at the position in conjunction with the Senate. The Senate as a whole or a committee of the Senate may also wish to deliberate on the implications of changing the procedures in this way. I do not seek to destroy the role of the Privileges Committee by referring this matter to another committee. I think that the whole question of privilege needs a somewhat wider consideration. It may be that other committees of the Parliament should be involved.

With respect to each of these four proposals, I have indicated that the Government has no fundamental objection to any of them. From my own view I think there is much to commend them in their presentation. Yet again, because I have a worry about the extent of the ramifications of the question of privilege, I feel that it would be better if the matter were given fuller consideration than this Parliament can give it this evening. I appreciate the views that have been put forward by the three honourable members opposite who have spoken on this matter. I believe that the views will in no way be affected if the matter is referred to the next Parliament, particularly as it is unlikely that this question will be canvassed - one would hope that it would not be canvassed - in the next month or so, that is, not until the Thirty-second Parliament commences.

Paragraph (3) of the amendment which seeks to give a former member the right to be heard on his own behalf is a very commendable suggestion. It certainly seems to be necessary. I think that the problem of legal representation needs to be considered. I am sure that in some instances the extent to which a non-legal member of the Parliament can be affected in circumstances like this must be taken into account. I think also that the general way this Parliament follows the procedures adopted in the House of Commons needs to be considered in the light of recommendations that, I know, are before the House of Commons at the moment. Therefore, I believe that, while there is no fundamental disagreement on the Government benches to the proposal put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the House will be better served if the matter were referred to the Thirty-second Parliament. No doubt, a motion similar to that moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will emerge as a result of the wider discussions which I have intimated I believe are essential.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– It is natural that I follow the question of privilege with great concern because I came from the House of Commons, whence comes the system on which our privileges are built. I would be the first to sense any erosion of the privileges of this House. I would be the first, too, to say that the House as a whole represents the sovereignty of the people. I am not concerned about members of the Executive whom I consider to be very valuable people but people who are just part of a normal convenience to flush through legislation and to legislate to the best of their ability. I speak as a House of Commons man and as a House of Representatives man. I was somewhat alarmed to hear the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) suggest that the noble senators would be brought into consultation about the privileges of this House. If the Leader of the House is listening to me, I indicate that that proposed action is absolutely anathema to me. I do not know how many honourable members in this House would wish to consult the Senate about the privileges of this House.

I am also a little anxious that any of our privileges should be handed over to some lawyers. That shows a complete lack of faith in the Committee and its work. What does the Committee do? It serves only to advise the House and it is selected from the best members the House can provide. If the Committee of Privileges of this House is to be subjected to an inquiry by the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or the President of the Senate every time it presents a report, that would be the very way in which we could end this Parliament. We are here for one reason only, to make certain that we protect the rights and the sovereignty of the people whom we represent as a whole.

Therefore, I am in sympathy with what has been proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). But he is a wise man, as we all discovered in the Committee. On reflection I think he would agree that there must be very few members of this Parliament who actually have been through that document and have examined what we mean about the Press or anybody else applying to this House for documents. He knows too that the Press is bound to be very sensitive on this matter. He must realise also that we made some observations concerning a member of the judiciary. Therefore, if he adds it all together he will probably agree that whereas almost the whole House would accept the amendment as it stands, because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves perhaps it would be better if he were to withdraw his amendment, having drawn it to the attention of the House, knowing that the Privileges Committee of the next Parliament will be filled with honourable members equally diligent and equally valuable who will tender to this House their best possible advice.

As far as I have been able to discover, for the first time honourable members have a document before them which has been produced after hours of work by the Committee. I had the honour to serve on that Committee with the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) who is sitting on my left. He was an excellent Chairman. I see nothing wrong in the next Committee of Privileges using this document on which we have worked as the basis of its discussion. I feel certain that the next Committee of Privileges would have sufficient time to consult those who are interested in the matter.

It would be advisable if the House could agree not to press this motion for the time being but to accept that we are all members of parliament and we should try - as we did in committee - to come to a unity of view. If we came to a unity of view in committee, surely we can come to a unity of view in this House. To my mind, and to the minds of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and my honourable friends on the opposite side of the House, it would be somewhat unfortunate if there were any form of division, any form of amendment or any action showing that after all our deliberations we were not quite certain and we wanted to divide on the matter. I must say quite frankly that from my experience it would be too early to pass the motions which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. I do not think it is fair on the people, I do not think it is fair on the Parliament and I do not think it is fair on the Committee. I hope the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will accept that from me as pleasantly and as nicely as I can possibly say it. I must, therefore, say that I think on this occasion the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) is correct. On the matter of privilege the House is well advised not to divide, but to persevere and to say: ‘We will place our trust in the new privileges committee and the new Parliament working on what we have provided for them’.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition will not press for a division but wishes to register its objection in this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Alleged Discrimination and Intimidation of Witness

Consideration of report presented on 1 1 September.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

– I move:

On 1 1 September 1980 the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges presented a report on the alleged discrimination and intimidation of a Mr David E. Berthelsen in his Public Service employment because of evidence given by him to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The matter was referred to the Committee by the House on 23 April 1980.

The Committee found on the evidence available to it that:

  1. 1 ) the Committee is not satisfied that a breach of parliamentary privilege had been proved against any person.
  2. the Committee is satisfied, however, that Mr Berthelsen had been disadvantaged in his career prospects in the Public Service, particularly because of accumulating media publicity about his involvement with the Sub-committee and the effect that this might have on the relationship between the Auditor-General’s Office and its clients.

The Committee recommended:

  1. . the attention of the Public Service Board be drawn to the circumstances of this case and that the Public Service Board should do all within its power to restore Mr Berthelsen’s career prospects in the Public Service and to ensure that he suffers no further disadvantage as a result of this case.

The Committee also concluded:

The Parliament should consider the enactment of a Parliamentary Witnesses Protection Act which would both provide for the prosecution of persons who tamper with, intimidate or discriminate against witnesses who give (or have given) evidence before a Parliamentary Committee or the House; and also provide a statutory cause of action in which witnesses who have suffered intimidation or discrimination would have the right to sue for damages those responsible for the said intimidation and/or discrimination. In respect to actions against such persons, their Departments may also be joined as Defendants and may also be vicariously liable to compensate by way of damages the witnesses so intimidated and/or discriminated against.

The Committee noted:

  1. . there is no mechanism by which breach of privilege can be referred for examination when the Parliament is not sitting and the particular circumstances of a case may require some urgent action to be taken. Consideration should be given to conferring power on the Speaker to make an interim referral of an issue to the Committee of Privileges, such action to be referred to the House for its approval at the first opportunity.

The Government has drawn the Committee’s recommendation to the attention of the Public Service Board. I should add that, as honourable members will be aware, there are certain protections in the Public Service personnel system against discriminatory practices. For example, all officers have the right to appeal to an independent committee against the provisional promotions made by departments and that the prime consideration in the consideration of these appeals is the relative efficiency of officers. Further, staff may, in certain circumstances, appeal to the Public Service Board against decisions of departmental managers. The Government proposes that the balance of the Committee’s proposals be referred to the new Parliament for consideration.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The motion which has been proposed by the Government is not acceptable to the Opposition. We are not putting it on any political basis. The Opposition feels that if the Government were to look at what has happened to an individual in this case it cannot delay the rights of that individual to an incoming parliament. We understand that this Parliament has only a few hours left, but to suggest that this matter should be considered early in the Thirty-second Parliament does nothing for the rights of an individual named David Berthelsen. Let me make it clear that what happened in the Berthelsen case arose because a public servant decided to put his views honestly and forthrightly to a joint committee of this Parliament. That happened some two years ago. This man’s career has been blighted for some two years. To suggest now that we should refer this matter to the incoming Parliament is not good enough. I think everybody would agree, particularly those who are aware of the problems that can affect a person’s career in the Public Service, that Mr Berthelsen, his wife and his family have had an extraordinarily heavy burden to bear over a period of two years. In my view, this man has been victimised becasue of the mere fact that he gave evidence to a committee of the Parliament.

We were not able to make a finding of breach of privilege because of the vagueness of the position in two respects. Firstly, which individual might have set out to affect the man’s career; and, secondly, whether a letter which was encouraged to be written by the particular committee was deemed to be evidence in the meaning of the law. Leaving that aside, let me make it clear that the man has been under attention for two years. It is no solace to him or to us to suggest that the Public Service Board allows people to appeal. The Public Service Board was asked to help Mr Berthelsen only because it is responsible for putting people on the unattached list, which is just one step away from the grave. He had no future at all.

We want this Parliament to pass today a motion which says that there is now an obligation on the Public Service Board to rectify the damage that has been done. Mr Berthelsen was up against one of the heaviest departments in Canberra. He was up against the Department of Defence. The Auditor-General, whilst originally feeling that he could protect Mr Berthelsen, decided to take the view that he had better continue to service his client departments and the best way to do that was to remove Mr Berthelsen. I am not criticising a particular public servant. However, looking at the situation from Mr Berthelsen’s point of view, for two years he has been trying to get justice in respect of what happened to him. What was wrong with his appearing before the Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and indicating his view on defence? That is a very valid situation. Because he did so the Department of Defence, in the view I think of most of us, set out to get him removed. This action affected him not only in relation to the Department of Defence but also in relation to the Department of Social Security. A complaint was made against him when he went to carry out an audit in the Department of Social Security. What did he find in that Department? All he found was that some computers there were not being used fully and that they were perhaps being used by private people without any authority. That is a valid thing for an auditor to do, but it was the subject of a complaint about the man.

The Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar), who is at the table, would be interested to know that Mr Berthelsen went into the Department of Health for an audit and suggested that a computer program - this must, of course, relate to the pharmaceutical benefits area - was in error. That caused a complaint from the administrative head of the Department of Health. This man, who had skills that nobody else had and who was downgraded in this Parliament and accused of being equivalent to a tea lady or a class 9 clerk, has had to bear this burden for two years. This is a disgraceful example of the departmental heads in Canberra not understanding the problems of human beings and, particularly, not looking at the rights of this Parliament. But for this Parliament, but for committees such as the Privileges Committee, Berthelsen could well be a destroyed individual. Three other individuals were raising objections at about the same time Berthelsen raised this matter. We do not know what has happened to their careers. However, it is strongly suggested that their careers are already finished.

It is a pretty devasting situation when, because a man gives evidence to a committee of the Parliament, he is subjected to oppressive action and it is put that perhaps he should not pursue any audit in the Department of Defence, that he had better go very easy in the Department of Social Security and that he had better be very careful in the Department of Health. As a result, the AuditorGeneral said: ‘What am I to do with this man; I cannot continue to service my clients?’ I should have thought that the Auditor-General would not have any clients. I should have thought that he would have lots of servants because under the Audit Act he has the power to subpoena people to appear before him and produce documents and he can ask them the most searching questions. So he needs the very best of staff. If a Treasurer is to exercise economic responsibility he has to have the best advice from an Auditor-General. A parliament is also entitled to get the best reports from an Auditor-General. Therefore, we need the best people in that area.

When Mr Berthelsen gave his evidence honestly in respect of defence and communications he could not have thought that his career would be so blighted. We are saying that it is not good enough to defer this matter for consideration by the incoming parliament. Certainly we can talk about legislation that we desperately need now - that is, legislation that will protect witnesses. Comparable legislation exists in England. That legislation should exist here. I intend to move the following amendment to what has been proposed:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the House calls upon-

1 ) the Public service Board to do all within its power to restore Mr Berthelsen’s career prospects in the Public Service and to ensure that he suffers no further disadvantage as a result of this case and directs the Government to do all within its power to ensure that this occurs:

The Government has a responsibility to establish this man safely in a permanent career in the Public Service if he so wishes. That should be done now. We should not wait for the Thirty-second Parliament to be formed before it is done. We do not know when that Parliament will get the time to debate this man’s problems. My foreshadowed amendment continues:

  1. the Chairman of the Public Service Board to draw the attention of all Permanent Heads to the Report of the Privileges Committee relating to Mr David E. Berthelsen, and further calls upon the Chairman of the Public Service Board to direct Permanent Heads to bring the report to the attention of all public servants and calls upon Ministers responsible for statutory corporations to take similar appropriate action,
  2. the Chairman of the Privileges Committee to introduce by way of legislation at the earliest opportunity in the 32nd Parliament a Bill enacting the recommendations referred to in clause 71 of the Report of the Privileges Committee and calls upon the Government to make available the assistance of parliamentary counsel for this purpose’.

Acceptance of the amendment would have the effect of giving us some positive results arising from the recommendation of the Privileges Committee. This matter should not be referred to the incoming parliament for consideration.

I repeat that, but for the interests of the Press, Mr Berthelsen might never have had a chance to survive; but for the interest of his local member, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), the matter would not have been raised and he could well have perished. This situation arose because Mr Berthelsen dared to give evidence before a sub-committee of a joint committee of this Parliament. I think we should bring home to honourable members the fact that because a public servant decided to give evidence to help a parliament he has suffered for two years. Any further delay would not be acceptable. The man deserves assistance from the point of view that he was right all the time. He was honest and forthright in what he said. He did not give out any secrets. He did nothing wrong. But it is clear that a number of permanent heads were not able to assist him. It is very clear from the Defence files that they set out to destroy him. In fact, it is quite remarkable to think that minutes of meetings held in the Defence hierarchy were able to be published in the Press within a matter of days. It is very significant to note what one of those minutes says. It says that Mr Laurie Oakes quoted verbatim the minutes to the Secretary of Defence. It went on to talk about how significant it is that matters of privilege cannot be raised when the Parliament is in recess. We are now going into a recess situation and no one will be able to talk about Mr Berthelsen until such time as we come back again.

The Defence minute or memo makes the point that action can be taken and the question of privilege will not be raised because Parliament is in recess. I think that is a very significant factor in the Defence analysis of how a committee of this Parliament works. Further, the minute went on to point out that it was significant that when a representative of the Department of Defence appeared before the Sub-committee on the day in question, which I think was 29 November 1978 and the minutes of the Department of Defence had already been leaked, nobody on the committee decided to ask the representative from the Department of Defence anything about it. Defence thought it was very significant that members of the parliamentary committee were not wide awake as to what had happened. But nobody in the Defence Department decided to have an inquiry as to how these high-powered minutes of a most confidential nature were leaked to the Press, which shows an absolute lack of security in Defence.

So this leads us to the question: Was there some premeditated action to guarantee that if the minutes were leaked Berthelsen’s career could well become the subject of intimidation or discrimination? Subsequent events led strongly to that course. It was only because there were articles in the Bulletin and other newspapers that people began to take notice of Mr Berthelsen’s troubles. So we owe a debt to the Press on that basis. I want to make it very clear that if at the present time I were involved in Mr Berthelsen’s case and if I looked at the record of what had happened I might take the view that no one would help me; everyone had set out to destroy me; I was deemed to be a nuisance although all I had ever done was to try to do my job and my duty. I am a fully qualified telecommunications engineer with computer skills. There is nobody like me in that whole area of the Public Service. Why is it that I am downgraded to the equivalent of the tea lady or a class 9 clerk by Ministers who, parrot like, repeat statements given to them by departmental heads? We can excuse Ministers, but we cannot excuse the departmental heads who prepared the handouts against this man and which were read in this Parliament. What consideration, what ex gratia payment can we give the man for the damage he has suffered? Let us make it very clear. He was personally abused in this Parliament, I say because of departmental head intrigue. What excuse or what ex gratia payment can we make to the man for the fact that it was suggested that he might leave every department, go on the unattached list and try to find some job somewhere else? What does that do for a man and his career? What would honourable members imagine if they saw in one month three personal reports as to their behaviour, with suggestions that they had some messianic desire or zeal? People were supposed to be judging this case impartially. However, this man has now got a file a foot high with all sorts of suggestions that perhaps he has some difficulties. The only thing wrong with Berthelsen is that he was too honest, too forthright, too direct and the Public Service structure in Canberra could not tolerate that. But the Parliament welcomes it. He is the sort of person we would like to see in a parliament, a person who can stand up and talk about a cause and what should be done about it. We should not have this intrigue or back door method where apparently people can suggest to each other, ‘He is a nuisance’, or ‘My Department cannot continue to function if you employ him’. What right have the departments of Health, Social Security or Defence to tell the AuditorGeneral who is to be in his employ? Where millions of dollars are involved we want the very best person in the Auditor-General’s Office to indicate to the people at large, the taxpayers, that their money is properly and honestly invested. Every time Berthelsen came up to answer a charge, he successfully acquitted himself. But what about the people who made the charge? On that basis I do not think we can honestly walk away from this Parliament and say that Mr Berthelsen is a matter we will deal with in the next Parliament. Mr Berthelsen has been under attack for two years, which is long enough. It is time that we did something about his case. I move:

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I second the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). I think it is terribly important to take seriously the proposition put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that having made this recommendation and having looked at this problem very -thoroughly, the Parliament should now back up the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges and give its report some effect. It is no good coming to all these highminded conclusions and then walking away from them. I do not think the amendment, as it is worded, is quite strong enough but I hope that the Public Service Board will get the message. The amendment states that the Public Service Board should do all within its power. I would like to see the Public Service Board instructed to restore Mr Berthelsen’s career prospects in the Public Service. I think the spirit of the thing is quite clear. I am confident that if we accept this amendment, proposed by the Deputy Leader, the Public Service Board will comply with the spirit of it.

I think we should receive some satisfaction from the fact that an individual, a constituent in my electorate, a person whom I did not know until this case came up, after having been denied justice within his Department, after having given evidence before a parliamentary committee, after having gone to that committee and complained that he was being discriminated against and after having got no satisfaction that as a last resort he was able to go to his elected member. The laws of this Parliament are such that I was able to bring the case up as a matter of privilege. I would like to express my gratitude to the Speaker for making the decision that he did. He could have said that it was not a prima facie case and that would have been the end of Mr Berthelsen’s last resort unless he went to common law. Mr Speaker made the decision that it was a matter for the Privileges Committee. I express my appreciation to the Committee, particularly its Chairman, for the conscientious way it dealt with this very difficult problem. 1 know the Committee spent hours and hours on the matter and worked late into the night. It deserves our commendation for the job it did. It was a most difficult job. Certainly we can criticise the Committee for not having named individuals. But I know the difficulties it was in. There were legal difficulties in relation to the status of the evidence. I appreciate those difficulties. Basically the report did bear out Mr Berthelsen’s claims that he had been disadvantaged in his career prospects. On the evidence before the Committee a number of persons within the Department of Defence, individually and collectively, were determined not only to rebut the evidence of Mr Berthelsen but also to go further and if possible silence him, discredit him personally and deter him and other similarly minded from offering further evidence before the Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence or indeed any other parliamentary committee which was critical of the Department of Defence. It is a disgraceful reflection on senior public servants that this should happen.

People concerned will know who they are. Even though there are no names people are quite capable of reading between the lines. I think people will get the message that they cannot get away with this any longer. They have been able to get away with it for a long while. As my colleague has said other people have been disadvantaged and their careers have been ruined.

I talked to another professional officer the other day who was virtually forced out of the Department. He was not in a position to claim privilege and his career has been ruined. Goodness knows how many others there are. I see this as a very historic document. I think it is one of the most fundamental documents to come before this Parliament. I think honourable members generally will regard it as such. The recommendations that Mr Berthelsen’s career prospects be restored is commendable and the precedent set by the findings, I think, is most important for the Australian Parliament and for public servants particularly. It is vital to the functioning of this Parliament and to our committee system that witnesses be able to give any evidence they feel relevant to the operation of government in this country, free of any threat or fear of intimidation provided that they do it within the terms of their employment. That is precisely what Mr Berthelsen did. He never broke any rules; he never breached any security undertakings that he had given.

Of course, it is equally vital to the rights of the public servants who should have the same opportunity to testify before a committee of Parliament as any other citizen. A public servant is in a specially vulnerable position if he or she chooses to criticise a government department or instrumentality because that public servant relies on the Government for his or her career and livelihood. The case of Mr Berthelsen is an ample demonstration of this vulnerability. As a report from the Committee of Privileges demonstrates, the Department of Defence was able to apply substantial pressure on Mr Berthelsen, even though he did not work for that Department. All public servants, who have given evidence before committees of this Parliament and who have criticised the workings of parts of the Public Service have taken the same risk of intimidation as faced by Mr Berthelsen.

I believe that some people have suffered severe discrimination without this House ever being aware of the fact. Goodness knows how many people are involved. As the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith observed in the debate last week, obviously the careers of some of these people have suffered damage and they have gone into oblivion. That is not just an emotive statement; it is a fact. People in my office have confirmed that this is what happened to them. As I said, unfortunately their situation was not quite the same as that of Mr Berthelsen and we were not able to bring those people before the Privileges Committee. Mr Berthelsen persisted with his claim despite continuous media publicity and unfavourable comment in this House. Indeed the Committee found that Mr Berthelsen’s difficulties in his employment with the Auditor-General’s Department arose principally because of the notoriety which accumulating media publicity had attached to him. His persistence and his conviction in the justice of his claims have now been vindicated by the Committee’s report, and I wholeheartedly support the recommendation on page 22 that:

  1. . the attention of the Public Service Board be drawn to the circumstances of this case and that the Public Service Board should do all within its power to restore Mr Berthelsen’s career prospects in the Public Service and to ensure that he suffers no further disadvantage as a result of his case.

It was a disgraceful exercise of authority in which his character was besmirched. He was belittled; his health suffered; he was subjected to tremendous pressure over a long period. It is a tribute to his fortitude that he has been able to stand up to all of this. This report has established a precedent which may serve to protect public servants who, in future, wish to give evidence to Parliament as private citizens. In order to secure that protection more fully and clearly, legislative measures should be taken, along the lines suggested by the Committee. It would be a most welcome step for the Parliament to introduce legislation, such as a parliamentary witnesses’ protection Act which would: Provide for the prosecution of persons who tamper with, intimidate or discriminate against witnesses who have given evidence before a committee of the House; provide an action whereby witnesses who have suffered discrimination could recover damages from those responsible - such an action would go some way to giving justice in a case like that of David Berthelsen - and allow the departments of those responsible to be made vicariously liable to pay compensation to the witnesses discriminated against or intimidated.

This report goes to the very heart of the vital relationship between the bureaucracy and this Parliament. In many ways it confirms our worst fears that some senior public servants - I emphasise the word ‘some’ because I know that most public servants are loyal - have an inflated assessment of the extent of their authority and they hold this Parliament in contempt. They come to regard parliamentary committees and their powers of inquiry into an oversight of the Public Service as something which they have to live with and at the same time something they have to resist and evade as much as possible. We, in committee hearings, have all had experience of evasion by senior public servants when we try to get information out of them. These officers are sometimes responsible for the expenditure of billions of dollars of the public’s money. An amount of $3,451 m was appropriated for defence in the 1980 Budget. These officers are also responsible for the security of millions of dollars worth of government assets. They cannot expect and should not be expected to be allowed to carry out this responsibility in a veil of secrecy, shut off from the scrutiny of a responsible elected parliament.

We take our responsibility for scrutiny of the spending of public funds most seriously. To fulfil our responsibility we need access to vital information. It is a reflection on senior public servants that such information is frequently not forthcoming from them in their official capacity. Today we had a good example of this unwillingness with the so-called Manhaul Report on Conscription. The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) apparently knew nothing about that report. We accept their assurances that they did not. Then the Minister said that his senior officers know nothing about it either. I am quite satisfied that the Manhaul report exists and that sooner or later it will be found to exist and somebody will aknowledge that it does. But at this stage these senior people do not know of the existence of this document on conscription.

When a public servant becomes aware that the Parliament is being denied vital information which he believes the Parliament should have in the public interest, it becomes imperative that the protection of that person should be beyond question, provided that he acts within the terms of his employment in giving that evidence. We cannot carry out our responsibilities if Public Service witnesses are inhibited from coming to us by conspiracies of intimidation and intimidation such as occurred with David Berthelsen. I believe that all public servants owe a debt of gratitude to David Berthelsen for standing up to this process of intimidation and vilification and in bringing the matter before the Privileges Committee. We, as a Parliament, are indebted to the Speaker- for ruling that it was a matter of privilege - the Committee, its Chairman and members and staff who serviced that Committee gave so much time in presenting what I believe will be seen as an historic document which will establish very important precedents for the protection of witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– This proposition affects the fundamental liberty of the individual. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Opposition has on this occasion moved an amendment. I tell honourable members of the Opposition that I will be supporting the Australian Labor Party on its amendment because I have a duty to support fellow members of the House in the findings and recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges. I hope that the vote will be a free vote because everybody will be asked to exercise his conscience. They will ask themselves: Did Mr David Berthelsen’s career just collapse by accident? Who would think that his career collapsed by accident? Of course it did not, and it is absolutely untrue to say that it did. There is no doubt in my mind and, I am sure, in the minds of some of my honourable friends, that David Berthelsen decided to take on the very senior echelon of the Public Service on a matter which he thought important to this country. Maybe he was wrong or maybe he was mistaken. Maybe he had some fantasy. But is he not allowed to come before a committee of this House or any other committee to express his views? Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice makes it quite clear that:

Calling a person to account or passing censure on him is a breach of parliamentary privilege.

I would have thought that the censure poured upon Mr Berthelsen, when he was called to account in his Department for what he had done, was absolutely and correctly to be considered a breach of parliamentary privilege. I have come to the conclusion that some people in the Public Service do not give a tuppenny damn for this House. They do not really care. They wonder: ‘What is all this about a privileges committee?’ Not all public servants would say that, but power goes to the heads of some people and they are rather like mountaineers. The higher they get, the less oxygen there is and the more they become unable to cope with the life. The majority of public servants whom I and other honourable members have dealt with are fine, dedicated and direct people without whom this country and this Government could not function. I think that is a fundamental point. There have been a few who decided that they would show Mr Berthelsen what it was all about.

I must be frank with the House and say that I consider there was direct collusion because it could not have happened so neatly by accident that a Minister would come into the House and say that Mr Berthelsen’s qualifications were those of a tea lady when he had been working for Ericsson Communications, one of the top computer organisations in the country. Neither can I believe that the head of the Department of Defence would have gone to the Committee deliberately to give evidence to rebut what Mr David Berthelsen had said unless it was of some significance to this Parliament. The function of the Committee was to find the truth. Was Mr Berthelsen saying something that was of value to this Parliament or not? We are put in a very difficult position. I supported the report all the way through; I felt that I wanted to stay with the views of the other members of the Committee. I did not feel that I should say anything more until the debate came before the House.

I now have to say, quite frankly, that I consider there was collusion. If I think there was collusion, then I must exercise my conscience. I could not prove it, but I have to consider the evidence given to me. It was substantial - so substantial that I could not say beyond doubt that Mr David Berthelsen was not the subject of an operation to get rid of him. He could not be got rid of entirely by accident. When the Department discovered it could not get rid of him, it said, ‘Let him carry on’. The pressure on him was quite alarming. After two years it must have been a dreadful experience for him. So, on this occasion, in exercising my judgment and my conscience, I have to support the motion put by another member of the Committee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, support Mr Berthelsen, and stand by the individual who is paramount and for whom we stand here.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I think the motion moved by the Government in this privileges case is quite different from the preceding motion. The preceding motion dealt with a general principle which, if it is necessary so to do, could possibly be postponed until the next Parliament. But, where a matter arises affecting the rights of an individual, the rights of the subject, it is intolerable for it to be delayed. It is not the fault of the Standing Committee of Privileges that the House does not have adequate time to consider all the details and ramifications of our report. On the basis of the report, I believe that the House ought to be in a position to adopt not the motion of the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) but the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen).

As the Bible says, ‘Hope long deferred maketh the heart sick’. Mr Berthelsen has every reason to hope that after two years the Parliament will show some dispatch to defend its own privileges and reassert Berthelsen’s right to be restored to a favourable position within the Public Service. Mr Berthelsen was punished for his zeal. When I sat on the case as a temporary member of the Privileges Committee Berthelsen made me think of the case of Admiral Byng. Honourable members will recall that back in 1757 Admiral Byng was shot after he lost a battle due to his indolence. As Voltaire said in a telling phrase, he was shot pour encourager les autres - to encourage the others. In this case, Berthelsen was an Admiral Byng in reverse. He was being shot pour decourager les autres- to discourage the others. It was not just Berthelsen that his opponents were concerned about; it was Berthelsen Mark I, Berthelsen Mark II and Berthelsen Mark III, and anyone else who might be similarly minded to give evidence which was not satisfactory to the people who run the Department of Defence.

I regret the discrepancy between the words used by the Speaker when he referred this question of privilege to the Committee on 23 April 1980 and the subsequent motion moved by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry). The Speaker said:

I have concluded that it would be proper For the Privileges Committee to examine the issue of principle raised against the facts to be elicited in this case for the future guidance of the Parliament and to determine whether any wrong has been done which amounts to a breach of privilege.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– As I was saying before the suspension of the sitting, when the Berthelsen case was referred to the Committee of Privileges, the Speaker used rather broad terms and suggested that the Committee: examine the issue of principle raised against the facts to be elicited in this case for the future guidance of the Parliament and to determine whether any wrong had been done which amounts to a breach of privilege.

Thereupon, the honourable member for Fraser moved a motion which was much more narrow in its wording. The motion stated:

That the matter of the alleged discrimination and intimidation of Mr David Berthelsen in his public service employment because of evidence given by him to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

The reference to ‘evidence’ led, in the final analysis, to a rather narrow determination by the Committee. The Committee pointed out in paragraph 61:

There are two ways in which the word ‘evidence’ can be defined. One is the narrow technical definition as something which is formally ‘received in evidence’ by a court, Parliamentary Committee or tribunal and where the material and its author is immune from legal suit. The other is the broad definition of evidence as in common speech, that is, what a person says or writes of what he knows whether or not it is formally received.

Paragraph 62 states:

This Committee is bound to apply the law of privilege to the technical definition of ‘evidence’ and future Parliamentary Committees would be well advised to keep this point in mind. Accordingly, informal correspondence - not admitted into evidence - should be avoided.

Berthelsen’s first appearance in October 1 978 before the Sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament constituted ‘evidence’. However, the written material which he submitted in 1979, from a technical point of view, could not be regarded as evidence. The Committee was concerned about the intervention of the Secretary to the Department of Defence after the first evidence given by Mr Berthelsen. Paragraph 44 of the report states:

On the very day Mr Berthelsen gave evidence, a detailed report on his employment with the Department of Defence was called for; the Acting Defence Liaison Officer reported the details of Mr Berthelsen’s evidence on 25 October and subsequently, the Senior Security Officer of the Department commented in his written report ‘I feel that he [Berthelsen] won’t be threatened easily’; the next day (26 October), Mr Berthelsen’s credibility was attacked in the House by the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. Also on that day a senior officer in the Department of Defence prepared, at the Secretary’s request, a draft letter to be sent to the AuditorGeneral by the Secretary: This drafted stated, inter alia, that Mr Berthelsen’s appearance before the Subcommittee on Defence Matters was ‘grossly irregular’.

Paragraph 45 states:

Five days later - on 1 November - the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Sir Arthur Tange, personally drafted what can only be described as a very strong letter to the Auditor-General (Mr Steele Craik). By 8 November it was clear that Sir Arthur Tange had sought a memorandum from Mr M. G. Cowie, Acting Deputy Secretary A of the Department of Defence, seeking an analysis of Mr Steele Craik’s reply to Sir Arthur’s letter and requesting advice as to ‘further action’. In minutes dated 8 and 10 November 1978 to Sir Arthur Tange, Mr Cowie recommended, inter alia, that Mr Berthelsen’s credibility be attacked as he was ‘not a substantial witness’. There is little doubt that Mr Berthelsen’s evidence had evoked keen interest at the highest level in one of the most powerful administrative structures within the Public Service. It is also clear that at that time, Sir Arthur Tange was universally regarded as the doyen of the Public Service in Australia and the impact of his personal intervention in the Berthelsen affair could hardly be over-stated (notwithstanding a staunch defence of Mr Berthelsen by the AuditorGeneral (Mr Steele Craik) in his letter in reply to Sir Arthur on 6 November 1978).

By 21 November 1978, three divisions of the Department of Defence had prepared detailed analyses in response to Mr Berthelsen’s evidence. Mr Berthelsen’s evidence, it should be noted, was mainly based on material freely available to the public, which he had extracted from reports of the Auditor-General. True it was, that Mr Berthelsen had ventured personal observations in the course of his evidence. These contributions had been described by Sir Arthur Tange as ‘pretentious comment’ and ‘dubious assertions’.

In paragraph 5 1 the Committee found:

On the evidence the Committee is unable to make a positive finding of breach of privilege–

And these words are underlined - against any individual member of the Department of Defence, past or present.

Paragraph 52 states:

The words of the Law of Scotland are apposite - as against individuals within the Department of Defence the finding would have to be Not Proven. The Committee is not prepared to dismiss out of hand the allegation that there was a conspiracy against Mr Berthelsen - equally, because of the insufficiency of evidence, the Committee is not prepared to make a positive finding of Guilty of breach of Parliamentary Privilege against any officer (past or present) of the Department of Defence.

I will not repeat what has been said by earlier speakers and members of the Committee. However, I restate that it is essential for proper steps to be taken in the new Parliament for a law to protect witnesses before parliamentary committees, I will quote what is stated at the end of paragraph 70, namely:

If the Parliament fails to provide the protection to which these witnesses and prospective witnesses are entitled, the effectiveness of the Committees, and through them, the Parliament and the Nation, will suffer. The Committee of Privileges is determined that this should not happen.

I want to relate this to the broader issue of Parliament reasserting its right to be regarded as sovereign. We face the situation described many years ago by a British Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, as the new despotism’- where the overmighty subject operating within the Public Service regards the Parliament with contempt and regards himself as quite free to override it. As government becomes more complex, an able, numerous, highly-trained and highly-opinionated Public Service moves into a command position - -overmighty subjects who exercise influence over Ministers become increasingly irritated when this Parliament makes spasmodic attempts to assert its primacy. The senior public servants are paid more than we are and, naturally, they conclude that they are more significant than we are. In some respects they are. The point is that if power moves into their hands, the democratic system, the democratic traditions that we have grown up with become completely irrelevant. The Parliament has lost control of the system. We must assert its prerogatives or the institution will die.

In 1901, an election year, Australia’s population was 3.7 million and the Parliament had 1 1 1 members, 75 in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives sat for 1 1 3 days for a total of 866 hours. To illustrate, the size of government at that time, there was a Budget of £4m; that is to say, just over £1 per person in Australia. If we convert that to dollars and multiply by a factor of 18 to one to allow for currency depreciation then the 1901 Budget was equal to $145m in 1980 money. That is the equivalent of S39 per person per annum. In 1901, the House of

Representatives sat for 866 hours, the equivalent of 1 1 hours and 35 minutes for each member. In 1980 we have an election year. By the time the Parliament rises tomorrow it will have sat for 45 days. It is true that it will sit for a few days after the election and before the end of the year, but I doubt very much whether we will sit for half the number of sitting days of 1901 . So far we have sat for about 450 hours, which is the equivalent of 3 hours 40 minutes per member of the House of Representatives. The Budget appropriations and the permanent and special appropriations covered in it amount to $ 39,000m; that is 268 times more than in 1901; an equivalent of $2,708 per person per annum. Nevertheless, the House sits less often now than it did in 1901. If there is this enormous increase in business–

Mr Scholes:

– The Parliament was not elected until March either.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is true. If there is that enormous increase in business but the time which the House devotes to matters of state contracts, the amount available for each member of parliament to give his point of view contracts, the command positions in administration must pass more and more to the Ministry, to the Executive wing of government, and the role of the Parliament must contract. If we want to see the writing on the wall - as they say nowadays, if we want to see the printout on the wall - we will let this matter pass by without comment. To let this matter go by without standing up on our collective hind legs and saying ‘It is time for the Parliament to assert itself would seem to suggest that we are a parliament full of budgies and koalas.

The Speaker of the House of Commons, the right honourable George Thomas, has been talking on his visit to Australia about the supremacy of Parliament. It is clear, from listening to him, that he actually means it, but we would have to feel a sense of cynicism if we started talking about the supremacy of Parliament’ in this place. I suspect that many of us would choke on the words because we do not really believe in the supremacy of Parliament and have come to accept the supremacy of the Executive Government. That is why I think this is a most important matter. It is essential that it be dealt with in a bi-partisan manner. I have not mentioned any partisan considerations. Everything I have said could have been said just as easily by an honourable member on the other side of the chamber. I hope that the Government will see fit to ensure that the liberty of the particular subject, David Ernest Berthelsen, is supported and endorsed by a resolution of the House tonight.

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

– In all of the 14 years that I have been a member of this Parliament I have never disagreed with or voted against my party, but I would have been tempted very much today to vote for the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). I find myself very much in agreement with most of the other speakers in this debate who are members of the Committee of Privileges and who worked so hard to come to a just decision in this matter. I pay great tribute, in all respect, to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his wise counsel, for his legal knowledge and for the things he did in the consideration of that Committee to see that justice was done. I believe a compromise has now been worked out between the Government and the Opposition so that I, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) and several others will not be put in the position of deciding which way we should vote on the amendment. I am happy that that has happened. I think it is a great tribute both to the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) and to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that it has happened. I find myself very much in agreement with many of the points made by my colleague the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) whose contribution to the Committee was also very great.

I wish to make one point, and one point only. I was most concerned that the Auditor-General, who is vested by this Parliament with great powers, was prepared to get rid of one of his staff, Mr Berthelsen, because he believed that heads of other departments would not co-operate with him, despite the powers given by this Parliament to the Auditor-General, unless he did so. In other words, as I saw the situation, Mr Berthelsen was to be the sacrificial lamb. I think it is a great reflection on the Auditor-General and on all departmental heads that a man’s career should be put in jeopardy. As I have said, despite all the powers that the Auditor-General has been given by this duly elected Parliament- the highest power in the land, we have been led to believe - this man’s career was put on the line because of the fear of the Auditor-General that his work would be impeded by other departments if a witness such as Mr Berthelsen did not have this action taken against him.

What really upsets me is the fear that in future members of the Public Service will be frightened to appear before a parliamentary committee and to give an honest version of what they believe should be done. I do not want to say any more. I am glad that we will not be put in the position of having to decide on party lines. I know that the Parliament will be going into recess this week, but

I hope that this matter will not be forgotten, that it will be long remembered and that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not be forgotten in the next parliament.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I am concerned, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in which this matter originally arose and also as a person interested in the procedures and operations of the parliamentary system, that the Parliament is not able to complete consideration of matters which arose during its life. Privilege is a matter which is bestowed on a parliament for the currency of its existence and cannot be transferred to a subsequent parliament; nor can responsibility for the enforcement of privilege in one parliament be transferred to the next. The motion at least contains a reference to Mr Berthelsen’s career and requests that action be taken to protect his future and to restore his career.

This matter has been continuing now for about two years. It was actually raised in this House on two occasions as a matter of privilege. It was also the subject of hearings by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and by its SubCommittee on Defence Matters. I indicated, on the presentation of a report from that Committee, that it was my opinion that the evidence which was presented to that Committee could not warrant a reference of this matter to the Committee of Privileges. At the time that was correct. I think the fact that the subsequent evidence came to bear, was presented to the Parliament and, in the first instance, did not indicate a matter of privilege but subsequently, on the presentation of additional evidence, went to the Privileges Committee, is something for which we have to be thankful.

Mr Berthelsen, in his first appearance before the Committee, asked whether the Parliament could protect him, as a witness before a parliamentary committee, in the future of his career. It appeared that that would not be the case. If the Parliament is not able to provide protection to its witnesses it cannot expect persons to appear before its committees and to give answers which they know will result in discomfort for their superiors and which can result in actions that are not to their advantage or to the advantage of their careers. Unfortunately that does occur. In this case there were methods of recourse as it arose out of appearances before a parliamentary committee.

At or about the same time another member of the Department of Defence, or another person associated with disagreements with Department of Defence, was going through exactly the same sets of circumstances but did not have the cover of a parliamentary committee. The system provides no recourse for that person who was forced out of the Department of Defence by discriminatory actions. The Parliament is aware of whom I am talking and I do not intend to introduce names into this debate, but I think it is a weakness in our parliamentary system that a public servant, because he acts in a manner he considers proper and because he has acted with integrity, can be forced, because he offends someone senior in his department, to give up a career which he has spent a lifetime developing. Unfortunately, in that case the Minister concerned was involved in the abuse of the person concerned in this Parliament.

I make one other reference to this matter before the House. This Parliament in deferring, as it is to the next Parliament, consideration of these matters is abrogating its responsibilities as a parliament. It may be doing so by agreement, but it is doing so. Privilege is the most important matter which can come before a parliament. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) indicated that in his opinion it might have been necessary to break party lines on privilege had not a motion been agreed to. I think one of the important things that parliamentarians have to’ face up to at some stage in the future is that, like the Privileges Committee, we ought to treat privilege not as a matter of party but as a matter of parliament. We should be prepared to vote on that matter in accordance with what we see as the proper decisions of a parliament on matters of privilege.

Mr Jarman:

– ‘Compromise’ was the word I used.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I do not disagree with compromise. What I am saying is that privilege is so important to the institution of parliament that it should in no circumstances be the prerogative of the Executive or of the parliamentary parties to decide whether the Parliament’s privileges will be enforced. It is not unusual in matters of privilege for the government of the day to be adversely involved in a matter of privilege. It can be that members of other political parties can be involved adversely in matters of privilege. If we take a situation where privilege, one of the few things left to the individual member of parliament, becomes a party matter then privilege itself becomes a matter of no consequence and no validity.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– The debate on this matter has in fact continued although it had been, as my colleague the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) indicated, the intention of the Government benches that this matter be considered immediately on the resumption of Parliament. There are a few matters that have been raised which I think need to be commented on. Firstly, there is no question that matters of privilege are of tremendous importance to the Parliament. It is for that very reason that the initial motion was moved. We believe it quite critical that there be an adequate consideration of the rights of the Parliament, the application of privilege to debates within this chamber and, of course, the way in which the parliamentary committees can function.

There is certainly a very real concern when a report of a privileges committee deals with an individual. I believe that it is in that instance that there is an added responsibility on the members of this chamber to ensure that that individual is in no way affected. There are members of the Government parties who are concerned at aspects of this report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges and I believe they need to have an opportunity to air those concerns. I do not see that that is possible in the time available, in giving a fair and adequate consideration to the rights of each of the persons affected.

The Minister for Health has advised meindeed, he has already advised the House in his preliminary statement - that he has drawn the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges to the attention of the Public Service Board. He has said that the Board will offer to discuss the matters raised in that report with Mr Berthelsen to provide him with the opportunity to indicate any specific disadvantages he believes he has suffered and to make any arrangements within its powers to ensure that Mr Berthelsen is treated fairly and equitably. Having in mind that an individual is affected and that the House is about to adjourn the Government feels that it should accede to at least part of the submission made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). There are, however, as I said, very strong points of view held by the Government parties. I think it needs to be recognised that in the new Parliament the matter will be canvassed again. 1 have little doubt that those very matters can and should be aired and considered at that time.

The proposal I am putting to the Parliament, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that when the question is put by your good self we will reject the proposition submitted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. However, we feel that a significant part of the first part of his motion which relates to the stature and the position of the affected persons within the Public Service, Mr David Berthelsen, should be accepted so that he will not be prejudiced at any time when the members of the House are away campaigning around Australia. There is no suggestion, therefore, that can be disadvantaged when a report of the Parliament has come out substantially recommending a course of action which has been addressed by a number of members of this chamber. In those circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that perhaps we could proceed to consider the motion as amended before the chamber. I will present the motion in its alternative form which I trust the House will accept.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) for having reached an acceptable position in terms of the amendment to the original proposal. I simply observe that I would hope that no privileges committee of this Parliament would have to go through again the exercise that nine members of this Parliament were appointed to go through at the end of last session and during the recess and the beginning of this session. I want to make reference, without referring to the evidence which is also privileged, to the fact that a reasonably senior public servant who appeared as a witness described any public servant who appears before a committee of the Parliament as ‘daft’. There is some valid criticism in this Parliament of the way in which the committees of the Parliament conduct themselves.

Mr Killen:

– Hear, hear!

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I hear the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) say: ‘Hear, hear.’ Whilst I have a different view to the Minister for Defence on the importance of committees I also believe that committees have a vital role in this place. Perhaps with some changes they could play a better role than they have played and be better served and be of better service to the Parliament. I simply observe in conclusion that if the Parliament moves beyond witnesses who are regarded in their own peer group as being ‘daft’, maybe, the committees of this Parliament will rise to the better qualities of the witnesses.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the House indicated - he will correct me if I am wrong - that part of the first proposition put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be agreed to in effect. But I do not think he has given us the form of words.

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes, I have. The amended motion has been circulated.

Amendment negatived.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– As I intimated a moment ago, I suggest that the motion distributed in the name of my colleague, the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) be now amended to express a different form of words. I therefore seek leave to amend his motion so that it reads as follows:

That-

this House, recognising the need for extensive consideration by the House of the report from the Committee of Privileges relating to the alleged discrimination and intimidation of Mr David E. Berthelsen in his public service employment because of evidence given by him to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, is of the opinion that the report should be considered early in the 32nd Parliament;

the Public Service Board be requested to do all within its power to restore Mr Berthelsen ‘s career prospects in the Public Service and ensure that he suffers no further disadvantage as a result of this case, and

order of the day No. 2, privilege, relating to a report of the Privileges Committee be discharged.

Leave granted.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I move-

That-

this House, recognising the need for extensive consideration by the House of the report from the Committee of Privileges relating to the alleged discrimination and intimidation of Mr David E. Berthelsen in his public service employment because of evidence given by him to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, is of the opinion that the report should be considered early in the 32nd Parliament;

the Public Service Board be requested to do all within its power to restore Mr Berthelsen’s career prospects in the Public Service and ensure that he suffers no further disadvantage as a result of this case, and

order of the day No. 2, privilege, relating to a report of the Privileges Committee be discharged.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (Kingsford-Smith) - by leave - The Opposition recognises the time scale in which we have to debate this matter. The big issue has been Berthelsen’s career. The Government has seen fit to accept that part of the motion which ensures that something will be done to guarantee that there will be no interruption to his career. The Public Service Board will be requested to do everything within its power to ensure that his career is not interrupted. In accepting the amended motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) the Opposition is anxious to emphasise that whatever government is in power following the election something has to be done about the protection of witnesses who appear before committees. No matter what the complexion of the government it is important that witnesses have a statutory protection. That is a recommendation made by the Committee in the form of the suggested introduction of a parliamentary witness protection Bill. I hope that also will be dealt with early in the next parliament.

I express my appreciation to all members of the Privileges Committee who worked so diligently on this matter. I also express appreciation to the Chairman of the Committee and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Parliamentary committees do not have all the expertise that should be available to people involved in the judicial field. Nevertheless it is important to recognise that there is no protection at all for witnesses appearing before joint committees of the Parliament. Therefore we need to do something about our Standing Orders. That is something that has to be looked at. No matter what we might express from the point of view of legislation, it still will not cover the gap. A witness appearing before a joint committee cannot be protected. I know that the Government will look at that aspect as well. I think enough has been said. The big issue is to guarantee that the man involved continues in a very happy and successful way in the furtherance of his career.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– I offer no complaint about the suggestion by my honourable friend, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), that there should be proper means for the protection of witnesses before any parliamentary committee. Nevertheless, I make haste to say that there should be proper means for the proper examination of witnesses before parliamentary committees. One cannot go without the other. I indicate to the House that I have the most serious reservations about some of the conclusions that have been reached. I defer to the views of my right honourable friend, the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), that having regard to the state of the Parliament at this stage it would be completely unacceptable that one man’s position should be put in jeopardy. But, by the same token, whatever the fates may be, I indicate to the House here and now that if I am returned to the next Parliament–

Mr Holding:

– Well, you might get back.

MrKILLEN - So be it. I am grateful to my honourable friend from Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) for his good wishes. If I do come back, I will hold very strongly to the view that those people who appear before a parliamentary committee should be properly examined. I have watched with anguish in the last five years people turning up before parliamentary committees not being properly cross-examined. There is only one person who can cross-examine a witness and that is a person who knows what cross-examination is all about. That is what I have to say. I defer to my right honourable friend. I defer to the corporate will of the House as I understand it.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– But you would concede that it is a different issue?

Mr KILLEN:

– Yes. I concede that. I implore honourable members on both sides of the House: Whatever the fates of politics may be if people turn up before a committee to present evidence which is not competently cross-examined impossible conclusions can be reached. That is my view. I say it without any heat. I have too much affection for this place to seek to use this occasion for the portrayal of any partisan view. I am sure that my friend, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, will agree that the great mechanism for the elucidation of truth is cross-examination.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1408

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

– I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

– If the honourable member is seeking to make a personal explanation, he may proceed.

Mr JARMAN:

– Yes. I am sure that the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) misunderstood me. He quoted me as saying that there should be compromise on a matter of privilege. I did not say that. I am sure that I did not say that. What I did say was that a compromise had been reached on the deferment of paragraphs (2) and (3) of the original amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). I would be the first to say that there should be no compromise on a matter of privilege. I can understand that the House, which will shortly rise, wants to defer consideration of paragraphs (2) and (3) of the motion so that these aspects be dealt with by the next Parliament. That is what I actually said in my speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has established his point.

page 1408

REPLACEMENT OF OPERATING THEATRES AND SURGICAL WARDS, REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL, HOLLYWOOD, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Replacement of operating theatres and surgical wards at the Repatriation General Hospital, Hollywood, WA. t

The proposal is for the provision of operating theatres and surgical wards to replace existing sub-standard ones. The new facilities will be of a standard comparable with those in modern hospitals in the general community, and will allow suitable treatment for an older age group of patients having a range of medical and surgical needs different from patients of earlier years. The work will comprise: Four operating theatres; two surgical wards with associated facilities; theatre support facilities and services; and access roadworks and landscaping. In reporting favourably on the proposal the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has recommended that the Government should clearly define the use of Repatriation General Hospitals by non-veterans and examine the future role of Repatriation General Hospitals. My colleague, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) has advised that these matters of policy have been and will continue to be kept under constant review.

The Committee also suggested that there should be further liaison with State authorities on the sharing of steam reticulation facilities and on the increased sharing of steriliser services. This will be done during the normal course of design development and, in fact, a joint committee has been convened to bring together representatives of the State, the Commonwealth and the Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre. The estimated cost of the proposal which was examined by the Committee was $5.2m at April 1980 prices. The Committee has recommended construction of the work in the reference. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning and construction can proceed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1408

CONSTRUCTION OF LAVARACK BARRACKS, TOWNSVILLE, QUEENSLAND

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

The proposal is for the construction of permanent working facilities for field force and logistic support units at the Lavarack Barracks. The work will comprise offices and workshops For two workshop companies; offices, transport compound and renovation of a warehouse for No. 121 supply company; offices, freight terminal and vehicle servicing facilities for the Townsville transport unit; and associated engineering services. The facilities will replace some buildings which are not purpose designed and give rise to operational inefficiency. In the case of the workshops, accommodation is over-crowded and this creates inefficient working conditions and presents safety problems.

In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee has recommended that an in-depth examination of the use of solar water heating be carried out. The Committee has also expressed the view that the Commonwealth should give the lead in energy savings. The Government endorses this view and has directed that a study be made. The Government is, of course, giving this lead in encouraging energy saving in the community. I also wish to advise honourable members that the comments made by the Townsville City Council will be taken into consideration during the detailed design.. The estimated cost of the proposal examined by the Committee was $6. 2m at May 1980 prices. The Committee has recommended the construction of the work in the reference and, if the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning and construction can proceed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1409

CONSTRUCTION OF AIRCRAFT CORROSION CONTROL FACILITY, RAAF BASE, RICHMOND

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

The proposal is for the construction of a facility to effect corrosion control measures on Royal Australian Air Force transport and maritime aircraft. The facility will replace an existing one which is unsatisfactory both environmentally and operationally. It will comprise a permanent structure to accommodate large RAAF aircraft; an overhead working platform system; a filtered heated airflow system; a system for the collection of toxic wastes; and fire suppression systems.

In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee has suggested that there be further investigation of local manufacture of suspended working platforms not currently available in Australia. I indicate to the House that this will be done. The estimated cost of the proposal examined was $7.9m at May 1980 prices. The Committee has recommended the construction of the work in the reference and, if the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning and construction can proceed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1409

MODERNISATION OF FLEET BASE AND DOCKYARD, GARDEN ISLAND

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

The proposal is for the construction of a number of facilities at Garden Island which will comprise the first stage of a program of modernisation of the Fleet Base and dockyard facilities. The components of the proposal are: A utilities building and the upgrading of high voltage electrical distribution on the island; the first module of a weapons and electronics engineering workshop building; a refit control and amenities building to serve the east dock wharf; improvements to the Ryde waterfront annexe for the repair of small craft; improvements to landscaping and street- scaping on the island; a liquid waste treatment plant; and a multi-level carpark in Cowper Wharf Road, Woolloomooloo.

In reporting favourably on the proposal, the Committee has recommended that a six metre wide strip of land at the Ryde waterfront annexe site be used for public recreation purposes and that consideration be given to other matters raised by the Ryde Municipal Council. The Government agrees to make this land available for public recreation and it will give consideration to the other matters raised by the Council. The Committee has also raised a number of other points on which I wish to give further information to the House. The Committee suggested that generator exhaust flues from the utilities building should be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. Honourable members can be assured that the height of the flues will be kept to a minimum, consistent with achieving satisfactory performance and that the flues will be painted to merge into the surrounding landscape.

On the question of the proposed carpark, the Departments of Defence and Housing and Construction put forward two alternative proposals in their submissions to the Committee, and the Committee received a number of submissions from private individuals and groups which in the main favoured the slightly more costly cliff face scheme. The Government has taken into account public opinion on this issue, and endorses the conclusion reached by the Committee that the provision of a carpark as close to the cliff face as possible in Cowper Wharf Road is satisfactory and preferable to the Island scheme. The Committee has reported that the lack of a firm plan for the administration of the carpark is a serious deficiency in planning. I can advise the House that a plan for the administration will be developed before construction of the carpark is commenced.

There is to be a public park on the roof of the carpark building and the Committee has suggested that the State and City Council will be financially involved in providing and maintaining it. The City Council will be approached to negotiate arrangements for the upkeep of the park and be consulted about its nature so that maintenance costs can be minimised. The Committee expressed support for a suggestion made to it that a botanist or horticulturist be consulted on the feasibility of transplanting trees which must be removed to allow construction of the utilities building. I assure the House that a careful study will be made of this matter using the best expertise available.

Finally, the Committee noted that it believes considerable scope exists for the employment of qualified disabled persons on Garden Island and in fact one of the workshops has been designed to cater for them. I am able to advise honourable members that policy encourages the employment of disabled persons to the extent that work is suitable and that appropriate facilities can be provided. Some disabled persons presently are employed at Garden Island and a number have been employed in the past.

During the design development of this project my Department will be examining, in conjunction with the Department of Defence, all buildings and ancillary works with a view to providing access for disabled persons where any additional costs involved are warranted. The estimated cost of the proposal incorporating the cliff face scheme examined by the Committee was $29.2m at March 1980 prices. The Committee has recommended the construction of the work in the reference and, if the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning and construction can proceed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1410

CONSTRUCTION OF MANUFACTURING

page 1410

AND REPAIR WORKSHOP FOR GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT FACTORIES, FISHERMEN’S BEND

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

The proposal is for the provision of a new workshop which will be used for the production and repair of composite material and bonded metal aircraft components. It will replace an existing workshop which has inadequate floor space and, when completed, will allow further applications of the technology. The proposal involves the construction of a large workshop which will house facilities for chemically cleaning metal components; facilities for spray coating and baking metal components; controlled atmosphere clean rooms; autoclave and machining facilities; areas for receipt and dispatch of materials; cold storage, and areas for mixing of chemical substances; and administration accommodation. The estimated cost of the workshop at July 1980 prices is $16m. This does not include specialised equipment and other services to be provided by the Department of Productivity. These services are not normally provided as part of a works project.

There is a strong worldwide trend in the aircraft industry towards the increased use of nonmetallic composite materials. Use of the materials has extended into large wing components and other primary structures of military aircraft, including the aircraft under consideration for selection as the Royal Australian Air Force’s new tactical fighter. Use of the materials in civil transport aircraft, including the aircraft on order for service with Australian airlines, is less extensive than the use in the military field but is already significant in terms of Australia’s export opportunities. The ability of the Australian aircraft industry to apply the new technology to the support of defence aircraft purchased overseas, to participate in local manufacture of defence aircraft and subsequent support of these aircraft and to take advantage of current civil aircraft export manufacturing opportunities is dependent on the availability of new workshops facilities with a higher level of technology and capacity than currently exists.

Specifically, it is essential that the new workshop be in production towards the middle of 1983 if there is to be Australian industry participation at a significant level in the manufacture of airframe components in advanced composite materials for the RAAF’s new tactical fighter. Early commissioning of the workshop is also essential to take advantage of export opportunities envisaged under offset arrangements for the RAAF projects. Under these arrangements the Australian industry can receive a share of work for its own planes and also for planes manufactured overseas for other countries. In addition, early commissioning is essential to allow the introduction of the new technology to local aircraft and to permit guided weapons design and manufacturing projects to be initiated over the next few years.

The achievement of mid- 1983 commissioning requires that tenders be called for the workshop shell by December 1980. This will allow site work to commence during February 1981. The workshop contains extensive mechanical plant, and this will account for almost one half of the contraction cost. Design and construction of this will be fast tracked in order to meet the commissioning timetables. Several contracts will be involved and the first of the tenders will be called shortly after workshop shell construction commences. It is essential that work on this facility commence at the earliest possible date. The Public Works Committee could not consider and report in time to allow work to commence in December 1980, and if deferred for examination by the new Public Works Committee in early 1981 the project would be delayed to the extent that Australian industry will suffer a reduction in the value of contracts to be obtained under offset arrangements. Valuable experience in the manufacture of modern technology components would also be lost. Accordingly, the matter is urgent within the meaning of section 18 (8) (b) of the Public Works Committee Act. Senior officers of the Department of Housing and Construction, together with officers of the Department of Productivity, have discussed the proposed work with the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning and construction can proceed.

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

– I support the motion. As Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works again I express regret that this proposed work was not able to be examined by the Committee. Only last week we had a similar case in respect of the Townsville airport. In speaking on that matter, I referred to the fact that it was the first time that the provision in the Public Works Committee Act exempting examination of work by the Public Works Committee on the grounds of urgency had been used since 1974.I expressed the wish at that time that this not become a regular procedure.

As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) has noted, officers of the Department of Housing and Construction and officers of the Department of Productivity had discussions with me as Chairman of the Committee. They also had discussions with several other members of the Committee. We accept the reasons of urgency put forward in the motion. We appreciate the value of the proposed work. We realise that valuable expertise and defence capacity will be obtained by virtue of proceeding with the work. We acknowledge the need to honour the contracts which have been entered into. In the circumstances, all I can do is to indicate that we agree with the proposal but we regret that the Committee was unable to examine the proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1411

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Senate’s amendments.

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

– I move:

I want to inform the House of the Government’s interim response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which dealt with the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980. I would like to make it clear that the Government remains firmly committed to the concept of multicultural broadcasting. Additionally, the Government continues to see the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation as the most appropriate means of implementing this Government policy. The Senate Committee report does, however, raise a number of fundamental questions and its recommendations deserve thorough consideration. We have commenced this assessment but we have not as yet completed the task. It will be pursued with a view to settling final administrative and legislative arrangements in the autumn session of 1981.

The parliamentary session has only a short time to run and we are keen to achieve passage of those non-controversial provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980 which were included in the Bill for convenience but which are quite unrelated to the establishment of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– At least you have the grace to smile.

Mr STALEY:

– As does the honourable member. The Senate Committee itself recommended against the passage of the Bill only insofar as it related to the IMBC. It is also my understanding that members of the Opposition will support passage of these provisions, as they did in the Senate last night. Therefore, I move the amendments.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– The Opposition accepts these amendments in this place, as it did in the Senate last night. I would like to make a brief comment on the establishment of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation. We are a bit disappointed that the Government ever started off in the way it did in trying to ram this legislation through in such haste with, in our view, inadequate consultation with the ethnic communities. We adhere to the view that it is not basically the ideal way to establish ethnic television services. We are as committed as the Government to the provision of ethnic television services. It pleases me to note that we will undoubtedly have a chance to implement the introduction of ethnic television after the election, because I am quite sure that the Liberal Party of Australia will not be in that position. We are looking forward to providing the sort of ethnic television we think the ethnic communities deserve.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1412

HONEY EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with a request.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s request.

Senate’s requested amendment.

Page 1, clause 2, line 12, leave out ‘1 July 1980’, substitute the date fixed under sub-section 2 (2) of the Honey Industry Amendment Act 1980’.

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

– I move:.

That the requested amendment be agreed to.

This Bill which was passed in the House on 27 March expressed the operative date of the export charge for research purposes as 1 July 1980. This should now be altered, as the Senate has recommended, to a date to be proclaimed.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1412

HONEY LEVY (No. 1) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with a request.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s request.

Senate’s requested amendment.

Page1, clause 2 line11, leave out ‘1 July 1980’, substitute the date fixed under sub-section 2 (2) of the Honey Industry Amendment Act 1980’.

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

– I move:

This Bill which passed in the House on 27 March, expressed the operative date of the levy for research purposes as 1 July 1980. This should now be altered, as the Senate has recommended, to a date to be proclaimed.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1413

HONEY LEVY (No. 2) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with a request.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s request.

Senate’s requested amendment.

Page 1, clause 2, line 1 1, leave out ‘1 July 1980’, substitute the date fixed under sub-section 2 (2) of the Honey Industry Amendment Act 1980’.

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

– I move:

This Bill was passed in the House on 27 March and expressed the operative date of the levy for research purposes as 1 July 1980. This should now be altered, as the Senate has recommended, to a date to be proclaimed.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1413

HONEY RESEARCH BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Senate’s amendments.

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

– I move:

In keeping with the Government’s decision to implement recommendations of the Bowen Committee report, the Honey Research Advisory Committee will be subject to the normal code of conduct provisions applicable to statutory authorities of this kind.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1413

HONEY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Senate’s amendments.

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

– I move:

There are two requested amendments to this Bill. Firstly the code of conduct provisions will be made applicable to members of the Australian Honey Board. The amendment is in keeping with the one being made to the Honey Research Bill. Secondly, the opportunity is being taken to change provisions relating to the resignation of members or deputy members of the Australian Honey Board in line with current drafting practice.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1414

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill and the Queensland Grants (Special Assistance) 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 WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– The State Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill, now before the House, authorises payment of grants totalling $4 36m to the States for capital works in 1980-81 . This is the third of the total Loan Council program for State Government capital works. The Bill also provides for advance payments to the States in 1981-82 for the first six months. The Treasurer is also authorised to borrow the funds to make these grants. This Bill is, despite its mundane appearance, a rather astonishing Bill. The amount provided for capital grants in 1980-81 is $436m which is about the same amount as was provided five years ago, in 1975-76. In that year it was $430m. So in a five year period we have had a total increase in the amount allocated under the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill of $6m. Yet, during this time, there has been an inflation rate of 58 per cent. So to provide funds even at the same real level as 1975-76, these States grants should be 58 per cent higher. In fact they are about one per cent higher. As well there has been a population growth and some economic growth so that, if the States were to have the same proportion of total funds as in 1975-76, they should have increased by at least 12.6 per cent in real terms or over 70 per cent in money terms as against the increase of a little over one per cent which is encompassed in the Bill before the House. The amount that the States have been allowed to borrow through approved Loan Council programs has fallen in real terms in the same way. This means that the total paid by the Commonwealth to the States for capital purposes are very much lower now than they were five years ago.

Five years ago the total amount payable to the States was just under $1.3 billion. This year the amount is just over $1.3 billion. But if it was to keep up with inflation, just to meet that 58 per cent increase in real terms, it would need to be $2,038m, which is far above the amount that has been allocated. There has been a real reduction of 34 per cent in the amount of general purpose capital payments to the States in the five years in which this Government has been in office. What this means is that the amount the States can spend on building and construction has been slashed by this astonishingly irresponsible policy. These massive reductions are entirely the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, for it effectively dominates the Loan Council. The effect of these destructive policies is that Australia’s capital stock is being run down. Our essential services and transport systems are not being adequately maintained, let alone expanded or improved. In the most recent annual report of the Australian National University Centre for Research of Federal Financial Relations, Professor Russell Mathews, who heads that Centre, states:

Quite apart from its effects on economic activity and employment, failure to maintain an adequate level of capital spending merely stores up trouble for the future by creating a back-log of works programs which have become progressively more difficult to implement.

Professor Mathews also states:

It is one of the extraordinary features of the Australian economic policies during recent years, that a period of high unemployment has co-incided with severe restrictions on public sector capital spending . . . The failure of the Commonwealth and the States to agree on reational policies for public sector investment and finance has depressing implications for the Australian economy, both in the short term through its effects on employment and in the long term through its effects on standards of essential services and economic growth. In this respect, the history of the great depression is being repeated.

Of course the Great Depression that he was talking about was the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is very interesting to note Professor Mathews’ making that allusion to the repeat of the policies of the 1930s. As we have already noticed in a debate today, a decline has occurred in the living standards of the great majority of Australians in the last few years. Again that repeats the history of the Great Depression of the 1930s. As with living standards, not since the Great Depression has there been such a severe reduction in the payments to the States for capital purposes in the way that there has been in the period of the Fraser Government. The slashing of capital works funding has many implications. Public sector investment is one of the principal determinates of the rate of economic growth which in turn determines the rate of growth of living standards.

During the first four years of the Fraser Government, the average rate of economic growth a person was a mere 1 .2 per cent a year. This astonishing poor result compares with the average rate of economic growth a head for our trading partners inthe Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries of 4.1 per cent a year. Australia’s rate of growth has therefore been less than one-third of the growth rate of our trading partners. For a Government which claims to want to be judged by its economic performance, this is the clearest indication of failure. However, more than this is involved. The Fraser Government claims to have doubled petrol prices in order to conserve energy. This claim is only credible if petrol price increases are matched by the innumerable other aspects of a comprehensive energy conservation program, one of the principal components of which must be extension and improvement of the public transport system. Public transport must be extended and improved if people are to have a viable alternative to travelling in their own cars. However as petrol prices have been going through the roof, spending on trains, trams, buses an ferries has been sharply reduced. Cuts in public works funding for the States show the inconsistency of the Government’s claim to be serious about energy conservation.

There is a desperate need for spending on other forms of community works also. There are still some parts of our larger cities which are not sewered. Parts of old sewerage systems are in such desperate need of maintenance that they may soon break down. Many of our prisons are a national disgrace. Identifiable expenditure on roads would make them both safer and more efficient without necessarily encouraging their unwarranted use. Last Friday there were reports about the content of the forthcoming Victorian State Budget which illustrated clearly the consequences of the Fraser Government’s destructive policies. According to that report, the Victorian Government is massively reducing the allocation of funds for capital works for semi-government authorities. Apparently the State Government is planning to slash capital works projects by semigovernment instrumentalities by some $73m. The cutback would affect every semi-government authority including the State Electricity Commission, the Board of Works, the Gas and Fuel Corporation and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board. This would have the effect of reducing capital works and expenditure by the semi-government authorities by up to 30 per cent in real terms. Total semi-government borrowings has apparently been cut by more than 10 per cent and the State Treasurer, Mr Thompson, has confirmed that the reports are based on a genuine document. The effect of these cuts would be to cause further delays in construction programs which have already been started. For example, the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority budget has been cut by $3m, a cut in real terms of more than 1 5 per cent, causing a delay in completion of the underground and increasing the cost of the project. The State Electricity Authority, which requested $121m, has received only $105m, which means that the Loy Yang Power Station will not be completed in time to coincide with the completion of the Portland Aluminium Smelter. The cuts are particularly serious for the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board which sought $21m and has been allocated $13m. This is the essence of absurdity.

A national Government which claims to have increased petrol prices in order to conserve energy is at the same time preventing the conservation of energy by curtailing and delaying improvements in tram and bus services through its parsimonious allocations of funds to the States for capital expenditures. The effects of cuts such as these are well understood by the construction industry. The recent article by the Executive Director of the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors emphasises that all governments in Australia have been cutting their capital spending. He anticipates little growth in public sector capital spending and he says that: the State programs are shabby, very shabby, even the massive power station programs.

He notes that urban transport, railways, highways and roadworks generally were in a condition which was ‘nothing short of disgraceful’. He says:

If public capital spending was not more effective, it was likely that the infra-structure would not be able to cope with demand at the end of 1 990s’.

Professor Mathews is right in also drawing attention to the employment implications of severe cutbacks in capital works, for building and construction spending is the most effective means the Government has of employment creation. Responsible economic management naturally requires that, at a time when extra spending on community public works is desperately needed, this should be both maintained and increased. Yet the direct opposite has been the case. The irresponsible stewardship of the Fraser Government has created severe problems for Australia in the 1980s, which it is going to take the next Labor Government some years to correct.

In order to cope with this repressive policy, the States have been forced to obtain an increasing share of their capital funds in the form of semigovernment authority borrowings outside their budgets or the Commonwealth Budget rather than through the Federal Budget. This means that the cost of their borrowing has risen sharply for semi-government authorities have to pay considerably higher interest rates than do Commonwealth or State governments. The interest rates for semi-government borrowings are usually a half to one per cent higher than for Commonwealth Government borrowings. In addition, there is a certain subsidy element in funds provided by the Commonwealth. The Loan Council general purpose capital payments are one-third grant and two-thirds loans while, for specific purpose capital payments, the grant component has averaged around 65 per cent. So, for all total capital funds provided through the Budget, about half are grants and on average the other half are loans. This means that the effective rate of interest on such funds is about half the long term bond rate.

If the States had the same share of their capital funding controlled by the Commonwealth coming from the Budget sector as in 1975-76 when it was 75 per cent, rather than the fall to 53 per cent which has occurred this year, interest savings this year would total about $70m. This type of additional cost will be incurred by the States in all subsequent years until the borrowings are repaid. It is therefore ironic that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee), who delivered the second reading speech on this Bill, should have suggested that the Commonwealth was being generous by making grants to the States for capital purposes. The effect of the change on the structure of capital funding during the last five years has been to reduce substantially the proportion of funding which is in grant form and to increase the overall cost of funds made available to the States.

The Fraser Government’s motivation for this distortion apparently has been to reduce artificially the size of the Commonwealth Government Budget deficit. Having made a great fuss about the size of the deficit when they were in Opposition, the coalition parties, under the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), have tried to transfer funds out of the Budget to give the impression of reducing expenditure. However, simply reducing the borrowing required for the Budget sector while increasing public sector nonBudget borrowing has no effect on the total claims of the public sector on the Australian capital market. What matters from the point of view of the money supply and the allocation of financial resources between the public and private sectors is the total public sector borrowing requirements, a point which has been conceded by the Treasurer in other places. The shifting of borrowing from the Budget to the non-Budget sector has been a cynical exercise and a deceptive manipulation with none of the consequences for public sector or money supply growth which the Fraser Government has claimed.

The limits of this artificial manipulation have now been reached. The Interdepartmental Committee on Economic Strategy referred to this. The report of this Committee was leaked to the Opposition some time ago, and was tabled by the Treasurer. It stated:

It is becoming harder to reduce Budget expenditure by switching outlays to the non-Budget sector and increased borrowing by semi-governmental authorities. In any case, these actions do not reduce total public expenditure.

This was a very revealing document and contained a very revealing statement about what the Government has been up to. Quite clearly, the interdepartmental committee was saying that the Government has been deliberately manipulating expenditure so as to reduce the Budget deficit by switching expenditure from the Budget sector into the non-Budget sector of Commonwealth Government expenditures and by forcing the States to take up borrowings through their infrastructure borrowing programs. In order to find a way of coping with the starvation of capital funds, the States sought the Loan Council’s approval in June 1978 for special additions to the borrowing programs of their semi-government authorities. These so-called infrastructure borrowings have totalled $ 1,272m up to and including this financial year. Professor Mathews, to whom I alluded earlier, remarked:

The State proposals for infra-structure financing were clearly designed to provide some relief, especially for States seeking to encourage the development of natural resources, from the restrictions on borrowing and capital spending which the Commonwealth was able to impose through its effective domination of the Loan Council. But if this was the intention, it has not been achieved, because it is evident that the Commonwealth has responded by cutting back the ordinary loan programmes to compensate for the additions achieved through the infra-structure programme.

After two years’ experience with infrastructure borrowing, it has become clear that the program has been introduced for reasons of political expediency, but without rigorous planning or procedures for evaluation. A confidential submission by the Treasury to Cabinet which was leaked to the Press gives evidence of the sloppiness of the infrastructure borrowing program. In its submission, the Treasury says that the States provide inadequate information for rigorous assessment to be made of the infrastructure project, that Victoria and Western Australia have been using infrastructure borrowing to pay interest charges on earlier borrowing and have been hiding this and that the pricing policies of the power generating authorities prevent them accumulating investigate funds in particular because they have agreed to sell electricity too cheaply to aluminium smelters. The pricing policies of the Victorian Gas and Fuel Corporation and the Grain Elevators Board also have been criticised.

There are many costly consequences of this yawning hole in policy. For example, there is no evidence of any attempt by the Loan Council or the Commonwealth Government to sort out public investment priorities. The infrastructure borrowing has been allowed to grow without careful articulation of the consequences for other public works. How long should community services continue to be reduced in order to pay for the infrastructure for resource exploitation? The sloppiness of project proposals means that their implications cannot be calculated, let alone a vigorous social benefit cost appraisal be made. National investment planning procedures are required which articulate methodology and criteria for project appraisal. This consistent evaluation provides the basis for rigorous comparisons to be made between possible projects so that the most beneficial projects can be chosen. This also would curtail the Fraser Government’s notable tendency for monumentalism. Such a coordinated approach would enable the question of utility pricing to be rationalised. The Commonwealth has failed dismally to accept its responsibility for co-ordination by allowing the States to compete with each other for overseas investments with concessional power pricing. This greatly reduces the benefit to the Australian economy of new projects.

To measure the overall impact of Fraser Government policies on the States, we must look at the real fall in total payments to the States. During the five years from 1975-76 to 1980-81 the total of funds from all sources - grants and borrowings approved by the Loan Council made available to the States - has fallen by 6.6 per cent in real terms, or about 1 2i per cent in the more important per capita real terms. This means that the amount made available by the Commonwealth to the States has fallen for each man, woman and child by 12i per cent. The effect has been to worsen substantially the services provided by State governments. The evidence for this is now quite clear. Waiting lists for government housing have grown because public housing programs have been slashed, schools are not being adequately maintained, migrant education is being neglected, funding for technical education is inadequate to provide the required numbers of skilled personnel and many community support schemes have been savaged.

Another measure of the overall impact of the Fraser Government’s policies on the States is to look at the total of all funds plus the approved borrowing programs of the States and all the authorities, both large and small, including the infrastructure borrowing program. On this basis, which takes account of the total real level of funds available to the States and their authorities on a gross basis, there has been a rise of a mere 2.2 per cent over the past five years. I emphasise that this is on a gross basis. It takes no account of the increased interest rates or repayment burden which the sharply increased proportion of borrowings imposes on the States. Even neglecting that aspect of it and looking at it on a gross basis, as well as taking account of all the funds available to the States over which the Federal Government has any control, there has been an increase of some 2.2 per cent in real terms in the past five years. In net terms, taking account of the increased interest requirement and the fact that a much higher proportion of the funds has to be repaid, the net benefit is much less than that 2.2 per cent real increase. In fact, it would most certainly in net terms have been a substantial reduction.

The announced intention of this sustained financial squeeze is to force the States to impose a second personal income tax. In announcing the so-called stage two of new federalism, the Prime Minister made his proposal of allowing the States to impose a surcharge on personal income tax sound like a great solution to their problems. New federalism was made to sound like a great answer to the States’ prayers. However, the States are totally opposed to the idea of a second income tax and have refused to pass legislation which would be necessary to introduce a State income tax. They reiterated their total opposition at a meeting in Adelaide last Friday. The Prime Minister has fallen silent on the issue recently in order to avoid the electoral criticism which the idea generates at election time, but he has never hinted that he does not plan to ensure that the States do what he wants. The election of a Liberal-National Country Party coalition government certainly would ensure the introduction of a second income tax and, of course, that means a higher level of taxation because not only would there be the continuing level of federal income tax but also there would be a second income tax applied by the States. The kind of tax surcharge that the Prime Minister has proposed would not be associated with any reduction in Commonwealth personal income tax. The Prime Minister has said simply that the States would have the right to impose a surcharge or to deduct a rebate from the income tax rates set by the Commonwealth. The Fraser Government would not reduce its own tax rates at all in order to make way for income tax collections by the States. Indeed, while squeezing the States more and more, the Fraser Government has been increasing taxes to their highest level ever.

The Fraser Government’s proposals are irresponsible and extremely complex administratively. The amount that could be collected from an income tax surcharge would make little difference to the degree of State financial independence. Much more importantly, macro-economic policy must be the Commonwealth’s responsibility. Control of both fiscal and monetary management must rest ultimately with the Federal Government. The Commonwealth has the responsibility for a stabilisation policy, not least because it has a constitutional responsibility for external balance and also for the major instruments which influence the distribution of income, such as income tax and social security payments. The States have responsibility for allocation of part of the total funds. Other means are available to ensure that the States have guaranteed access to financial assistance and that this access is assured for several years in advance so that they are able responsibly to plan their expenditure.

It is clear that the community is strongly opposed to the introduction of a State income tax. The result in the last New South Wales general election gives clear support to this proposition. Yet the Prime Minister continues with his misguided tactics, despite the strong opposition to them. He deceives no one by his silence on this issue during the last few months. It is clear that a vote for the Liberal and National Country parties in the coming election is a vote for the introduction of a second income tax and even higher taxes for individual taxpayers. For this reason and for the other reasons that I have outlined, the Opposition cannot support the Bill in total. Therefore, I move:

Before concluding I must briefly mention the Queensland Grants (Special Assistance) Bill. The purpose of this Bill is simply to pay to Queensland $6. 7m as a special grant. This amount was recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in order to compensate Queensland for the greater cost of providing services caused by such factors as lower population density and lower revenue raising capacity. Each year the four smaller States are entitled to apply for special grants under the Grants Commission arrangements. Queensland has been the only applicant State in recent years. The Commission usually makes its recommendation in two parts. One part is based on an estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year and is treated as an advance payment, subject to adjustment two years later when the Commission has compared in detail the financial position of the claimant and standard States. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advanced payment made two years earlier and is known as the completion payment.

In arriving at its recommendations, the Commission makes a detailed comparison between the financial position of a claimant State and those of the standard States, New South Wales and Victoria. The Commission has recommended the payment to Queensland of a completion grant for 1978-79 of $6.7m. Queensland has not sought an advance grant in relation to its application for special assistance in 1980-81 because it is aware that the review of relativities for all the States which is currently being conducted by the Grants Commission will use the same methodology as is used in determining special assistance grants. Since the same factors will be taken into account, no application was made for an advanced grant.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has made its usual extremely thorough evaluation of the needs of Queensland. The forty-seventh report of the Grants Commission does not include, however, the usual comparative tables on patterns of expenditure by the various States. This is a pity because we cannot ascertain this year whether there has been any improvement in the rather deplorable pattern of expenditures by the Queensland Government, something which has enabled us to make some very interesting observations in previous years. Presumably, however, this will be provided with the report by the Commission on State relativities. However, the Commission gives a rigorous justification for its recommendation of a completion grant to Queensland of $6.7m. The Opposition supports this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Before I call the next speaker I ask the honourable member for Gellibrand to give the Chair a look at his amendment. I am told that it has not been lodged at this stage. I would like to check it for authenticity purposes.

Mr Willis:

– I thought it had been.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The amendment is in order. The House will excuse us for not having copies of the amendment. The Clerk will try to have the amendment printed and copies circulated for the information of honourable members. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Dawkins:

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

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

– I would appreciate a copy of the amendment as I will be responding in part to it as soon as it is available. I think it is an important part of this debate to ascertain exactly what the Australian Labor Party would do under similar circumstances. One would wonder, in fact, whether there will be a continuation of the tax sharing arrangements which have been widely and so favourably accepted by all States. With the election of the new Government in 1975, proposals were put to all States that a fixed basis of tax sharing should be adopted whereby the States would have a share of the personal income taxes raised in Australia.

The original proposals were for that share to be 36.6 per cent of income tax raised in the year in which the legislation commenced. However, the administrative process of calculating ahead the likely tax collection proved to be difficult and was changed in the next year. It was changed with the agreement and support of the Premiers of all States. The current process of 39.6 per cent of the personal income tax share has been adopted as an historical basis. It is reckoned on the previous year’s personal income tax raising. In the 1980-81 Budget the total payment to the States from all sources was $ 12,265m, an increase of 10.3 per cent. This increase in payments to the States was a significant one. When one considers the exact details of the legislation which is before the House one would have to agree that because the States have the capacity to share in personal income tax, to raise funds of their own accord or in fact to share in the loans program, they have indeed fared well under the federalism policies of the Fraser Government.

It is a complete change to look at a Premiers Conference in today’s light and compare it with that which applied in the years from 1972 to 1975. I am sure the House will remember the unedifying feature that we used to see on television in those years of all Premiers standing on the steps of this place the night before or a few hours before a

Premiers Conference and making strong statements about how they would go down fighting in resisting the oppressive attitudes that were being applied to them by the Federal Government. Following the Premiers Conference that took place in these precincts, the Premiers were seen leaving this House and making most critical and strong statements about the Commonwealth.

That has changed. The Premiers Conference can devote its time to more important and substantial things, such as a capacity for the States to raise funds overseas and the administration of the off-shore and submerged lands around the nation, which have been matters of concern to all Australians for many years. They are now being dealt with and discussed in a frank and free manner between the Commonwealth and the States, and revenue sharing and the question of how much each State is to collect from the Federal Government and from the taxpayers of this nation have tended to drop back in importance in the minds of each State. I think this is a great improvement. I think great credit can be paid to the present Government for the manner in which these processes have been handled. The income for the States from tax sharing in 1979-80 was $5,4 19m and in the current year it is $6,027m, an increase of 1 1 per cent. That is a significant increase which will allow the States to continue their programs and to implement their proposals and policies fully.

If we look at the changes made for the funding of local government under the federalism policy, we will see that this year there has been a massive 35 per cent increase in the funds paid to local authorities. This increase of 35 per cent in one year is unbelievable, but with the current Government so firmly entrenched and so strongly in control of economic factors, the 2 per cent of personal income tax which will be shared amongst local authorities Australia-wide will add significantly to the programs, to the rate structures and to the borrowing programs of those authorities.

Mr Baillieu:

– It is good news for local government.

Mr CADMAN:

– It is indeed, as my honourable friend says, good news for local government. One has only to examine the Bugets of the States to find out how well they have done. The latest figures that I have are those for the year 1979-80. 1 intend to run briefly through the Budgets of each State to let the House discern for itself just how well they have fared. I noted at the outset of this speech that in New South Wales last year there was a deficit calculated at $3 1.3m. But it is interesting to note that the deficit proposed for the Public Transport Commission was $46m. I think the term I have heard used in regard to that matter is ‘imaginative bookkeeping’. The New South Wales deficit comes about as a result of the deficit of the public transport system having been moved to general funds.

For the fourth year in New South Wales there have been no increases in State taxes. That is an amazing performance for a federal government which is called mean by the Opposition. The Premier of New South Wales also calls it mean and many other psychedelic terms. But if we look at the financial record of the Government of New South Wales we will see that it has had no need to raise taxes for the last four years and has been able to give to the people of New South Wales certain advantages which would not have been possible without there being a generous Commonwealth Government. If one looks at the health programs in New South Wales last year one sees, despite the statements of the State Minister, that the expenditure on health increased by 20 per cent from $584m in 1978-79 to $692m in the last financial year. I have explained matters concerning the public transport programs; the imagination used there is quite unbelievable but easily detected. The Government of New South Wales has been able to keep taxes down and in the last financial year adopted an expansionary Budget so that, in real terms, there was a substantial increase in recurrent expenditure and a modest increase in capital works expenditure. That is highly significant.

It is interesting to note, when comparing the Budgets of Victoria and what it has been able to do, that the Victorian Government has been able to make a number of concessions in the revenue area to the people of that State. Gift duty has been changed, payroll tax exemptions have been limited, land tax has been changed and there have also been changes to probate. The people of Victoria have benefited from Fraser federalism. That benefit is very easily seen in the policies that have been adopted by the State. Because funds have been made available, the State has been able to budget, to calculate its likely expenditure and to plan well. It is interesting to note, that despite what was said by the previous speaker, the works program of major semi-governmental authorities in Victoria last year increased by 21 per cent. The State Government has required the authorities concerned to use to the utmost internally generated funds, reserves, contractor-financed leasing and other funds, which are responsible management techniques. I commend the Victorian Government for the way in which it has been able to manage its resources under this tax sharing program.

If one looks at the Budget overview in Queensland for 1979-80 one sees that there is a revenue estimate of about $2, 172m. In Queensland there has been a very positive program of years of surplus followed by years of slight deficits. It would appear to me that, over the five years that this legislation has been in operation and the tax sharing process has been used, there have been significant advantages for Queensland. In South Australia we find a Budget which last year was almost balanced; there was a small deficit of $600,000. As one looks through the States’ expenditure programs, whether they be for transport, housing, health or education, one can see that each State has lifted its level of expenditure on its programs. They have been able to give benefits and privileges and to meet the needs of the people in the States one by one.

I turn to an examination of the proposals put forward by the Australian Labor Party. I note with interest the comments encapsulated in the amendment. They are critical comments. I am completely unsure of the proposals of the Labor Party with regard to tax sharing. But I am sure of its proposals for the country as a whole, particularly in its relationships with some of the States. I refer the House to factors which have been raised in part in this place in regard to the Labor Party’s expenditure programs. In five policy areas alone there is a proposal to increase expenditure by $2,000m. That is an interesting technique. I believe it is a technique similar to that operated by the late Dr Evatt who would go to an electorate and inquire of the local member or of the party organisation what the people of the area wanted. Having established that, he would promise it.

I think the Labor Party in this instance has been caught promising different things all over the country. When one does the sums and comes to the detail of what it is proposing for the people of Australia, one could be excused for thinking that it is proposing disaster. Indeed, there have been 86 policy release commitments, 159 platform commitments and 46 other commitments. If we take those commitments together with the five areas of manpower, health, welfare, education and housing, I believe we could arrive at a sum which might be as much as double the $2,000m contained in the commitments in those two narrow areas. We have to look at some of these proposals policy area by policy area. I think we have to put them together and assess them side by side. I take as an example the proposal in the Aboriginal affairs area to buy land, to acquire leases on the open market and to provide funds for the agreed operational expenses of Aboriginal Land Councils not receiving finance from State governments or from mining royalties. A statement made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) on 12 March this year shows that Labor’s policy is to resume all Aboriginal land as at the time of Aurukun and to take it over for all Aboriginal communities which request it. That is an open-ended commitment. No one can assess the amount of it. It is an open-ended commitment that commits the taxpayers of Australia.

Mr Young:

– Are the kids working?

Mr CADMAN:

– It is no wonder the Labor Party is concerned about the huge commitment it has made by stealth right through this country.

Mr Young:

– Are all your kids working?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

– Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will not use those terms.

Mr CADMAN:

– That huge commitment could be as much as $4,000m. In the communications area the Labor Party’s aim is to establish a new national television channel independent of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. What is wrong with the ABC and the commercial television sector? Labor will establish a single buying agency for overseas film and television material. Will the Labor Party require all the authorities to be vetted through a central agency which is controlled by the Government?

Mr Young:

– What are you doing?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I have tried in a friendly fashion to ask him to restrain himself.

Mr Young:

– Are all his kids working?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Port Adelaide interrupts the Chair again, he will be named.

Mr Hodges:

– Throw the tarboy out.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Hodges:

– I withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Thank you. I call the honourable member for Mitchell.

Mr Young:

– Shut up, fatso.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide is on his last chance even for a frivolous remark. I will be forced to deal with him. I call the honourable member for Mitchell.

Mr CADMAN:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would not mind in the least if the honourable member for Port Adelaide were put out into the yarding pens.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member get on with his speech.

Mr CADMAN:

– In the constitutional and legal areas the Labor Party will support and fund a people’s popularly elected constitutional convention - a gathering of people who wish to talk about the Constitution. It calls for the payment of proportionate subsidies by governments to political parties and candidates, funding of political parties and the establishment of a public inquiry into production, marketing and advertising of consumer goods.

We move on to the economy and the proposal to expend $450m on a capital works program indicated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) on 8 March 1979. If we index that figure that is quite a substantial sum outside the five basic areas of manpower, health, welfare, education and housing which have been estimated to cost the taxpayer $2,000m. The Labor Party calls for a three-year program of review, improvement and increased funding to allow for effective planning in the use of resources. Every area in the resource sector, every area that now exists in education, would be extended under Labor, and at some cost to the taxpayer. Labor would increase the capital works program by $36m. We have the Government of New South Wales saying that it does not need that amount of money; indeed, it is transferring funds from the capital works program to the recurrent program. So, Labor would fund State governments which have indicated that they do not need the funds. In the employment area, there would be a subsidy to private employers of 30 per cent of wage costs for a period of six months; but it is eight months for small business and for new additional employees in the private sector. That is an incredible arrangement. What is the Opposition’s definition of small business? How will it differentiate between these types of business? Who will supervise these programs?

The Labor Party says that it would boost the current apprenticeship intake by 20,000 a year. That will be an interesting exercise. If the Labor Party intends to establish commissions and inquiries I am quite confounded as to how it will at the same time encourage the private sector. The Labor Party states in its health program that it will promote the manufacture of bulk purchase and wholesale distribution of pharmaceutical benefits through the Commonwealth Serum

Laboratories in competition with private manufacturers. They will be delighted with that procedure. They will also be delighted with the number of employees who will be sacked and who will be made redundant by that particular gem of policy.

Mr Young:

– Not your kids though. Your kids will have a job.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr CADMAN:

– Labor will restore Medibank. I turn to the housing program. I think the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has in fact destroyed the Labor Party’s program. An interesting technique is to be initiated there - a revolving fund would be established to improve housing for people in country areas. What is a revolving fund? The supply of land at reasonable prices will be increased and land commissions will be reviewed. Therefore, we have the introduction of a land commission. In the industrial relations area the Labor Party calls for a uniform 36* hour week within the Australian Public Service; an industry democracy committee and financial support for reciprocal international contacts between trade unions. I have not got half-way through the Labor Party’s policy document. There is at least $4,000m worth there of absolute rubbish and over-commitment. I think what the Labor Party needs to do is to go back, look at its basic philosophies and work out its policies and programs again. The people of Australia will not be fooled by this mish-mash of half thought out ideas which have been thrown together and called a policy.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– This Bill seeks to provide capital assistance grants to the States. In the case of Western Australia the amount is a little over $60m. I will spend a few minutes examining the suitability of the Government of Western Australia to receive these funds because it seems to me that it is a legitimate purpose of this Parliament really to examine the credentials of the various State governments to see whether they are really to be trusted with the expenditure of these funds which are made available by the Parliament. The point is that the Government of Western Australia has fallen into the hands of a small group of totally unrepresentative villians who harbour and encourage criminals, racists and petty gangsters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may not use those sorts of terms as part of the parliamentary debate. I warn him. Perhaps he would get on with his speech and use more moderate language.

Mr DAWKINS:

– ‘Criminal’ is a perfectly reasonable word and I will prove it, Mr Deputy Speaker. ‘Racist’ is a perfectly reasonable word and I will prove that. ‘Petty gangster’, I would not have thought were unreasonable words, but in any event I will prove that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I am not asking the honourable member to prove anything. I am just suggesting that he use more moderate language, unless he wants me to interrupt him throughout his speech.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you can provide me with a lexicon I will happily refer to and find other words. But the point is that these are the commonly understood words which describe the conduct and the character of those people who are currently running Western Australia. The most important problem that the Western Australian Government suffers from is that it has a totally anti-Federal attitude. The Western Australian Liberal Government is totally opposed to federalism, is totally opposed to any federal government whether it be Labor or Liberal. However, the important consequence for this Parliament is that the Liberal Party in Western Australia is a creature of the Liberal Government in Western Australia, that is, those who make up the Liberal Government in fact own and run the Western Australian Liberal Party. It is easily visible that they are quite at odds with their Federal colleagues.

Let us take, for instance, the Noonkanbah dispute where we see the totally divergent views taken on the one hand by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, (Senator Chaney), in relation to their support for the idea of preservation of sacred sites and, indeed, some limited form of land rights and on the other hand the attitude of the Premier and his Ministers for cultural affairs and resources who are totally and implacably opposed to any concessions at all to Aboriginal people. All they want to do is to destroy sacred sites wherever they exist. This has had a very unfortunate consequence as far as this Parliament is concerned. I refer in the first instance to the preselection of Senate candidates for the forthcoming election in Western Australia where the Western Australian Government has been party to an attempt to oust the AttorneyGeneral of this Government, Senator Durack. The candidate of the State Government’s choice, that is choice of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party, came within one vote of defeating the Attorney-General, Senator Durack. The person who nearly did defeat Senator Durack for the second position on the Liberal Party preselection team was one Mr Crichton-Browne. Leaving aside the fact that his activities in Burrill Investments Pty Ltd drew very unfavourable criticism from the Rae committee some years ago, the important thing about his near success and the fact that he is now No. 3 on the Liberal Party Senate ticket is that near-success, his partial success, in gaining the third position was purely the result of branch stacking; that is, he was the nominee of the junta that runs the Liberal Party, which runs the Liberal Government in Western Australia. As a result of stacking branches, stacking the whole of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party, he came to within one vote of beating the Attorney-General.

Mr Young:

– He is a crook too, isn’t he?

Mr DAWKINS:

– It has been said that he is a crook and one member of the State Council of the Liberal Party–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member not to use that terminology. He may or may not know that the matter–

Mr Young:

– Don’t use it again.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may or may not know that that matter is sub judice as from this afternoon. I hand on that advice.

Mr DAWKINS:

– A very small aspect of it is sub judice. I am really only referring to a debate which took place in another place. A State Liberal councillor was quoted as saying that Mr CrichtonBrowne was a crook and in fact it was outrageous that he was on the Liberal Party ticket. However, I do not want to get into Mr Crichton-Browne’s character. I think that has been dealt with fairly adequately in another place. The point raised by the Opposition and the point in relation to this debate is that Mr Crichton-Browne is clearly the leader or one of the leaders of the anti-Federal faction of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. He is opposed by many of the Federal members of the Liberal Party in this place. For instance, Senator Withers opposed him and still does. Senator Durack clearly opposed him and still does. Senator Sim opposed him and still does. I suppose this will be the first election in history when endorsed candidates on the Liberal Party Senate ticket will be swinging voters - that is, they will not be able to bring themselves to vote the Liberal Party ticket at this forthcoming Senate election. What we will find is that Senator Withers will not have much difficulty in voting for himself and he will not have much difficulty in voting for Senator Durack but he will find it totally impossible to vote for Mr CrichtonBrowne.

What the Government of Western Australia wanted in relation to the representatives of Western Australia in the Federal Parliament was a series of compliant lackeys who would do the bidding of the Premier, Sir Charles Court. I must say that the greatest coup of the Premier came in relation to the preselection for the seat of O’Connor because it has endorsed a man who is undisputably the most discredited person in public life anywhere in Western Australia. That man, of course, needs no introduction to Western Australians. I see that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has come into the chamber, presumably to defend the character of Charles Wilson Tuckey; but that is his name and that is his reputation. The first thing he did after being elected mayor of the town of Carnarvon was to discover that he was in fact disqualified from holding the office because he had not paid his rates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

– I wonder whether the honourable member can explain to me where the matter of finance–

Mr Young:

– We are giving money to Western Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide has had his last chance. Will the honourable member for Fremantle explain to me how his remarks relate to finance from the Federal Government to the State governments?

Mr DAWKINS:

– I am raising a perfectly reasonable point as to whether this House should be granting to Western Australia the amount of $60m to put into the hands of people who are engaged in a campaign to defeat this Federal Government or any Federal government. The Government of Western Australia is trying to tear up the Australian nation. What 1 am trying to do is to prove that the Western Australian Government, through its ownership of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, is trying to force upon this Parliament candidates who are interested only in tearing up the Australian nation. I think that is a matter of concern to us. We should not be putting into the hands of people who are disinterested in Australia as a nation $60m to do with as they like. It is perfectly reasonable that the Government should examine credentials of any State government to receive funds which this Parliament appropriates. The greatest coup in relation to fixing the people who represent Western Australia in this Parliament was in the preselection for the seat of O’Connor.

Mr Viner:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Fremantle has quite clearly ignored the question that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, asked of him to demonstrate the relevance of the scurrilous remarks that he Ls making about the candidates in the forthcoming Federal election. They are not candidates for the State election. They are not members of the State Parliament or of the State Government. They are candidates at the forthcoming Federal election. The kind of language that the honourable member is using and the kind of scurrilous accusations that he is making without foundation are quite irrelevant to this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– My only reply to the House is that I hope the honourable member for Fremantle will get back to the substance of the debate which, as he knows, is an economics one.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Indeed it is an economics debate. The question is whether the Government of Western Australia is a fit body to receive this money. What I am saying - quite clearly the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs can disagree with me because he is entitled to do that; he can even defend Wilson Tuckey if he likes and he can even defend Crichton-Browne if he likes - is that if we look at Wilson Tuckey himself we find that he is not only a -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think that the House is awfully interested in Wilson Tuckey. Honourable members have never heard of him. I cannot see the relevance of the honourable member’s remarks to the matter before the House.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Let me give you, Mr Deputy Speaker, one reason why you might be interested. One of the candidates for the preselection was a very good friend of yours.

Mr Viner:

– I take a point of order. The way in which the honourable member for Fremantle is disregarding the question of relevance which was raised from the Chair shows quite clearly that he is intent upon disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I will disregard you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Viner:

– The honourable member for Fremantle is ignoring your comments completely, Mr Deputy Speaker, and is proceeding in the way he was before you called him to order.

Mr Young:

– Sit down. You were told to sit down.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide is not running this

House currently. In fact he will be lucky if he remains in it for the rest of the evening. I again ask the honourable member for Fremantle to try to get his mind back to the Bill. That is what I wanted him to do when I interrupted his speech a little while ago. I cannot allow him to stray from the Bill much longer.

Mr DAWKINS:

– If you are going to stop me, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have to stop me because as far as I am concerned–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fremantle will resume his seat. Does any other honourable member wish to speak to this Bill? There being no further speakers, the honourable member for Fremantle can resume his speech but he will have to behave himself.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point is that I think it is perfectly reasonable for the Parliament to examine the credentials of any political organisation which seeks to spend the money which the Parliament is appropriating. The point is that I think we should be looking for financial propriety in relation to the people who are going to make decisions about this money. What the Liberal Government, via the Liberal Party, in Western Australia is seeking to do is to force this person - I should like to refer to the 1978 auditor’s report on the shire of Carnarvon which stated that Mr Tuckey who was, a candidate in this election probably disqualified himself–

Mr Viner:

– I raise a further point of order. The affairs of the town of Carnarvon have nothing whatsoever to do with this’ debate.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Of course they have.

Mr Viner:

– The honourable member for Fremantle is intent on flouting your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you called on him to make his remarks relevant to the matter before the House. The honourable member for Fremantle is intent upon making unfounded scurrilous attacks upon Liberal candidates in the forthcoming election. It is clearly a device that he is seeking to use, getting down into the gutter as he has so often done in this House, in order to bring disrepute–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister must not debate his own point of order.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I should like to speak to the point of order. The point is that these funds are to be appropriated to Western Australia. The Western Australian Government may well pass on some of those funds to the Shire of Carnarvon. Surely it is a matter of concern to this Parliament whether that State Government and that shire council can be trusted to spend that money properly. The Mayor of the Shire of Carnarvon - this was said by the auditors - probably has disqualified himself for the position because he misappropriated $800. (Quorum formed). I have obtained the permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) to incorporate an editorial in Hansard. I seek leave to have it incorporated at this time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Viner:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Perhaps the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs did not hear the honourable member say he had sought and obtained leave from the Foreign Minister to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

NO PLACE FOR COSHES

There is public disquiet over the bashing of a native by Carnarvon shire president Wilson Tuckey, his brother and another man.

Few people would regard the fine of $40 levied against Wilson Tuckey as an appropriate penalty for an offence in which he used a cosh on Ray McGibbon while McGibbon’s arms were held by the two other men. This was a particularly disturbing assault which warranted a severe penalty.

In the upshot, the token penalties exacted have injected a racial element into the case and the State is exposed to discreditable publicity in Australia and overseas. It is hard for anybody to be sure that if Tuckey’s and McGibbon’s roles had been reversed the attacker would not have found himself in gaol. Moreover, if a native had been at fault it is hard to imaging that the police would have stood aside and allowed the case to be prosecuted privately.

The matter should not rest here. Even if there is no legal reason for reopening the case, the Minister for Justice should be explaining publicly why this is so and he should make sure that such cases are always prosecuted by the police.

Tuckey’s behaviour in this instance raises questions about his suitability to hold a publican’s licence and his capacity for the presidency of the Carnarvon Shire Council. In both roles he should be setting good examples in public conduct and race relations.

The government’s responsibility is not only to ensure that justice was done but also that it should be seen to be done. Whatever subsequent action might be taken against Tuckey in the Licensing Court or by the Carnarvon ratepayers. Justice Minister Griffith and Police Minister Craig should be making it quite clear that there is going to be no rule-of-the-cosh in the North- West or elsewhere in WA.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I thank the House. I simply want to refer to the fact that the Shire President of the Shire of Carnarvon has been guilty of misappropriating the funds of the Shire of Carnarvon by going on wild boozing binges to Perth and spending $800 of ratepayers’ funds.

Mr Viner:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. As I have pointed out several times before in this debate, the matters to which the honourable member for Fremantle is referring are totally irrelevant to the Bill. He knows it but he has persistently flouted your ruling requiring him to be relevant to the matter being debated. He is deliberately flouting that ruling - as I have already said - so that he can get down into the gutter and make these spurious and unfounded allegations about persons outside this House whom he knows to be Liberal candidates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister is debating his point of order. He will resume his seat. The Chair is in a very difficult position. The honourable member for Fremantle has argued that funds could flow from this Bill to various levels of government. He is, of course, correct. I have asked the honourable member for Fremantle to try to get his remarks back to the economic thrust of this Bill. I now invite him to do so.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been misappropriations in the Shire of Carnarvon.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think the House realises that if the honourable member says so.

Mr DAWKINS:

– It has been in the hands of the State Government to do something about it.

Mr Viner:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. How many times do you have to ask the honourable member for Fremantle to remain relevant to this matter? The moment that you finish making your point to him he continues in exactly the same fashion. I wonder just how long the Chair will tolerate it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have taken note of the point of order.

Mr DAWKINS:

– It is the Minister for Local Government in the Western Australian Government–

Mr Bourchier:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I notice that the honourable member has finally sat down when points of order have been taken. Mr Deputy Speaker, while you have been speaking the honourable member has been standing up continually. He is supposed to sit down like any other respectful member in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Fremantle.

Mr DAWKINS:

– On several occasions the Minister for Local Government in Western Australia has refused to take action in relation to the misappropriation of funds by the Shire of Carnarvon. The Mayor has been deliberately and personally involved. He has spent $800 in Perth at the Parmelia Hotel on a wild boozing binge. That money comes from the ratepayers of Carnarvon.

Mr Viner:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The Minister for Local Government has taken no action.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Fremantle will resume his seat. The Minister will resume his seat. The House has heard enough repetition about the Mayor of Carnarvon or whoever he is. The honourable member for Fremantle does not seem to have any other argument and keeps repeating the same sentence. If he does not get back to the Bill I will have to ask him to resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Fremantle.

Mr DAWKINS:

– What this indicates is that–

Motion (by Dr Everingham) negatived:

That an extension of time for the honourable member for Fremantle be granted.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1426

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 1 September, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1426

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS (QUOTA INCREASE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– The International Monetary Agreements (Quota Increase) Bill 1980 now before the House is a simple but somewhat esoteric Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise Australia to increase its quota in the International Monetary Fund. The International Monetary Fund or IMF was established at the same time as the World Bank in December 1945, to promote international monetary co-operation, to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade and to promote stability in foreign exchange. It has various arrangements for the sale of foreign exchange to countries in balance of payments deficit. The special drawing account was introduced in 1970 as a means of strengthening national reserves. Each member of the IMF is assigned a quota related to its national income, monetary reserves, trade balance and other economic indicators. The member’s subscription is equal to its quota and is payable in special drawing rights, as they are known, in other members’ currencies or in its own currency. The quota approximately determines a member’s voting power, the amount of foreign exchange it may purchase from the Fund and its allocation of special drawing rights.

In December 1978 the Board of Governors agreed on a 50 per cent increase in quotas. The proposal for quota increases was based on the view that in general increased access to the Fund’s resources should, over the long run, normally result from an increase in Fund quotas, which gives the Fund a more assured access to resources than does borrowing. The Board of Governors was also aware that over the next few years there is a possibility of large payment imbalances as a result of the operation of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and that the distribution is likely to affect the national liquidity position. For these reasons, a large general increase in the overall size of quotas of 50 per cent was agreed on, with a few particularly rapidly growing countries paying for even larger quotas and so, of course, increasing their voting power in the Fund. The larger increases are being paid mainly by the oil exporting countries and also by Singapore and the Republic of Korea. Australia’s share in the increase is 395 million special drawing rights - that is, about $A460m at current exchange rates - which will increase the Australian quota to 1,185 million SDRs. The IMF intends that the increases under this seventh review of quotas will come into force around the end of 1980.

The Opposition supports this Bill. We see the IMF as an essential instrument for reducing international currency instability and improving the working of the international monetary system. This quota increase must be paid if Australia is to maintain an active role in the IMF. The method of paying the quota is through non-negotiable, non-interest bearing securities for three-quarters of the increase. The other quarter is to be paid in SDRs which the Government will purchase from the Reserve Bank of Australia. However, support for this Bill does not mean that the Opposition is uncritical of the IMF. There are severe inadequacies in the structure of the IMF and in its operating policies. For example, the IMF does not include most of the communist countries. Its membership is dominated by the economically powerful market countries, so that the large population developing countries are underrepresented. In fact, the pattern of voting does not adequately represent even existing economic power, let alone remotely contribute to giving greater weight to population than to income.

Since early in the 1970s there has been a breakdown of order within the world monetary system. Countries have been buffeted by the unpredictable appreciations and devaluations of the major currencies, forcing on them major new problems in the management of their own exchange rates, foreign reserves and debt. These uncertainties have contributed to the increasing rate of inflation and have therefore contributed to inducing the contractionary policies which have slowed growth throughout the last half decade. Exchange rate fluctuations have far exceeded those generally considered necessary for balance of payments adjustment. Attempts to introduce a new pattern of order have had little success, so that there has been only limited reform. Australia has shared in the consequences of this disorder. The excessive devaluation in November 1976 and the subsequent exchange rate oscillation intensified inflationary pressure in this country.

In this situation the IMF is not powerful enough on the one hand and too powerful on the other. The international community has too little control over international currency markets. The IMF is dwarfed by the vast totals of largely uncontrolled money in national currencies which make up the sum of world liquidity- for example, the Euro-currency markets. But as well, the IMF’s policies have been too narrowly based on bankers’ conditions. The Independent Commission on International Development Issues under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt, the former Chancellor of West Germany - this report is known as the Brandt report - commented:

Over the years the IMF has imposed such rigorous conditions, the deficit countries have Tailed to make use of their quotas or made use of them too late, preferring the private international banks instead. The conditional resources that the Fund can make available- limited as they are - have been greatly under utilised.

Many borrowers feel that the Fund has imposed conditions that go beyond its legitimate interests and into the areas of social and economic policy which are the responsibility of national governments. The banks’ approach has been paternalistic. The Brandt report’s cautious comment is that:

In practice, the Fund often seems to assume that any country that needs to borrow conditional liquidity must have been incompetent or careless in running its affairs and is therefore likely to benefit from some guidance from a disinterested party.

Such as the IMF-

But many borrowing countries do not accept this assumption.

Major reforms are needed in the international monetary system to reintroduce greater order and ensure that it works with greater equity and efficiency. The extremely important and authoritative Brandt report makes a number of reasonable recommendations. Recommended reforms include improvements in the exchange rate regime, the reserve system, the balance of payments adjustment process and the overall management of the system, which should include participation of the whole international community.

This is not the time to debate the report’s recommendations in detail, but I would draw attention to the fact that this report - the Brandt report - was first proposed by Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank, in 1977. It was supported by the United Nations Secretary-General, Kurt Waldheim. Also, the Commission has worked independently of national governments and other international organisations. Commissioners have included a range of national leaders, chaired by Willy Brandt, a former Chancellor of West Germany, and including Edward Heath, the former Conservative British Prime Minister, Adam Malik, the former Vice-President and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, and about a dozen other important leaders. This important report was published in February this year, more than seven months ago, yet the Fraser Government has made no formal statement about it. The Brandt report has been the subject of discussion at major international conferences, including the Venice summit of Western countries, the recent United Nations special session and the meeting in New Delhi from which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has just returned.

The Prime Minister and his Government claim to take the north-south dialogue seriously. They make fine speeches when overseas but the fact is that they have little to say about international economic development when at home in Australia. This goes for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) as much as anyone else. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said at the United Nations special session which he has just attended:

Overseas development assistance is now perceived as a touch-stone of political commitment to the north-south dialogue.

Yet during the last five years, Australian aid as a proportion of gross domestic product, has fallen sharply from 0.53 per cent in 1974-75 to an estimated 0.42 per cent in this financial year. The Prime Minister can swan around the world making fine speeches, but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is he fails miserably. Reform of the international money system is one of the vital changes which would encourage international economic development. This Bill enables Australia to continue as an active member of the International Monetary Fund. A change of government would allow Australia to take a more active role in the reforms that are required.

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 Groom) read a third time.

page 1428

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 6 September, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill and the Excise Tariff Validation 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

– I will merely speak to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1980. I would like the Opposition Deputy Whip and, if he is listening, the Opposition Whip to take on board the fact that the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) will be speaking for a short period on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill which is also the subject of this cognate debate. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1980 is essentially a temporary machinery measure to protect from legal challenge the collection of various customs duties. At a later date the tariffs involved will be incorporated in the law through a Customs Tariff amendment Bill. A Bill such as the Customs Bill we are now considering usually would have been introduced earlier in this session, but the Government has not allowed itself enough time.

Debate interrupted.

page 1428

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Groom:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1428

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr HURFORD:

– I was explaining that such a Bill would usually have been introduced this session but the Government has not allowed itself enough time to get it ready because of its latest and indeed last early election announcement. The Bill relates to various tariff proposals which have been introduced into this Parliament, namely, gearboxes, gears and shafts; pharmaceutical and veterinary products; apples and pears; travel goods; insulators; polymeric plasticisers; textiles, clothing and footwear, chemical products; and lastly works trucks and stackers. Without in any way denying the vital importance of the other measures, it can be said that the textiles, clothing and footwear proposals are of particular significance particularly in terms of the substantial employment involved in these industries. These industries and the Australian public generally, went through a three-year charade under the ad hoc approach to the industry which this Government has adopted not only in this case but also in the case of a number of other industries.

Over a period the Industries Assistance Commission produced a number of reports. The Government made a variety of often conflicting statements both in Australia and on tours abroad- at least, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made the statements on tours abroad - all of which achieved nothing more than a state of widespread uncertainty in those textile, clothing and footwear industries. A number of factories closed in the meantime and employment in the industries declined during this period. The measures incorporated in the proposals now made will at least offer a semblance of certainty and predictability for the firms and workers involved. But that, of course, does not mean that jobs will not continue to disappear. The Government does not know how many jobs will be lost but the IAC is sure that it will be more than 19,500 by 1986 under these very government proposals. This Government, of course, would do nothing for these people. There are no proposals for income maintenance; there are no structural adjustment assistance programs. All of these people will become unemployed through absolutely no fault of their own. What is worse, we cannot be sure how long the Government’s present approach will last. There have been a number of statements, from the other side of this Parliament, which suggest that the Government believes that protection for these industries should be reduced. In the unlikely event that the present Government is returned we can have no confidence that a change will not be made to these particular proposals that are in this Bill. Certainly there are a number of influential lobbies close to the government which would seek such a change, which means that what we are debating tonight is only a temporary measure in relation to textiles, clothing and footwear.

The Opposition has raised, on a number of occasions, the issue of how these important tariff and excise proposals are dealt with by the Parliament. Despite their importance, these issues are rushed through without any serious and detailed consideration being made by the Parliament. On previous occasions I, and indeed predecessors of mine, have spoken on behalf of the Opposition, expressing the Opposition’s view that the way of dealing with these excise and tariff proposals should be changed. I repeat that on previous occasions the Opposition’s view has been responded to favourably by Government Ministers and members and yet no action has been taken in this regard. Accordingly, to put on record what we believe should happen in relation to these matters and how excise and tariff matters ought to be discussed, I move:

I refer to the Excise Tariff Validation Bill which we are debating cognately. The purpose of this Bill is to validate the collection of excise on oil and liquified petroleum gas. The rates of excise were set on 1 July in line with the new import parity price set by the Government. The Opposition does not support import parity pricing for oil nor does it support the Government’s LPG policy. Therefore, the Opposition opposes this legislation. We are also opposed to the inefficient and inequitable taxation system which is applicable to these fuels.

I refer to the subject of oil. On 1 July the Fraser Government increased the price of Australian oil to $27.50 a barrel. It did this by increasing the tax on oil. This financial year the Government will collect at least $3,054m in taxes on oil. This compares with only $257m collected in 1975-76, the year this Fraser Government took office. The tax has increased almost twelvefold under the Fraser Government and it will continue to increase if this Government is returned. Total tax on oil, petrol and LPG during 1980-81 will be at least $4,08 1m. This is equivalent to 29.5 per cent of payasyouearn tax collection. The Fraser Government has shifted the burden from direct to indirect taxes. Indeed it has been sufficiently penalising when it comes to direct taxes, but the burden has been increased even more by indirect taxes. This Government has become the highest taxing government in Australian history and the present Prime Minister has become the highest taxing Prime Minister in Australia’s history.

Fifty per cent of the price of a litre of petrol goes to the Government in taxes. This is a tax policy, not an energy policy. The Government does not have an energy policy. It argues that import parity pricing is necessary to encourage conservation. But let us note these points. During the last financial year petrol consumption fell by only 0.7 per cent. But that happened at what cost? The cost is a 33 per cent increase in petrol prices and a shift of revenue to the Government and producers of $4,000m. In the United States of America in 1 979 petrol consumption fell by 4.5 per cent and it does not have import parity pricing. This year’s

Budget Papers show that the Government does not believe its own rhetoric. Revenue from excise on petroleum products is estimated to increase by 1 . 1 per cent. The excise rates have not changed. That means that consumption is expected to increase by 1 .1 per cent. In other words this import parity pricing policy is having little or no effect if these Budget figures are realised on conservation.

How does the Government expect people to stop using their cars when there is no alternative? Funds for public transport have been cut back. We learnt that today from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) who moved a notice of motion before Question Time. Between 1976-77 and this financial year Commonwealth funds have been cut by 44 per cent in real terms. The Government has also failed to encourage the development of alternative fuels. It has placed complete reliance on higher prices. That higher price policy, which is iniquitous, very unfair on lower income groups in particular, and a penalty on all Australian citizens, is not achieving its purpose.

Government expenditure on energy research and development is about $2.10 per capita and this compares very, very unfavourably with so many overseas countries. Let us just look at the comparison. That $2.10 per capita of Government expenditure is poor compared with, for instance: In Belgium, $US13.80, in Sweden, $US9.90; in Norway, $US7.80; in the Netherlands, $US7.70; in Japan, $US6.90; in Canada, $US4.90; and in Denmark, $US4.80. I repeat that in Australia it is a miserable $2.10 per capita. Less than one per cent of the Government’s receipts from the petrol tax is spent on energy research. Not one dollar is spent on exploration. Not one dollar of the Government’s iniquitous tax, this vast amount that it is taking from the pockets of Australian people, is going into exploration. The other side argues that we need import parity to encourage exploration. This is just not so. lt is not having this effect. Both the Government and the Opposition believe that import parity should be paid for new discoveries as this stimulates exploration and this is the policy that was introduced by the Labor Government over five years ago. However, exploration at the moment is far too low. Last year 59 wells were drilled. In Canada more than 3,000 wells were drilled.

Mr Bourchier:

– What happened to exploration under Labor?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member for Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr HURFORD:

– Chuck him out, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the only way to deal with him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will remain silent. The Chair has asked the honourable member for Bendigo to remain silent. If he persists in interjecting, I will be required to deal with him.

Mr HURFORD:

– As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, he just wants his interjections to be recorded in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Adelaide will proceed to address the House through the Chair.

Mr HURFORD:

– The people will realise just how inane the interjections are. I was going through the figures about exploration.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would it be in order for the honourable member for Adelaide to point out also what the exploration figures and the figures for wells under the Labor Government were?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Bourchier:

– They were none, nil, minus, not happening.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– I thought it was a very important one.

Mr HURFORD:

– Last year 59 wells were drilled. Let us look at how many were drilled in comparison with other comparable countries.

Mr Bourchier:

– How many under Labor?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Bendigo.

Mr Kerin:

– Name him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Werriwa.

Mr HURFORD:

– If it is possible for me to name them on your behalf, Mr Deputy Speaker–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Adelaide will not provoke the House. He will proceed with addressing his remarks through the Chair.

Mr HURFORD:

– Last year, 59 wells were drilled in Australia compared with more than 3,000 in Canada and more than 51,000 wells in the United States. Let us recognise that Labor’s alternative policies are much, much more satisfactory when it comes to exploration. Let us also recognise that we already have a policy of import parity pricing for new oil which is all the incentive that would be required for exploration. For all these reasons and because this Excise Bill does nothing more or less than impose an unnecessary impost on the Australian people, we oppose it. I repeat that I have moved an amendment to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill.

Mr Kerin:

– I second the amendment.

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

– The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. I am aware that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) is interested in the matter that is the substance of the amendment. I think I am right in saying that I have written to him about this principle. The matters that he raises are novel. The procedure that the Government is following has been the procedure which has been carried out in respect of Customs and excise matters since Federation. It may be that the time will come when there ought to be other procedures. I think that would require a very serious study and I believe there would be difficulties.

I do not canvass the substance of the Bills. The arguments about parity pricing have been put widely through the country and debated in this Parliament. I have no doubt that that will be one of the leading items to be debated in the weeks leading up to the forthcoming election. The Government believes that its policies in respect of liquefied petroleum gas and parity pricing for oil is very well based. We will have no hesitation in putting those arguments forward with firmness. I have no doubt that the people of Australia are understanding more and more that, while they do not like to see price rises, that policy is necessary now and for the future. These two Bills seek to validate proposals already put to this Parliament - that is, to give them longer lives - and I ask honourable members to support them.

Mr Hurford:

– With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out that I am not pressing the point to a vote because of the lateness of the hour and the desire to use the time for debate on other matters.

Mr Garland:

– I thank the honourable member.

Amendment negatived.

Original 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 Garland) read a third time.

page 1431

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 6 September, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– Once again I say that the position of the Opposition on these excise increases is well known. But, due to the lateness of the hour and the desire to use the time on other matters, we will not press the matter to a vote.

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 Garland) read a third time.

page 1431

BARLEY RESEARCH BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering the Barley Research Bill 1980 and the Barley Research Levy Bill 1980, as they are associated measures. Of course, separate questions will 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 KERIN:
Werriwa

– Rural Australia is the forgotten sector, as accurately described by Mr Eckersley of the National Farmers Federation. Bills relating to agricultural matters are never discussed in this House–

Mr Nixon:

– That is because there is no Labor spokesman.

Mr KERIN:

– I can go for half an hour. Even major Bills at the end of last year were rushed through in the closing hours of the session with the same indecent haste that these Bills will be rushed through the House tonight. I am not saying that the Barley Research Bill and the Barley Research Levy Bill are major Bills but they involve important matters and are related to an important industry. The purpose of these Bills is to provide machinery to collect a levy to set up a barley research trust account for the funding of a research scheme and also to establish a National Barley Industry Research Council and State committees. The Bills represent an extension of Commonwealth involvement with respect to research in the barley industry, which at present involves research in only three States. This legislation includes the other barley producing States.

The Government introduced its policy of matching grower levies in 1977 and since then there have been requests for additional Commonwealth funds for barley research and an equitable distribution of those funds among the States. There is general agreement among Australian barley producers and all State governments that a need exists for increased research through an Australia-wide scheme. The Opposition in no way opposes the Government’s move and I will not bore the House by going through all the ramifications of the scheme because they have been well expressed in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon). The legislation before the House is the same as a host of other research levies legislation applying to rural industries. The industries themselves impose a levy and the Government administers it and also sets up the administrative arrangements for the various committees and State organisations.

The barley industry in Australia is fascinating. I suppose it is fair to say that people who produce barley also produce wheat. That is the normal association and that is why the barley committee of the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation has some say in the policy aspects of this industry. Also fascinating is the way the industry is set up and structured. The Australian Barley Board covers South Australia and Victoria and there are separate barley boards for Queensland and Western Australia, as well as a grain pool in the case of Western Australia. The marketing of barley inside and outside Australia is fascinating. The way that the various breweries, particularly Carlton and United Breweries Ltd in Victoria and the various companies that are set up and which have become stalking horses to buy barley for malting purposes makes a fascinating tale indeed. It is matched only by the way overseas buyers purchase barley from this country- the way the Taiwanese and Russians handle the buying of grain and the role of the great grain export trading companies. As I said, it is a fascinating story. The real needs of the barley and coarse grain industry, as well as the other grain industries, in Australia in future will relate to transport, handling and storage. I hope that one day the Federal Government can facilitate moves by the States in regard to various rail and grain handling authorities so they can get together to develop a more efficient transport handling and storage system for grains. lt would not be inappropriate to say just a few words about coarse grains in general, because barley is the major coarse grain produced in Australia. World coarse grain prices in 1980-81 are expected to remain at around the current high levels. Even though a record world coarse grain crop is forecast for this year, production is still expected to be below the level of utilisation as stocks are expected to be drawn down slightly from their high levels for the second consecutive year. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics forecasts that in Australia production of the four main coarse grains will fall slightly, from 6, 191 kilotonnes to 6,112 kilotonnes, which is mainly as a result of slightly lower oats and barley yields, more than offsetting increased areas of these grains. Of course, the major drought faced by many of our. growing areas probably will downgrade these estimates. With higher prices expected for exported barley and sorghum, the gross value of 1 980-8 1 coarse grain production is forecast to rise by 4 per cent to $720m.

That gives some idea of the magnitude of this industry. Barley is the major coarse grain and these Bills are of great importance to that industry. The Opposition does not object to them.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

– At this late hour I do not intend to talk for very long on the Barley Research Bill 1980 and the Barley Research Levy Bill 1980. However, I think it is important that I, representing the seat of Wakefield which over the years has been one of the major barley growing areas in Australia, say a few words. I am most grateful that the Government has brought on this legislation in the dying stages of this Parliament. It relates to the poor anticipated yields of most grains in Australia during the coming year and to the fact that the revenue collected currently from pool arrangements will be less.

As has been described fairly accurately by the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin), the Government’s aim is to introduce a national levy system, which will be important to the barley industry. Not only will the industry have less research funds available in a low yield year if this Bill does not go through the Senate tomorrow but also the legislation will authorise a levy payment system which will enable various research projects, that perhaps unfortunately have been prebudgeted ahead of the event, to continue. I think it is very desirable that this legislation be passed by the House tonight. I do not intend to talk any further on it and I hope that the Senate is capable of dealing properly with the legislation tomorrow on behalf of the barley industry, which feels that the Bills are so important.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– I would like to record in Hansard the National Country Party’s support of this legislation. Australia has led the field in wheat research and I have no doubt that with the implementation of this new research committee we will also do the same sort of experimentation and research to assist our barley producers. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) stated in his second reading speech, barley has become Australia’s most important coarse grain and is a great contributor to our rural economy.

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 1433

BARLEY RESEARCH LEVY BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 1433

COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Copyright Amendment Bill 1 980 is a highly technical Bill. As the hour is late the interest in it may not be as acute as one might normally expect.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Not at all.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– I am grateful for that. I will retract what I have said and say that there will be keen debate. Copyright really relates to guaranteeing that authors of work get equitable remuneration. I wonder whether this Bill will achieve that because it contains a lot of cumbersome procedures which I will proceed to talk about. One would think that in this day and age it would be easy to give some clear payment to an author whose work is being used. We will have to go through a tortuous process here. I make the observation that children, in particular, require access to a fair amount of work for their education needs. They cannot be expected to go off and buy a book each. If there are 40 children in a class, the usual process is for them to go to the municipal library and obtain access to the work which the teacher has recommended. I propose to illustrate that this Bill will involve children of the tender ages of 10 or 11 years in trying to make statutory declarations about what they will do with the work. That is a little beyond a practical approach.

It is worthy of note that Australia is a net importer of copyright. A lot of our copyright is overseas-owned and the benefits will go overseas. Let us talk about the question of copyright. It is one of obtaining information and knowledge and imparting information and knowledge, particularly through educational institutions. The Opposition will not oppose the motion for the second reading of the Bill, but it will move substantial amendments in the Committee stage. The amendments have been printed and circulated. I notice that the Government has got back into the act by proposing more amendments. Plenty of amendments were moved in the Senate. In fact, I was advised by my colleagues in the Senate that the Government moved 50 amendments to the Bill in the Senate. So honourable members can see that this Bill has had a very unhappy course. It is not easy to debate this matter given the mass of amendments that has come forward.

The Opposition acknowledges the fact that two officers of the Attorney-General’s Department were made available for assistance. We thank those officers for the task that they so diligently and completely performed. However, we are a bit wary about why we were offered the services of those two officers. We recognised that the Bill is a technical one, but it looked to some extent as though we were given the officers in the hope that as a result of that we might not be so critical of the legislation. WhilstI have no complaint about the officers, there was great difficulty in obtaining an adequate brief. We have not been able to get what we would regard as adequate assistance from the parliamentary counsel. I am not suggesting that our amendments have been downgraded by that. I am simply making the point that we may have been able to derive more benefit from the exercise if we had more time given to us by the parliamentary counsel. It has been a time consuming task for members and staff of the Opposition. We want to make it clear that in the next Parliament, when we are in government, the parliamentary counsel will work for the Parliament and not simply for the Government. That was our approach to matters when we were formerly in government.

The Opposition will be moving substantial amendments. I do not think the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) will have had a lot of time to look at them. He is busy and this Bill belongs to another Minister. It is obvious that he will not be able to deal adequately with the amendments. That is not surprising. The Government did not seem to have a clear understanding of what the Opposition in the Senate was about in moving the amendments.

The Law Institute of Victoria has sought a postponement of the passage of this legislation. I have shown the Minister a telegram to me from Mr Gordon Lewis, Executive Director of the Law Institute of Victoria, seeking the postponement. In the telegram he refers to the fact that a summary of the recommendations of a committee chaired by Mr Justice Whitford in England is attached to the telegram. The summary was not attached. With the approval of the Minister, I seek leave to incorporate that telegram in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The telegram read as follows -

Melbourne Vic 250/239 10.52A

Urgent

Hon L F Bowen

Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Housreps Canberra

Copyrights Amendment Bill 1980 is listed for debate in the house today stop In July 1980 the law institute of Victoria made submissions to the Attorney General which in part read as follows - the institute has become aware of the recommendations contained in the report of the committee to consider the law on copyright and designs chaired by the Honourable Mr Justice Whitford in England stop I enclose a photo copy of the summary of recommendations of the committee concerning reprographic reproductions stop It appears that Mr Justice Whitfords committee has reached conclusions at variance to those of the Honourable Mr Justice Franki on whose report the provisions of the copyright amendment bill are based stop Generally the report of the Whitford committee recommends strengthening the claims of a copyright owner rather than weakening them and further that licencing schemes and the collection and distribution of payments are feasible and desirable stop It would seem undesirable particularly in this area where there is a great deal of international trade in books for the laws of England and Australia to be at such a variance- no reply has yet been received to the institutes letter stop Request that you ask for debate on the bill to be adjourned pending consideration of the matter by the Attorney General stop.

Gordon Lewis Executive Director Law Institute of Victoria.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– It should satisfy the Law Institute of Victoria to know that at least that has been mentioned in the debate. I should have thought that the Government would have had a chance to discuss the matter with the Institute. That is a matter for the Minister to comment on. It appears from the telegram that no discussion has taken place. In the second reading speech, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs referred to a passage of the 1959 report of the Copyright Law Review Committee adopted by the Franki Committee. The Copyright Law Review Committee stated:

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

Our approach to this Bill can be summarised by saying that we do not believe that the balance has been drawn in the right place. We believe that the users of copyright have been unjustifiably disadvantaged by this legislation. This will be at the expense of obtaining information and knowledge. The most important concepts in understanding this legislation are the concepts of fair dealing, reasonable portion and statutory licence. I think I can summarise some of these matters by saying that fair dealing can be defined as 10 per cent return. There is a definition of that in the Bill. Statutory licence refers to the provisions of what one has to go through. Reasonable portion comes back to very much the same as what we are about in the fair dealing proposition. But we believe that the concepts are inconsistently applied throughout the legislation.

Let me deal in detail with what the Opposition is about in regard to this legislation. We believe that educational institutions and libraries should have the right to do the same copying on behalf of a person as that person would have the right to do himself under the fair dealing provisions. Photocopying or, to use the more pretentious title, reprographic reproduction, is a fact of life and it is no use passing outmoded or luddite copyright laws if those laws are unworkable. We do not object in theory to the statutory licence. However, we do think that that statutory licence ought to apply only when more than a reasonable portion - that is, basically, 10 per cent or one chapter of a book - is copied for educational purposes.

We find it extraordinary that the provisions relating to the unremunerated copying by teachers of up to three copies of a work has been removed. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that in the earlier legislation there was provision for teachers to make three copies of a work for classroom purposes. That has been removed from this legislation. In our opinion the people who will suffer from this removal will be the students, the people whom we are trying to help and who, as their literary studies improve, would be able to purchase and perhaps, write a few books. This is a very negative approach.

Clause 49 of the Bill is one of the most extraordinary and ridiculous provisions that has ever been put before a parliament. Reference was made in the Senate to how it will affect members of the Parliament and that we will get the votes of Government back benchers on our amendment. But the provision is of much wider significance than simply for members of parliament.

Let us look at how it might work in practice. To comply with this provision, a 10-year-old child who wanted a copy of part of a book which is not generally available must sign a declaration saying that he requires the copy for the purpose of research or study, that he will not use it for any other purpose and that he has not previously been supplied with a copy of the same material. Can honourable members imagine the sorts of problems which will descend on a municipal library when a class arrives there to try to get some copying done and 35 of them, at such a tender age that they do not even know what the Oaths Act is all about, try to make statutory declarations to comply with these provisions? If a child, in his efforts to get that material, attracts the attention of his classmates who decide to get up to some prank and either steal the document or destroy it, the child will not be able to obtain another copy unless he makes a false declaration. That shows how stupid the provision is. It is an absurdity to suggest that schoolchildren should be forced to sign declarations saying that they require copies for research and study. If they made the copies themselves, there would be no problem; that would fall under the fair dealing provisions. But if the library makes a copy, the stupid and bureaucratic arrangements come into play. I foreshadow an amendment proposing that only copying of more than a reasonable portion of the work needs to be done under the bureaucratic arrangements. I also foreshadow an amendment proposing that the statutory licence scheme apply only to a reasonable portion.

I turn now to the provisions relating to handicapped readers. It must be acknowledged - indeed we are grateful- that for the first time special provisions in copyright law are to relate to handicapped readers. However, there appear to be considerable problems with the way the legislation has been drafted. Firstly, we believe that the definition of a ‘handicapped reader’ is far too narrow. For example, it excludes people who are functionally illiterate because of a mental or physical handicap. Secondly, the provisions relating to fair dealing do not appear to apply to handicapped readers because normally they will not be able to make their own copies, lt would appear that all copying for handicapped readers must be done under the statutory licence, which means that it must be paid for. In our view, the statutory licence should apply only to copying of a reasonable portion, which would not constitute fair dealing if the handicapped person made a copy of the work in the normal way.

There are other provisions in the legislation which also concern us. The Opposition, as a result of discussions with the Attorney-General’s Department, has decided to assist the passage of the legislation by not proceeding with certain amendments. One of those amendments related to proposed section 182A dealing with Crown copyright. It was suggested to us that the Commonwealth required only quality control - that is, accuracy control - before granting a licence to reproduce Commonwealth Acts of Parliament. We now learn from further representations which have been made to us that this may not be the case. It is suggested - in fact there seems to be some evidence of this - that the controls imposed by the Commonwealth seem to relate more to quantity than to quality. Let us make the position very clear. Acts of Parliament and decisions of courts must be given the quickest and widest circulation possible. For example, it is outrageous that no consolidated version of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has been produced by the Commonwealth. That task has been left to private publishers. We asked the Attorney-General for a clear undertaking that the only restrictions on the granting of licences to copy Acts of Parliament will be quality controls, not quantity controls. We believe also the legislation is defective in that it does not provide for reports of royal commissions and of government agencies to be free of copyright to the extent provided for by proposed new section 182A.

The final matter to which I wish to refer concerns the penalties provided under the provisions of proposed sections 203A to H inclusive. We are not satisfied that penalties of this nature should apply to people in charge of libraries and archives. In a nutshell, they will be treated as criminals with criminal liability. That seems to be an extraordinarily heavy-handed approach to this problem. Having made those comments, and recognising the lateness of the hour and the fact that we have foreshadowed that we will be moving substantial amendments, we will await further debate in the Committee stage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

  1. 1 ) Clause 7, page 8, after proposed sub-section (4) add the following sub-section: “ ‘(5) In this section, a copy includes the malting of a copy for a handicapped reader and copying has a corresponding meaning.’.”

Even since 1976 there has been a continuing revolution in the reproduction of art works, music, records, films and so on. Although the legislation is enormously improved the amendments proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), nevertheless we still have to recognise that there is an awful problem in trying to monitor, in trying to even measure the amount of material that is reproduced, the amount of material that is pirated. Although there is an attempt to raise the penalties for the pirating of films and records, the point is that the technology for the pirating of records and films is now so readily available to anybody of comparatively modest income that it seems absurd to think that we can really regulate it effectively by means of this legislation. There is a very real problem there.

I never try to add to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, but there is perhaps one point that I should raise about the difficulties of providing for the needs of schools so far as reproduction of works is concerned. I can quite understand that where Australian writers are concerned and we certainly want to encourage the writers of Australian text books as much as we can - their problems can be solved by a local tribunal of some sort. But I would be concerned if we reached the stage that because of the complexity of dealing with copyright provisions and the difficulty of getting some sort of adequate return for books that importers felt that there was no- longer any justification to import copies of other works. We want to try to avoid an insular situation where the only textbooks to be used in schools are Australian and foreign textbooks, for practical purposes, are simply excluded. We will find, of course, that if we bring out a parent copy of a work, it goes into a library. The library produces 1 SO, 200 or 300 copies of what the children might reasonably have access to. Obviously no importer, no publisher will find it worthwhile to bring something from overseas and then have to go through the inordinate complexity of the Australian law to try to get some sort of return for the author.

We have to maintain some kind of equity between the needs of the students, which are certainly very important, and the need also to encourage, certainly so long as the competitive spirit of capitalism remains strong in this country, the financial incentives which induce people to write. I think it would be very bad for us if people were discouraged from importing other text books to present different points of view in Australia because they knew that only a handful of the copies would be actually purchased here. I recall that Marshall McLuhan said a few years ago that the point of the xerox revolution was that it made every man his own publisher, that anyone can create his own anthology of material that he wants and he can go to a handful of books and get from them the material that he wants for his own particular purpose. Because he is covered by the situation that we call fair dealing it will be very difficult to get an adequate return for the writer for what has been taken from his work.

There is a major problem in countries overseas - it is only a minor problem comparatively in Australia but it will become a major problem - in the pirating of records, tapes, videotapes and films. If our film industry is to survive and to flourish, it is dependent, in the first instance, on how much revenue is returned to the producers from the box office. In Australia, it is easy enough to get a copy of a film. When it is screened a videotape recording can be made and a person can have his own copy for a comparatively small amount. If there are multiples of copies going around and those copies are seen in clubs and other comparatively private organisations, it is not very likely that the people who have the illicit copies will be prosecuted. It is very unlikely that the Government will get many prosecutions under this legislation. But such copying will perhaps prevent the Australian film industry from breaking even financially. That ought to be very much deplored. I think that the Franki Committee report, as far as it goes, is now obsolete.

What has happened since 1974 when the Committee was given its terms of reference constitutes such a fundamental change that the subject really must be looked at again. This is immensely serious because, if the problem is not looked at in totality, it will be a very serious blow to the people involved in creative work in Australia. The Parliament ought to take it very seriously indeed.

Amendments negatived.

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

– by leave- On behalf of the Government, I move:

  1. 1 ) Clause 1 0, page 1 0, line 28, omit ‘the purpose of including the copy in the collection of the library’, substitute ‘a purpose referred to in sub-section ( I ) ‘.

Amendment No. 3 replaces the words ‘so to disclose’ by the words ‘to make’ in section 144B in order to improve the working of the provision. Amendment No. 4 provides a defence to the prosecution of a person under section 203G where the person is able to show that his failure to retain possession of records for the prescribed period was outside his control or that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence. This amendment takes account of the concern expressed by the Opposition in the Senate that the offence of failing to keep records is of an absolute nature. It is in similar terms to that provided in other record keeping provisions.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 1441

ADJOURNMENT

Canberra Commercial Development Authority - Sturt College of Advanced Education- Road Safety: Motor Cycles- 1980 General Election - The Parliament - Addison Road Community Centre - Establishment of Ethnic Child Care Development Unit- Child Care Services - Interest Rates - Matthew Talbot Hostel - Western Suburbs of Sydney

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed.

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I wish to refer briefly to criticism of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, which manages the Belconnen shopping mall, made in the 181st report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. In my view the Belconnen shopping mall is a very successful enterprise - I am sure that anybody who has seen it would agree - and it fills the urgent need for contemporary shopping facilities for many years. It was developed during a time of generally difficult trading conditions. The Board of the Authority should be commended on overcoming all the difficulties associated with the first attempt by a public authority to establish a shopping mall. The report itself concedes that the mall was completed within its time schedule and close to its budget. Incidentally, it is the only shopping centre in the Australian Capital Territory with covered parking facilities. The Authority, its staff and the Board have made mistakes and I do not condone them. I believe that many of the complaints made against the Board are petty complaints of no real substance. Other problems should be seen as being in the nature of growing pains associated with such an innovative project. If the Board had waited on Public Service Board approval for many of its decisions it would have been delayed by red tape and its performance would have been much less creditable.

While some tenants have had problems with the Authority, the majority of tenants have been successful. The number of failures is regrettable but it is not excessive and should not be attributed to the Authority but rather to government policies which have virtually stopped the commercial growth of Canberra. The criticism of the Chairman of the Authority, Mr James Pead, M.B.E. seems particularly unfair. Jim Pead had worked on the project in his own time for many years before it came to fruition and has done more for Canberra than all of his critics put together. It appears even less justified when the amount of $9,900 spent on his overseas trip is compared with this year’s appropriation of $50,000 for travel by members of the Canberra Development Board and its staff. They have nothing so far to show for the money spent.

I believe that much of the criticism of the Authority has been politically motivated. That is not to say that the decisions of the Committee have been politically motivated. Some private commercial developers in the Australian Capital Territory are philosophically opposed to the intrusion of a public authority into an area where they have traditionally operated without much restriction. The activities of private developers have not always been in the public interest and have tended to force rentals up to high levels. Unlike the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, their profits do not come back into the community, as I am confident that the Commercial Development Authority’s profits will if it is given a fair go and is not subjected to overbearing bureaucratic interference and red tape.

Now that it is well established, the Authority needs less bureaucratic control and more freedom from interference by the Public Service Board and Treasury. I suspect, as do many people in Canberra, that these attacks may be part of a softening-up process - the first steps in moves to justify at some future time the sale of the Belconnen Mall to a private company. I believe the Mall should remain in the hands of the public and that its profits should be used for the benefit and welfare of the community it serves. Already feasibility studies are under way to provide public recreational facilities on the top deck of the shopping Mall. In defending the Authority I do not condone its actions or excuse it from the criticisms levelled at it in the report. I am particularly concerned at its delay in submitting financial statements and I hope that it will comply with the report’s recommendations in this regard.

I agree heartily with the report that public authorities should adopt a high standard of disclosure of their financial performance. The more complete the disclosure, the more public confidence in the enterprise will be established. I do not believe that the findings of the Committee justify its recommendations that those people serving on the board should not be reappointed, particularly in the light of the Committee’s finding that there has been no impropriety by board members or staff. I think this recommendation is an insult to the board particularly to the members who have been nominated from the elected House of Assembly. Despite any deficiencies in administration in the short term, I have every confidence that in the long term the public interest will be best served by the continued public ownership of the Belconnen shopping mall.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

– In the few moments available to me tonight I wish to raise a matter of specific importance to the people of my electorate of Kingston. That matter concerns the future of the Sturt College of Advanced Education. Some months ago the Tertiary Education Authority of South Australia inquired into the need for the rationalisation of colleges of advanced education in the Adelaide metropolitan area, especially with regard to teacher education. That inquiry was undertaken in the light of the projected decline in student numbers in schools in South Australia as a result of population trends. The initial report of the Tertiary Education Authority recommended the closure of one college of advanced education - the Sturt College located at Bedford Park - as a solution to this problem of excess capacity at colleges of advanced education. I am of the strong opinion that this recommendation was wrong and remains wrong. Of the four colleges of advanced education in existence in Adelaide, Sturt is the only one reasonably accessible to the outer suburbs to the south of Adelaide.

Mr Neil:

– Hear, hear!

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I am glad to see that the honourable member for St George is very much aware of that situation. The southern region, or the Noarlunga region, is the fastest growing area in metropolitan Adelaide. The closure of the Sturt College of Advanced Education would make access to CAE education virtually impossible for a significant number of potential students. This is admitted even in the report of the Tertiary Education Authority of South Australia. The Sturt

CAE has a major resource centre used by current school teachers to improve education at the school level in the southern region. This resource centre would disappear with its closure. There are also well over 400 working teachers enrolled in the Sturt CAE for courses leading to higher teaching qualifications. Preliminary reports indicate that the need for continuing education of teachers will be an important recommendation of the Auchmuty inquiry into teacher eduction which was established by the present Government. Therefore, a continuation of the Sturt CAE will be essential to give effect to these programs.

Sturt has developed a highly respected health profession educational program especially with regard to nursing and speech pathology. For all these reasons the recommendation to close the Sturt CAE in the initial Tertiary Education Authority of South Australia report is short-sighted. 1 have, therefore, supported efforts that have been made over recent months to retain Sturt. I have made my views known to the State Minister for Education, Mr Harold Allison. As a result, further inquiries have been undertaken on this matter by the State Government.

Mr Neil:

– They should be undertaken.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– As the honourable member for St George acknowledges, they should be undertaken. I understand that the State Minister now has the final report of the Tertiary Education Authority. I strongly urge the State Government to give its earliest possible consideration to that report. I confirm my view that irrespective of the recommendations in this final report I believe the Sturt CAE should be retained. I also strongly urge the State Government to accept that view. Further delay of a decision on this matter cannot be justified. An early decision to retain the Sturt CAE is essential to remove the insecurity many students and potential students will be feeling at this time.

Mr Bourchier:

– Hear, hear!

Mr CHAPMAN:

– The honourable member for Bendigo also is very much aware of that situation. As students approach end of the year examinations, they should be secure in the knowledge that Sturt will remain open to make its valuable contributions towards tertiary education in South Australia. On their behalf and on behalf of many other people who have a legitimate interest in this matter, I seek an early and favourable decision on the Sturt CAE from the South Australian Government.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I have with me a petition signed by 6,357 citizens who are deeply concerned at the failure of governments - I stress this Government - to provide adequately for motor cycle road safety. I propose to pass the petition of 194 pages to the Clerk of the House for formal presentation in the Parliament tomorrow. More than 40,000 motor cyclists have been either killed or injured on Australia’s roads since 1 975. The majority were young and inexperienced riders who, through lack of proper rider training and driver awareness schemes, had little chance in an accident situation. In effect, they were just some of the victims of the Government’s callous penny-pinching approach to road safety.

Federal expenditure on road safety has been cut by more than $1.5m or 10 per cent in real terms since 1975. In the current Budget a miserly amount of $930,000 has been allocated to road safety promotion and research. This is a reduction i real terms of about $94,000 or 10.2 per cent on the previous year’s allocation. Yet the Federal Government reaped more than $3, Ulm from motorists through its petrol tax in 1979-80. In 1980-81 it expects to increase its revenue from petrol taxes to $3,978m, an increase of 27 per cent. Less than 0.0002 per cent of this petrol tax revenue will be spent on road safety. That is the value that this Government places on the lives of the motoring public. However, this is not the only implication of the Government’s petrol tax for road safety. In effect, it has set in train fundamental shifts in the modes of personal transport. Increasingly, the impact of rising petrol prices is forcing many Australian families to reconsider their transport situation. At the lower end of the income spectrum the choice is limited.

Given the inadequacy of the public transport system and the highly decentralised urban areas an increasing proportion of the motoring public is turning towards motor cycles as a form of personal transport. This shift is reflected in statistics which indicate that national sales of motor cycles increased by more than 45 per cent in 1 979-80. In New South Wales, sales of motor cycles soared by 75 per cent in the first six months of this year. A total of 53,964 new motor cycles were sold last year. In this same period new car sales fell by 1 .7 per cent. The average purchaser is a married man with two children in a single income family situation. On average the motor cycle purchased is a commuter medium sized road cycle with much greater potential for economy than that of a small four-cylinder motor car. It is not this trend to increasing motor cycle use which is disturbing. Rather, it is the fact that no steps have been taken by the Government to accommodate this change.

Government expenditure on motor cycle road safety has been less than one half of one per cent of total road safety spending since 1 974-75. Motor cycles are an efficient and low cost form of personal transport and their use should be encouraged. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the motor cycle rider receives adequate training before being exposed to the hazards of the open road. Some of the measures that should be taken are: An increase in rider training efforts; an improvement of licensing standards; and improved road design to create a less hazardous traffic environment. There is an urgent need for a safety related publicity campaign to be directed at both riders and drivers. Drivers need to be educated to be aware of the presence and rights of motor cyclists as road users. Riders need to be educated on their need to be seen, on defensive riding techniques, and on the benefits of and need for protective clothing. Obviously the cooperation of the motor cycling population is essential to the success of these programs. Under existing arrangements, road safety matters are under the bureaucratic thumb of the Department of Transport. Motor cyclists have no effective representation in the formulation of road safety policies. I put it clearly to the chamber that an incoming Labor government will establish an independent road safety and standards authority which will ensure that road safety matters and road user issues receive the financial priority they deserve. Motor cyclists in particular will be given effective representation on those bodies concerned with motor cycle road safety.

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

– I would like to raise now the matter raised earlier tonight by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins). The honourable member engaged in personal vilification and innuendo as part of a concerted campaign against several Liberal Party candidates from Western Australia in the forthcoming Federal election. The honourable member for Fremantle alleged, for instance, that one of the Liberal candidates from Western Australia was engaged in a dishonest practice and was guilty of misappropriating funds from local government. Since the honourable member for Fremantle spoke earlier this evening I have checked the facts with the local government authorities in Western Australia. I have found that the facts are as follows: The candidate concerned attended a local government conference, along with many other delegates from local government in Western Australia. As has been the practice for many years and at the specific invitation of the Government and the organisers of the local government conference, he took his wife with him to attend the conference. This was done at the specific invitation of the authorities. Subsequently the accommodation costs for his wife were debited to the local authority concerned, as has been the common practice for many years in Western Australia. In fact, I know of this personally because I have attended local government conferences over very many years.

Subsequent to that the Western Australian auditors, in auditing the accounts of the local authority concerned, decided on legal authority that there was a case for imposing a surcharge. They surcharged the person concerned for the amount of money outstanding in relation to his wife’s accommodation in attending that local government conference. I might add that they also surcharged 1 5 or 20 other people, maybe a lot more, from across the length and breadth of Western Australia and embracing many local authorities in Western Australia. So it was not a singular act of surcharge against the person concerned. Immediately that surcharge was issued the amount outstanding was paid in full by the candidate concerned, so no debt is outstanding. There never has been an outstanding debt. The moment that debt was drawn to the notice of the Liberal Party candidate it was paid in full.

The honourable member has acted in a despicable and reprehensible way in raising this matter in the form in which it has been raised and in levelling such allegations against the Liberal Party candidate in Western Australia. I believe that this is part of an overall campaign of vilification and innuendo that is being waged against not only Liberal Party candidates but also Liberal Party members of this House. In fact, it is quite typical of the desperate men who sit opposite. They are bankrupt of policies and ideas. They have no moral fibre in raising an issue such as this.

I would challenge outright the honourable member for Fremantle to repeat outside the charges that he has levelled in this House tonight. I would not be surprised if they were levelled again tonight. I would challenge him categorically to repeat those charges outside if he is so sure that the charges will stick. I put it to honourable members that there is no substance to the matter. It is part of the overall campaign of people who have no policies with which to go to the people. They are desperate and bankrupt of ideas. They are also bankrupt of ideals and morals in this area. The honourable member for Fremantle should be more concerned about the people of Western Australia than in declaring a nuclear-free zone in Western Australia. There are much more appropriate matters to raise in the House. He has no thoughts for the people of Western Australia. He has no thoughts at all for the unemployed in the area of Fremantle. He has no thoughts at all for the pensioners and the poor people who live in that area.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– I am indebted to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) for providing me with an opportunity to respond to some of his remarks. The fact of the matter is, as I stated earlier, that the auditors who had audited the statements of the Shire of Carnarvon in 1978 had made the comment that Mr Tuckey, in doing what the honourable member for Kalgoorlie admits he did, that is, in booking up his own accommodation and the accommodation of his wife in a city motel to the extent–

Mr Bourchier:

– Was he the only one?

Mr DAWKINS:

– I think the honourable member for Kalgoorlie was heard in silence.

Mr Birney:

– What did you do in the dining room?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Birney:

– What did you do in the dining room?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Birney:

– What did you do in the dining room to decent women?

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– To the extent of $8 1 5–

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Name him.

Mr Birney:

– Oh, name yourself. What did you do in the dining room to decent women?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr DAWKINS:

– The auditor said that Mr Tuckey had probably disqualified himself from office. That he made restitution afterwards does not change the fact that he was in breach and was guilty of misappropriating ratepayers’ funds. I am reliably informed that exactly the same thing happened again in 1979 and complaints have been made to the Minister for Local Government about this matter.

But it does not rest there. In 1979 the Shire wanted to call tenders for a sand carting contract worth about $30,000. The Mayor promptly bought three trucks and proceeded to tender for the contract. In the first place he did not bother to tender for the contract. Local authorities are required to let out for tender contracts which are worth more than $4,000. The shire of Carnarvon overlooked this little nicety and in fact had to be brought into line by the Minister for Local

Government, who said that the contract had to be stopped until tenders were properly called. In the end, Mr Tuckey got the tender, but there is evidence to suggest that the tenders were fiddled. I will provide evidence of that if honourable members like.

Mr Martyr:

– You say it outside.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I will provide a statutory declaration to that effect if the honourable member likes.

Mr Martyr:

– You haven’t got the guts to do it outside.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr DAWKINS:

– I just want–

Mr Birney:

– What about the women in the dining room. You sling mud at other people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! Clerk, stop the clock.

Mr Birney:

– Go and apologise to them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Birney:

– How dare you!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Birney:

– How dare you sling mud at other people!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Birney:

– Go out and apologise to them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Phillip will contain himself.

Mr Birney:

– How dare you!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Birney:

– How dare you!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Birney:

– You know what you did.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I have no idea. I have no idea what the honourable member is talking about. He is a drunk and he ought to be out.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Fremantle will resume his seat. The clock has been stopped. The honourable member will not suffer a penalty.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Stop him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I would suggest that the companions of the honourable member for Phillip assist him. I would suggest also to honourable members on my right that it would not appear to subscribe to their particular attitude to this matter if, as a consequence, some of them were named and required to leave the House for disorderly conduct.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I think it is important that the activities of this candidate be brought out into the open. I just want to say that these are the most recent of a number of activities in which this man has been involved.I go back to 1967 when in fact this candidate was convicted of assault. It was a very gruesome assault in which he, with the assistance of two others who held down an Aboriginal patron of his hotel, set about beating him with a copper wire cosh. It just so happens that he was convicted and he was fined $40. However, what could have happened was that the magistrate could have decided to have the charge heard under a different section of the appropriate criminal code. If that had been the case, and if he had been convicted, as he would have been, Mr Tuckey would have been ineligible ever to sit in this House. So, but for the grace of Magistrate Ryan, Mr Wilson Tuckey would not even be eligible to stand as a candidate.

Mr Bourchier:

– Now you are suggesting the law is corrupt.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I did not say that at all. I simply refer to an editorial in the West Australian in 1967 in which the West Australian-

Mr Cotter:

– What were you doing rifling a private drawer?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will remain silent.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The West Australian newspaper stated at that time that Mr Tuckey was not a fit person to hold a publican’s licence. If he were not a fit person to hold a publican’s licence what more cause -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. How can a person who rifles one of the staffs drawers in this place stand up here and cast aspersions on other people? He ought to apologise to the staff of the Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Mr DAWKINS:

– In fact I demand that the Government-

Mr Bourchier:

– You are a disgrace to the Parliament.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I demand that the Government

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I demand that the Government Whip and his drunken friend withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. Honourable members will be seated. The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat.

Mr Bourchier:

– You are a bit touchy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will remain silent. I remind honourable gentlemen that a feature of this place is that each and every member has the right to stand and speak with freedom of speech providing his remarks reconcile with the Standing Orders. The honourable member for Fremantle is acting within those parameters. I call the honourable member for Fremantle.

Mr Cotter:

– What was he doing rifling a private drawer?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr DAWKINS:

– The point is-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Morris:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, 1 raise a point of order. In the confusion just a few moments ago the honourable member for Fremantle demanded quite clearly through the Chair that the honourable member for Bendigo withdraw his remark. The remark related to rifling the drawer, which has a very clear imputation about it of criminal intent. The honourable member asked for it to be withdrawn. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that you overlooked that in the hustle.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair, for reasons indicated by the honourable member for Shortland, was disqualified from hearing the remarks referred to. I suggest that, under the circumstances and because of the nature of the exchanges, the situation might be best served if the alleged offence were passed over. I invite all honourable gentlemen to respect the decorum of the place.

Mr Dawkins:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Allegations have been made by way of interjection of some allegedly improper conduct on my part. I know -

Mr Shack:

– How do you feel when someone makes an allegation against you?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Dawkins:

– I am perfectly happy to accept any properly based allegations or criticisms aimed at me. I will not sit here -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is free not to expand at length his point of order, but to succinctly state it.

Mr Dawkins:

– I do not know what the allegation is.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Nor does the Chair.

Mr Dawkins:

– Except that it has been alleged that I tampered with somebody’s private property.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the honourable member has made his point. The Chair, in these circumstances, not being able to identify the offender, can simply invite the offender, if that person exists, to voluntarily withdraw.

Mr Cotter:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could I assist the Chair regarding the allegation? It has been alleged quite widely tonight that the honourable member for Fremantle has been guilty of -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will resume his seat. He is far from assisting the Chair.

Mr Scholes:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing Orders are quite clear on allegations or matters relating to this House which can be raised on a general matter within this House. Matters such as this must be raised by substantive motion. They cannot be raised by interjection or by reference of any nature in an ordinary speech. This has been ruled regularly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio is confirming the knowledge of the Chair in the matter. I thank him for his good intentions nevertheless.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a further point of order. I am almost certain that the imputation the honourable member for Fremantle wants withdrawn was so audible that it must surely appear in the Hansard record. Under those circumstances I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, should ask the Hansard reporter whether it appears under somebody’s name. It was such an audible remark that I am sure it does and it should be withdrawn at the request of the honourable member for Fremantle.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member for Fremantle wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Dawkins:

– I certainly know who was responsible for the first allegation. The allegation has been repeated. It is absolutely untrue. It is totally offensive and I require it to be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member for Kalgoorlie wish to speak to the point of order?

Mr Cotter:

– Yes. The honourable member for Fremantle asked whether someone would spell out what the allegation was. I did just that.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member for Grayndler speaking to the point of order? He cannot take a point of order while a point of order is already before the Chair.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am speaking to the point of order. I suggest to the Chair that- the point about to be made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie is out of order. He is arguing the point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Chair is capable of handling this matter.

Mr Jarman:

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Are you speaking on the point of order?

Mr Jarman:

– Yes, on a point of order. If I must make a point of order the point of order I wish to make is that there are many of us who want to say things tonight and who are being prevented from doing so by superfluous points of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. There is a point of order before the Chair. The simple fact of the matter is that the Chair is not in a position to satisfy itself - although it does not resist the suggestion that an offensive remark has been made - because of the disorderly behaviour whether an offensive statement or remark contrary to Standing Orders was made. Therefore it cannot require a withdrawal from an unidentified person. The Chair has invited the person, if that person exists, to withdraw. It cannot proceed beyond that. I suggest to honourable members that the honourable member for Fremantle has had the opportunity to rebut a remark allegedly made and his rebuttal will appear in Hansard. It would seem to accommodate the situation in the confused state.

Mr Dawkins:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I make just one point. Even if the identity of the honourable member who made the first allegation is unknown, the member for Kalgoorlie clearly and audibly said it and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, heard it and you called him when he said it. I require that allegation to be withdrawn.

Mr Viner:

– You asked what the allegation was.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to honourable gentlemen that this place may be better served if we pass on now to the business of the House,

Thursday, 18 September 1980

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

– There are several things I want to say. I will be very quiet about them all. I know that we are all under a lot of pressure at the present time. That always happens before an election.

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting -

Mr JARMAN:

– I ask the honourable members on this side of the House to listen to me. I am not the sort of person who gets up unless I feel I have something to say. I know that we are all under a lot of pressure. I worked with the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I like to think of him as my friend.

Honourable members:

– Ha, ha!

Mr JARMAN:

– Some people may laugh at my saying that but I think we can be friends on opposite sides of the Parliament even though we might not agree politically. I may not agree with what the honourable member said tonight but that is not necessarily for me to judge; that is for the people of Australia to judge. Nonetheless I still hope that the honourable member for Fremantle and I can work together as we have in the past on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. I am no longer on that Committee and I am not sure whether he is. In the future I think we all have to get along together whether either of us is here. However, we have all got to work for the good of Australia, not just for the good of the parties we represented and not sling mud at each other.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Rhubarb, rhubarb!

Mr JARMAN:

- Mr Deputy Speaker I am saying something in which I honestly believe. If there are some members who are not interested, I might as well not say it.

Mr Dawkins:

– That is right.

Mr JARMAN:

– The honourable member for Fremantle is no doubt under pressure but so are other members of this House. I would feel very sad if this House concluded its sittings in its last week with the sorts of scenes that we are witnessing tonight. I am not laying blame on anyone. But I think perhaps a good night’s sleep would help. If the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Viner) who is at the table were to get up and move that the question be now put, it might be a very good idea.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to raise three matters concerning my electorate during the adjournment debate tonight. I hope that the House and the Ministers concerned will take cognisance of what I have to say. Before dealing with those matters I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the kindness and tolerance that you have shown me in the time that I have been a member of this Parliament. I must say that the tolerance that you have shown in the chair has been exemplary. The events of this evening bear testimony to that. In making some small contributions to the adjournment debate I have learned a few things about parliamentary behaviour which I hope will make me a better parliamentarian in the next session and will enable me to deal more easily with the matters of the House. I thank you also, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the tolerance and guidance you have shown in adjournment debates. 1 think it is unfortunate that the members of the Government parties are willing to turn tonight into a rather raucous affair as the adjournment debate is one of the few opportunities that back benchers have to raise matters of interest to them and the members of their electorate. I think that it would behove the Government Whip to spend some time listening instead of making interjections on these matters.

One of the three matters that I will raise tonight relates to the administration of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), who is presently in the House. I remind the House of a speech I made in an earlier adjournment debate on the Addison Road Community Centre, an area of land in my electorate that the Commonwealth Government owns. It covers some 10 acres and it is operating very well as a community centre. The people who run that centre are endeavouring to get a lease from either the State Government or Commonwealth Government. Obviously, by their behaviour, the Government Whip and other Government members are not very interested in what relates to ordinary members’ problems–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member must not be unnecessarily provocative.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope that the same tolerance as you are willing to give, Mr Deputy Speaker, can be given by your colleagues. I hope that the Minister for Administrative Services can bring the decision on a lease for the Addison Road Community Centre to speedy finality. A large number of people are involved in that matter. There are people of diverse ethnic backgrounds who have a stake in the site. I think that it is an excellent multicultural operation in my electorate and I hope that the Commonwealth will assist to get a lease for the site.

The second matter I raise is the establishment of an ethnic child care development unit which the Minister for Social Security, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, has been generous enough to provide with Commonwealth funds. That group is seeking a recurrent funding for its facility. It has done an excellent job for the ethnic community in Sydney in the last 12 months. I can assure the House that it is a group which deserves as much Commonwealth assistance as it can get. It covers a large range of ethnic communities in the Sydney electorate and in my electorate, including the Maltese, Greek, Hungarian, Filipino and Laotian communities. They are operating in harmony and they have asked the Commonwealth to provide them with increased assistance. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security to seek as much assistance as possible to that group.

The third group to which I ask the House to give consideration this evening is the people in my electorate who have applied to the Minister for Social Security for out of school care funding. They applied nearly 12 months ago and have received no guidelines from the Department of Social Security and the Office of Child Care. They have run out of money. They are providing an excellent service for families in my electorate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

Tonight I refer the House to a matter which has aroused a great deal of interest in the community and certainly has been the subject of much discussion by members of the Opposition in particular - that is, interest rates in Australia. The rate of interest is of course a matter of great significance to the economy of Australia. We have heard a great deal of criticism from the Opposition–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! I ask honourable members on my right to keep down their level of conversation.

Mr BAUME:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have heard a great deal of criticism from the Opposition on what is happening with interest rates in Australia. This is rather curious because the Opposition in the short period in which it was in government had the outstanding record of increasing interest rates at a faster rate than any other government achieved in Australia. Not only that, but also the Australian Labor Party has been criticising the Government’s policies of reducing its own deficit when at the same time the consequences of that very sensible Government policy mean that the extent to which the Government is obliged to seek money on the capital markets in Australia has diminished, as it has a smaller deficit. Smaller deficits mean quite simply that the Government is not as big a competitor in the financial markets for money as it would have been in the good old days when Labor had record deficits which helped push up interest rates in Australia. The reason why interest rates in Australia have been held down in recent years is mainly the result of the Federal Government’s moderation in its demands on the capital market for the funding of Government policies. In other words, the smaller deficits that have been a constant feature of government policy resulting in the end of deficits - the current Budget provides for domestic surplus - have meant that the pressures by the Government on the Australian capital market have been reduced dramatically. That is one of the reasons why Australia has suffered so much less than the rest of the world under the present pressures on interest rates.

For example, last December the United Kingdom had an interest rate of about 18 per cent; the United States of America had an interest rate of about 15.45 per cent; Canada had about 15 per cent; and New Zealand had about 1 5.9 per cent. I compare those with Australia which had only 10.75 per cent for prime commercial borrowing. All of those major nations have much higher interest rates than Australia. But let us recognise that Australia is outperforming so many of its trading partners in respect of interest rates. Instead of this being a matter that we should be embarrassed about and in which we should be the subject of unfounded and unthinking criticism from the Opposition, let us recognise that Australia is outperforming the bulk of the rest of the world in controlling interest rates. More importantly, let us see what the result is of the big spending, big deficit and big government policies of the Opposition when it is allowed to have a go. Let us see what happened when the Labor Government was in power. I refer to this aspect not simply to have the fun of going back a few years; I do so to point out that the same big spending, big government and big deficit policies are those that are now being proposed by the Opposition.

Let us look at trading bank overdraft rates in 1972 before the Labor Government came to power. They were then 7.75 per cent. By June 1975 they had risen from 7.75 per cent to 1 1.5 per cent. As at June 1980, they were back to 10.5 per cent. There was a huge rise under Labor and a reduction under the present Government. I seek leave for a table to be incorporated in Hansard which will provide great information to the honourable members opposite, so they can correct their nonsensical attack on the Government.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Have we seen it?

Mr BAUME:

– Yes, the intelligent members - the front bench - have seen it.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr BAUME:

– Interest rates on savings bank housing loans in 1972, before the Labor Government came to power, were 7 per cent but rose to 1 1.5 per cent by June 1975. That is what the Opposition did to the little person trying to build a home. In fact, under this Government that rate has been reduced by one per cent, from 1 1 . 5 per cent to 10.5 per cent. Yet, honourable members opposite have the hide to criticise our interest rate policy. On five year bank associated finance company debentures, the rate was 7.75 per cent before the people opposite got into power. They rose to 1 2.5 per cent and are now down a fraction, to 12.25 per cent, as a result of our sensible policies. These are the policies that have resulted in a diminution of the deficit. The lower the deficit, the lower governmental pressure on interest rates. When a country has a huge deficit, interest rates go up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to raise a subject that I find quite sad, and it is ludicrous that it should appear in a country as rich as Australia. I refer honourable members to advertisements which have appeared in the daily Press in Sydney in the last few weeks - notably in the Sydney Morning Herald - which have appealed for funds for the Matthew Talbot Hostel in Wolloomooloo, about which honourable members may or may not know.

Mr Baillieu:

– Are you against it?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a hostel operated by the St Vincent de Paul Society, on a totally voluntary basis.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. I ask the Government Whip to withdraw the imputation he made because the honourable member for Parramatta is known as a great supporter of the Matthew Talbot Hostel.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Parramatta.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I doubt whether the Government Whip would know who Matt Talbot was. If he listens I might to able to tell him.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was not going to respond to the previous point of order but seeing that the spokesman–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will come quickly to his point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– I will. The point of order is that I never said anything. If honourable members opposite want to make accusations at least they should make them in the right direction.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the honourable member for Bendigo said nothing, it would be one of his better speeches. The point I was making is that this hostel, which is run by St Vincent de Paul on a totally voluntary basis, cares for anything up to 500 or 600 destitute men every night. They are drunks and drug addicts; the flotsam of society. To some extent I guess it might be said that they are victims of the policies of this Government, which has promoted unemployment and left these people in a totally wretched situation. This marvellous organisation is providing something like 1 ,500 meals a night. It is the only organisation of its kind in Sydney to provide this service free to keep these people at least living. They drag these poor, wretched, dirty, desolate men out of the gutters every night and try to restore some vestige of humanity to their lives. The sad fact is that the average age of the people who visit this establishment every night is now 34 years. I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, find that to be just as hideous as I do. We used to think of the lags as being people around 65 years of age who did not make it, but now it is the young men.

This hostel is not capable of dealing with the numbers of people who come to it every night looking for a feed and a bed. The simple fact is that it is now searching for funds. It needs Sim to double the size of the present establishment. The New South Wales Government has responded very generously with a donation of $300,000 but as yet there has been no response from the Federal Government. I wonder whether there is some way that this Government can contribute to this very great cause. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have an interest in this area because I remember you telling me one night that your wife has worked with the Meals-on-Wheels organisation for a number of years. I am sure you feel some compassion for these people.

The Matthew Talbot Hostel was named after the great Irish Christian, Matt Talbot, who lived in Dublin. He had been a drunk and a layabout and had fallen into a very desolate life. He found his way back to decency and, as some form of penance, he wrapped chains around himself. It was some sort of self-flagellation to absolve himself of what he considered to be sins. When he died, having spent the last 20 or 30 years of his life looking after the poor, the desolate and the homeless of Dublin, in the same way this organisation is looking after these people in Sydney, it was found that these chains had bitten into his belly. I wonder whether this Government expects the volunteers who run this organisation to go through this sort of exercise before it can get some publicity. Let it be known that most of the men this organisation is looking after are victims of the policies of this Government. They cannot find work and are forced into this sort of deprived existence not because of any conscious decision of their own but because they cannot find an alternative. They turn to drink as some form of solace and they finish in the gutter. This organisation drags them out of the gutter every night and gives them a bed and a feed. When will the Government pick up its share of the tab and contribute in an effort to help this operation? The New South Wales Government has shown its compassion; why does not this Government also respond with a generous donation? My plea to the Government on perhaps the second last night of this Parliament is that it gets into the act with the New South Wales Government and helps the St Vincent de Paul Society keep this hostel open.

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

– It is with some regret that in the last few days of this Parliament some members not only of this House but also of the Senate have used the forms and privileges of the Parliament to make certain allegations against people in the wider community who have no opportunity to answer those charges. I invite those members of Parliament–

Mr Neil:

– Laborites.

Mr DRUMMOND:

– No, I am afraid to say that the main culprits are from Western Australia, the greatest State in the Commonwealth. But, it is an embarrassment to me that these men have used the forms of the Parliament to this degree. After the eight years I have been in the Federal Parliament, could anyone say that I have been vindictive or that I have a vindictive temperament? Could it be said that I have been malicious or have tried to be anything but fair in the whole spectrum of politics in Australia? However, I must say that it is with some regret that I find the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) coming into this place and endeavouring - he has been answered, but he has tried to counter that answer - to vilify a candidate for this House who has no opportunity to defend himself in this place. I do not want to get into the nitty-gritty and small stuff, but I have to because in the parliamentary dining room some nights ago a member of this Parliament asked for a pen to sign his bill. The waitress provided him with a pen. The waitress was not a great Liberal supporter or anything like that, but it happened to be a Liberal Party pen. The pen was used to sign the bill and it was then put back in a drawer. Later, that member rifled the waitress’s private locker or her drawer.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member for Forrest is now reflecting on a member of this House.

Mr DRUMMOND:

– I have not named the member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Certainly, he is unidentified but I suggest to the honourable member that he does not necessarily serve the House by subjecting all its members, because of the lack of identification, to the suspicion that attaches to his remarks. I offer that comment to the honourable member.

Mr Neil:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Will you ask the honourable member for Fremantle to own up?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George trifles with the Chair. I warn him that if he persists, I shall deal with him. I call the honourable . member for Forrest.

Mr DRUMMOND:

– The point I wish to make is that on some occasion, without vilifying anyone, this person - Mr Deputy Speaker if you will just let me expand on this a bit - went through the locker, took out the pen and broke it. I think that this is a big deal. I think that it is an absolute infringement on somebody else’s property. That happened. That is how some members of this Parliament behave.

Mr Scholes:

– It is a big, big deal.

Mr DRUMMOND:

– Do you not think that it is a big deal if somebody rifles your locker?

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DAWKINS:

– Yes. Because of the quite inaccurate allegations that have been made about me this evening I have been to see Mr Speaker. I have explained what has happened and the allegations that have been made about me. I have placed the matter in his hands and there I think it should rest. I am happy to abide by whatever Mr Speaker determines in relation to the way this matter should be proceeded with.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– Tonight I wish to raise a question which affects the area that I represent - the outer western suburbs of Sydney - and which is having a very serious impact upon the position of young people in that region. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that that area has more young people living in it than any other comparable area in New South Wales and probably Australia. I refer to the concerted campaign by a particular program on a Sydney television station- Channel 7 - which is undoubtedly aimed at rubbishing the west. The program is, of course, the Sydney News program, which is shown each night at 6 o’clock. About three months ago, I issued a statement on the very serious situation in relation to the mass unemployment of young people in the Mount Druitt and Blacktown areas. I was rung up and asked whether I would consent to an interview on the issue. I replied that I would. It was then said: What about if we have the interview outside the pub’. Naturally I refused. The whole purpose of the interview was to try to prove that there was not mass unemployment of young people in the west.

Recently there was another segment about an interview- I am giving examples of what has been going on - by a Ray Sinclair who is a reporter. The interview once again was conducted outside a hotel. Of course, the issue was drunkenness of youth. For some reason or another, the interview took place at 3 a.m. What a hotel was doing open at that time of the morning I do not know. Of course, in an area where there is a huge mass of young people there are sure to be a few problems. A deliberate attempt was made to pick out those problems and to make it look as though that represented the whole of the youth of the outer western region of Sydney. I think the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard) should be as concerned as I am on this issue and these deliberate attempts to rubbish the west. This is indicative of the type of thing which is occurring. The person in charge of the program is Mr Steve Liebmann. Attempts were made to contact him by the Mayor of Blacktown, Alderman Aquilina, but he could not get through to him.

As I said before, more young people live in that area than live anywhere else in the State. These young people represent the future generation of this country. We are very proud of the achievements of some of those young people. For example, a young person from a Blacktown high school, Evans High School, won a national art award only in the last few weeks. Michelle De Vries, who is from Blacktown, represented Australia at the Commonwealth Games. One could go on and on with the many fine achievements of many of these young people. Recently the owners of a motel in Cooma wrote to say that the young people from Mount Druitt who had just stayed there were the best behaved young people ever to stay in their motel. The actions of a particular program organised by certain reporters who want to report in a sensational manner is having a very retrograde effect upon a lot of young people whose future is at stake. I think it is important to remember that once one calls a dog a bad name it sticks. This is deliberately being done by people without a conscience and with the whole objective of seeking to obtain sensationalism. I warn those who are doing this that the people of the west will not cop it. They will boycott the program. That would have a very serious impact on the rating of the television station concerned.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

- Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.38 a.m. (Thursday)

page 1452

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National Airlines Act 1945.

Mr Ellicott to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Christmas Island Act 1958.

Mr MacKellar ;to move. ; That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House of Representatives approves the following proposals:

Alterations to the Administrative Building.

Improvements to the external lighting at the National Library of Australia.

page 1452

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 17 September 1980, pursuant to statute:

Australian Bureau of Statistics Act- Australian Bureau of Statistics - Proposals for collection of information- 1 980-

No. 8 - Supplementary survey of manufacturing industry, 1979-80.

No. 9- Supplementary survey of the mining industry, 1978-79.

No. 10- New topics to be included in the population survey, October 1980.

Judiciary Act- Rule of High Court, 11 September 1980.

Public Service Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 272.

Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 270.

Seat of Government Administration Act- Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 16 September 1980.

Student Assistance Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1 980. No. 271.

page 1453

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

National Health and Medical Research Grants (Question No. 6088)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many applications for National Health and Medical Research Council grants have been made in each of the past 4 years.
  2. How many of these applications were granted (a) in full and (b) in part in each year.
  3. How many of these grants were made to projects already being funded by the Council (that is, were continuing grants for existing projects) in each year.
  4. How many viable projects have been discontinued in each year for lack of Council funds.
  5. How many applications were deemed of scientific value but were not funded because of inadequacy of funding.
  6. Has his attention been drawn to the recommendation of the Australian Science and Technology Council that the funds available to the Council for the support of research projects having exceptional merit and promise should be steadily increased (in real terms) over the next5 years and that more emphasis be placed on the vigorous support of excellence; if so, does the Government intend to implement the recommendations.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. The following numbers of applications were made for National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) grants from 1 977 to 1 980:
  1. NH & MRC project grant applications are subject to a rigorous scientific review process. On the basis of the review results, approved applicants receive an offer of funding considered appropriate for the project. This will not necessarily be as much as the amount requested.

In 1977, 1978 and 1979 all projects supported received the full level of funding recommended by the NH & MRC. In 1980 Council fully funded 236 applications and in addition provided one year only funding for a further 35 projects.

The numbers of new applications supported are as follows:

  1. None. However in addition to the new grants made in each of these years, the following continuing grants for existing projects were supported by Council:
  1. and (5) Project grants are awarded for a maximum of three years after which, if the researcher wishes to continue or extend his research on the topic, he must reapply for a further period of support.

Whenever the Council has given a commitment to provide support for a fixed period for a project, this has been honoured. In this sense, no viable projects have been discontinued for lack of Council funds.

There have, however, been some instances where applications have been assessed as being of sufficient scientific merit to warrant support, but have failed to obtain funding.

Figures for this category of application are only available for the last three years, and the numbers involved are:

  1. I am aware of the Australian Science and Technology Council’s (ASTEC) recommendations concerning medical research and would refer the honourable member to table 2 contained in the NH & MRC document ‘Case for the Future Development of Medical Research’. This table indicates that from the 1977 calendar year the allocation for medical research through the NH & MRC has steadily increased. The allocation for 1980-81 of$18m announced by the Treasurer on 19 August 1980 demonstrates the Government’s firm commitment to maintain this policy. In relation to ASTEC’s recommendation concerning the vigorous support of excellence, I would point out that this has been and will remain the main criterion used by NH & MRC in recommending support for medical research projects.

Impact of Computerisation on Unskilled Workers and Semi-skilled Workers (Question No. 6186)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Have any specific studies been conducted by (a) his Department, or (b) any other Commonwealth Department, about the impact of computerisation and other forms of technological innovation based on miniaturisation especially on (i) unskilled workers and (ii) semi-skilled workers, in routine or repetitive jobs; if so, what studies have been undertaken.
  2. Have any specific studies been conducted into the relative number of (a) low skilled jobs eliminated by new technology and (b) more skilled jobs created by the new technology; if so, what are the details. (3) If no Australian studies of this kind have been carried out, when will they be carried out.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) The following Employment and Technology Series was commenced by the then Department of Labour and National Service:

No.1Employment in Electronic Data Processing, 1 968

No. 2 Computers in Australia 1968, 1969

No. 3Technological Change in the Printing Industry - Four Case Studies 1969

No. 4- Employment in Electronic Data Processing - 1968, 1969

No. 5- Technicians in Non-Electrical Plant and Machinery Manufacture, 1969

No. 6 - Working with Numerically Controlled Machine Tools, 1969

No. 7 - Men and Machines in Sugar Cane Harvesting, 1970.

Nos 8, 9,11, 14, 15- National Survey of the Employment Effects of Technological Change 1970-1974

No. 1 0- Three Computer Case Studies, 1 97 1

No. 12- Forum- Adjusting to Technological Change, 1971

No. 1 3 - Typesetting in Metropolitan Daily Newspapers, 1972

No. 16- Studies of Displacement, 1975

No. 17- Employment in EDP- 1973-1976

In addition, since the early 1970s, the 18 National Industry Training Committees sponsored by the National Training Council have undertaken studies of the skill and training requirements of their industries. These have involved examining, amongst other matters, changes in skill requirements resulting from technological change.

A study undertaken within the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, published in 1979, provided an assessment of some aspects of the employment impact of word processing in the typing/secretarial area. The study is summarised in the May 1979 edition of the bulletin ‘Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation’.

These studies have all commented on a greater or lesser degree of the impact of technological change upon unskilled and semi-skilled workers in routine or repetitive jobs.

I am also advised that the Department of Productivity has recently undertaken a detailed interview ‘survey’ of 165 firms throughout Australia on the effects of technological change in the workplace. When results come to hand they will be published in the ‘Work and People’ journal of that Department.

The Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia (CITCA) commissioned a number of relevant studies including case studies and surveys. These are listed in Volume 1 Appendix B of the Committee’s Report.

All of these studies to a greater or lesser degree make comments upon the skills and manpower impact of technological change and therefore the impact upon unskilled and semiskilled workers engaged in routine or repetitive work.

The CITCA Report made recommendations for undertaking studies of the impact of technological change, including the employment impact. The Government is considering these recommendations.

Research into the employment impact of technological change will be comprehended in the development of the research program for the Bureau of Labour Market Research, which is now being established.

Sale of Northern Territory Housing Commission Houses (Question No. 6223)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to (a) the reported offer of sale in October 1979 over the signature of the then Northern Territory Minister for Lands and Housing, the Hon. M. B.

Perron, M.L. A., and valid for a 1 2 month period, to tenants of system-built and core-unit Housing Commission houses and (b) claims that the Commission has since had to advise applicants that it cannot stand by that offer because some of the houses are situated on land owned by the Commonwealth.

  1. Did the Commonwealth acquire approximately 70 blocks of residential land in Darwin late in 1978, including blocks in the electoral division of Jingili on which houses were constructed; if so, was the Northern Territory Housing Commission advised of the acquisitions.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. ) (a) Yes. (b) There are only two known instances where . the Northern Territory Housing Commission has made offers of sale of system-built or core-unit properties that are still owned by the Commonwealth. In both cases the tenants had applied to buy the houses prior to self-government and my Department is in the process of transferring the properties to the Northern Territory Government so that sales can be completed.
  2. A total of 937 residential properties in Darwin (including 62 residential properties in the Electorate of Jingili) were re-acquired by the Commonwealth on 19 December 1978. The Northern Territory Housing Commission was not advised of this re-acquisition because it had not had any prior involvement with the administration of the properties.

Secondary Studies and Tertiary Education: Participation Rates (Question No. 6225)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Does his Department have, or have access to, statistics on the participation rates in (a) years11 and 12 secondary studies and (b) tertiary education of young people of (i) working class, (ii) ethnic or (iii) non-metropolitan families.
  2. If so, how many young people originating from predominantly (a) working class areas where the average family income is below the median and (b) middle or upper class areas where the average family income is above the median are engaged in (i) year 1 1 studies, (ii) year 12 studies, (iii) university studies, (A) on a full-time basis (B) on a parttime basis and (C) at pass and honours level and (iv) college of advanced education studies (A) on a full-time basis, (B) on a part-time basis and (C) at pass or honours level.
Mr Fife:
Minister for Education · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) Statistics in the detail sought are not available in relation to senior secondary schooling, nor are current statistics available for the specific categories or post-secondary education requested. However during the latter part of 1979 the Department of Education conducted a survey of tertiary student finances relating to full-time undergraduate students in universities and colleges of advanced education. Some questions in the survey related to such matters as students’ birthplace and birthplace of parents, type of course, and parents’ income, occupation and education. The results of the survey are expected to be available by the end of this year, and I shall ensure that a copy of the report of the survey is provided to the honourable member. I should also like to draw the honourable member’s attention to two recently published documents which might provide further relevant information. They are Students in Australian Higher Education by D. S. Anderson, R. Boven, P. J. Fensham and J. P. Powell published by AGPS in 1980, and Survey of Students in Technical and Further Education produced by the Department of Education and published by AGPS in 1978.

Computer Crime (Question No. 6256)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to the article headed ‘More could be done to halt computer crime’ in the Australian Financial Review of 1 August 1980, page 49.
  2. Are any Federal Government bodies investigating computer crimes and federal legislation which may be needed to control these crimes; if so, which bodies are doing this.
  3. Can the Attorney-General say whether State Government bodies are also investigating computer crimes and State legislation which may be needed to control these crimes; if so, will he provide the details.
  4. Will the Attorney-General explain the Federal Government’s policy on the control of computer crime.
  5. Can the Attorney-General state whether (a) any timetable has been set for the introduction of any federal legislation and (b) complementary State legislation is required and, if so, whether a timetable for the introduction of State legislation has been agreed to by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General .
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. to (5) Officers of my Department are engaged in the examination of a number of aspects of computer crime. As indicated in the article in the Australian Financial Review, the major problem as seen by writers on this question is not the weakness of the existing law but the failure to detect and report offences. As a preliminary step, therefore, efforts are being made to determine the extent of the problem. Consideration can then be given to the measures needed to resolve the problem and the priorities they should be accorded.

United Nations Decade for Women Conference (Question No. 6262)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the article headed Women’s Role’ in the News Diary in the Age of 1 August 1980, page 2.
  2. Can he indicate whether a Mrs Babette Francis, a Mrs Valerie Renkema and a Mrs Jackie Butler of the Women Who Want to be Women group all received press accreditation to the United Nations Decade for Women Conference in Copenhagen; if so, can he state which media organisations Mrs Renkema and Mrs Butler were representing.
  3. Can he also state (a) what other Australian media representatives, if any, received accreditation and which organisations they represented, (b) who was responsible for extending press accreditation at the conference and (c), whether he or his Department made any recommendation that any Australians at the conference should receive press accreditation.
  4. Were Mrs Francis, Mrs Renkema and/or Mrs Butler Australian delegates to the conference.
  5. Did Mrs Francis, Mrs Renkema and/or Mrs Butler receive any Federal Government assistance to allow them to attend the conference; if so, what was the nature and extent of assistance.
  6. Were there other Australian delegates to the conference; if so. (a) who were they, (b) what Federal assistance, if any, did they receive in order to attend and (c) what was the’ nature and extent of assistance.
  7. In view of the report that the Australian delegation voted against the World Program of Action debated bythe conference, (a) what status does the program now have in Australia and (b) will he explain the Government’s policy in each of the areas covered by the program.
Mr Ellicott:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. From information supplied by the United Nations Secretariat I understand that Mrs Francis was accredited as representing the Ballarat Courier, Catholic Leader and the Sunday Observer, Mrs Renkema was listed as representing’ New Life: Australia’s Evangelical Weekly Newspaper; Mrs Butler was accredited on the basis of a letter from the Federated Association of Australian Housewives which indicated that material from her could be published in the magazines of the Housewives Association of Australia.

  3. (a) Those given press accreditation to the World Conference were listed by name and news organisation, not by country, so the United Nations Secretariat was not in a position to indicate how many Australians received accreditation. I am aware that Janet Bell (ABC), Lyndsay Connors (Women’s Day), Nancy Dexter (Age) and Rosemary Munday (Australian Women’s Weekly) received accreditation, and there may have been others.

    1. The United Nations was responsible for extending press accreditation.
    2. Neither I nor my Department made any recommendations that any Australians at the Conference should receive press accreditation.
  4. Mrs Francis, Mrs Butler and Mrs Renkema were not delegates to the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women. The World Conference was an intergovernmental conference attended by official representatives of member governments. The official delegation consisted of government officers experienced in governmental policies and procedures with expertise in the major topics for discussion at the Conference, and women from the community who have been involved in efforts to raise the status of women. The members of the official delegation to the World Conference are listed in reply to part 6 of the question.

A separate Forum of non-governmental organisations, arranged by an international committee of non-governmental organisations in co-operation with the Danish Government and the United Nations was held in Copenhagen concurrently with the World Conference. The Forum provided individual women and non-government organisations with the opportunity to consider major issues before the World Conference and to exchange views on the situation of women at the midpoint of the Decade for Women. Mrs Francis, Mrs Renkema and Mrs Butler attended the Forum as private individuals.

  1. On 18 June 1980 I announced that the Australian Government would provide financial assistance for twentytwo women from all parts of Australia to attend the NonGovernmental Organisations’ Forum. I said that those who received assistance attended as individuals, not as representatives of the Government. The assistance provided was in the form of a cash grant and was determined according to the circumstances of each individual. Mrs Renkema received financial assistance; Mrs Francis and Mrs Butler did not.
  2. (a) The members of the official Australian delegation to .. the World Conference in addition to myself were:

Mrs Beryl Beaurepaire ; Convenor, National Women’s Advisory Council, Deputy Leader

Senator Kathy Martin

Ms Kathleen Taperell ; Director, Office of Women’s Affairs

Ms Carolyn Wiltshire ; Executive Secretary. National Women’s Advisory Council Secretariat

Ms Elizabeth Jensen; Adviser, Office of Women’s Affairs

Mr Robin Ashwin; First Assistant Secretary, International Organisations Africa and Middle East Division, Department of Foreign Affairs

Ms Pera Wells ; First Secretary, Australian Mission to the United Nations, New York

Ms Margaret Adamson ; Third Secretary, Australian Embassy, Vienna

Dr Stefania Siedlecky ; Adviser on Women’s Health, Department of Health

Dr Ruth Pfanner; Adviser on Women and Development, Australian Development Assistance Bureau

Mrs Valerie Fisher:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Past National President, Country Women’s Association of Australia

Dr Laurel Macintosh ; National President of the National Council of Women of Australia

Mrs Evelyn Scott; Manager of the Aboriginal Hostel in Cairns, Queensland

Ms Jan Marsh ; The ACTU’s Industrial Advocate

I do not have a complete list of the Australian women who attended the Non-Governmental Forum without financial assistance from the Government as private individuals were not required to inform the Government of their attendance. It has been estimated, however, that approximately 60 Australian women attended.

The following Australian women received financial assistance to attend the Non-Governmental Organisations’ Forum:

Ms Lyndsay Connors (Australian Capital Territory)

Mrs Lolita Castillo (New South Wales)

Mrs Marianne Crowe (Victoria)

Mrs Kathleen Edwards (Victoria)

Mrs Maureen Giddings (New South Wales)

Mrs Elizabeth Grant (Australian Capital Territory)

Dr Janet Irwin (Queensland)

Mrs Eva Kennedy (Queensland)

Professor Norelle Lickiss (Tasmania)

Ms Wendy McCarthy (New South Wales)

Mrs May O’Brien (Western Australia)

Ms Mary Owen (Victoria)

Dame Raigh Roe (Western Australia)

Mrs Judith Roberts (South Australia)

Mrs Valerie Renkema (Victoria)

Mrs Birgitta Stefanik (Australian Capital Territory)

Mrs Heather Stevens (New South Wales)

Mrs Cecile Storey (Victoria)

Ms Patricia Szirom (Victoria)

Mrs Mab Walsh (New South Wales)

Dr Alice Whitley (New South Wales)

Mrs Affie Zagorides (New South Wales) (b-c) The expenses of members of the official delegation to the World Conference were met by the Government in accordance with normal practice. As I said in answer to part5, the financial assistance provided for women to attend the Non-Governmental Organisations Forum was in the form of a cash grant determined according to the circumstances of each individual.

  1. The Government intends to work for the implementation of the positive and constuctive measures in the national section of the Program of Action adopted in Copenhagen, and for the practical and humanitarian objectives in the regional and international sections. We will continue to play a full part in regional and international efforts to improve the status of women.

Employment: Challenges and Prospects for Employment in the 1980s (Question No. 6263)

Mr Young:

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

  1. Did his Department recently produce a booklet Employment: Challenges and prospects for Employment in the 1980’s.
  2. If so (a) what was the total cost of its production, (b) how many copies were produced and (c) how were they distributed and to what categories of organisation/person.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) Total cost of production was $790. (b) 8,000 copies of the booklet were produced. (c) The booklets were distributed through normal departmental distribution lists and to interested parties on request. Copies were and are available through my own office on request.

Patents (Question No. 6288)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. ) Did he indicate on 28 August 1979 in his second reading speech on the Patents Amendment (Patent Co-operation Treaty) Bill that the Industrial Property Advisory Committee would be performing a review of the Australian patents system (Hansard, page 653).
  2. What were the terms of reference of that review, what was the composition of the Committee and from what individuals and organisations have submissions been sought and received.
  3. What stage has been reached in the review.
  4. Has the review resulted in any report or recommendations to the Government; if so (a) have these been considered and (b) when does the Government expect to announce its response to that review.
Mr Newman:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. ) My predecessor, the Hon. Ian Macphee, as Minister for Productivity indicated on 28 August 1979 in his second reading speech on the Patents Amendment (Patent Co-operation Treaty) Bill that the Industrial Property Advisory Committee would be performing a review of the Australian patent system.
  2. The broad thrust of the inquiry is to study, from the viewpoint of the Australian national interest, whether the Australian patent system as presently operating sufficiently advances Australia’s technological development and whether there are ways in which it may be made to do so more effectively.

The terms of reference of the review were announced in a press statement on15 November 1979 by Mr Macphee.

The composition of the Committee is as follows:

Chairman

Mr J. Stonier ; Manager, Patenting and Licensing, The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd.

Committee Members

Professor D. Lamberton - Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland.

Mr D. J. Ryan ; A practising patent attorney.

Mr P. A. Grant ; OfficerInCharge, Commercial Group, Bureau of Scientific Services, CSIRO.

Commissioner of Patents and Registrar of Trade Marks and Designs- At present Mr F. J. Smith.

Controller-General Department of Productivity - At present Mr T. F. C. Lawrence.

Recent advertisements by the Committee in the national press and Commonwealth and State Government Gazettes have invited submissions from all interested persons, organisations and associations. My understanding is that, in addition, letters inviting submissions have been sent by the Committee to professional and trade organisations and tertiary educational institutions throughout Australia and to interest groups. The invitation calls for submissions by 31 December 1980.

  1. It was anticipated that the inquiry could take up to three years to complete, and I am informed that to date the work done has been mainly of an exploratory nature. The Committee recognises that the economic consequences of a patent system will be an essential feature of the review and has entered into a consultative agreement, whereby the University of Queensland will conduct research into that aspect. Additionally, the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education has been contracted to investigate Australian businesses licensing patents and non-patent technology overseas.
  2. The review has not yet resulted in any report or recommendations to the Government.

Patents (Question No. 6289)

Mr Hayden asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

What is the number of patents (a) registered in Australia and (b) registered in Australia which are granted to overseas patentees, in each year since 1 969-70.

What were the total Australian (a) payments and (b) receipts, for royalties and copyrights for the same period.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Total patents granted in Australia and Australian patents granted to overseas patentees are as tabled hereunder:
  1. The Department of Productivity does not maintain figures of Australian payments and/or receipts for royalties or copyrights. Copyright is administered by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. However, I draw the honourable member’s attention to the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication, Research and Experimental Development - Private Enterprises - 1976-77, which provides the following information for that year: (a) total payments made for patent royalties were $37. 363m, (b) total receipts for patent royalties were$4.599m.

The Department of Science publication Project Score gives for 1973-74 the figure of $76.98m as the purchase of rights to technical know-how (e.g. patents licences and royalties) by the business enterprise sector. No figures were given for receipts.

For the year 1976-77, the figure given for all sectors is $67. 3m for the purchase of technical know-how and $ 10.9m as receipts from the sale of technical know-how.

National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals (Question No. 6310)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. ) How many National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals (NESA) trainees have been employed by Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.
  2. What office equipment has been supplied for each trainee.
  3. What arrangements have been made for the supply of office equipment for NESA trainees in electorate offices.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. Information provided to my Department indicates that fifteen trainees have been employed by Senators and Members.
  2. and (3) There are no special arrangements, so far as my Department is concerned, for the supply of office equipment for NESA trainees in electorate offices. My Department’s responsibility is limited to the provision of office equipment for the use of regular electorate office staff appointed in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1980/8. Nevertheless, it has, upon request in individual cases, been able to make available for temporary use by NESA trainees basic equipment such as desks, chairs and typewriters from departmental stocks.

Insurance Contract Law (Question No. 6315)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. Is it a fact that the reference to the Law Reform Commission to inquire into and report upon insurance contract law, encompassing the need to inquire into intermediaries, namely insurance brokers, stemmed from my continued concern that the escalating number of insurance broking firms which have collapsed involved millions of dollars.

    1. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to the recent collapse of 6 insurance brokerage companies in Western Australia: (a) Douglas Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd, (b) John D. Seale and Co. Pty Ltd, (c) IBIS Holdings Pty Ltd, (d) Morley Ins. Brokers Pty Ltd, (e) Dyson Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd and (0 Town and Country Ins. Brokers Pty Ltd.
    2. Did the collapse of these companies involve debts of well over $3 million.
    3. Has the Attorney-General’s attention also been drawn to the pledge by the Western Australian Government and more particularly to the recent press release of 1 9 June 1 980 by the Acting Premier and Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr O’Connor, that a joint working party to investigate the failure of insurance broking firms in that State had been formed.
    4. Can the Attorney-General say whether it is the intention of the Western Australian Government to legislate in this field if the Commonwealth Government fails to enact the appropriate legislation.
    5. Has the Law Reform Commission completed its inquiry concerning insurance brokers; if so, has the Attorney-General received the Commission’s report on this inquiry; if not, when does the Attorney-General expect to receive the report.
    6. Will the Attorney-General consider the report as soon as possible and that legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission will be enacted during the Budget 1980 sittings of the Parliament.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No, although as was mentioned by my predecessor in announcing the reference to the Law Reform Commission you had made strong representations seeking such a reference.
  2. Yes.
  3. I am not aware of the amount of the debts owed by each of the failed companies.
  4. The Government is aware of the press release by Mr O’Connor.
  5. I am not aware whether it is the intention of the Western Australian Government to legislate in relation to insurance brokers in that State.
  6. Yes. Law Reform Commission Report No. 10 - Insurance Agents and Brokers was tabled in the Parliament on 16 September 1980.
  7. The Treasurer has administrative responsibility for insurance matters and has the recommendations of the Commission understudy.

National Companies and Securities Commission Act (Question No. 6316)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. Will he urgently consider amending the National Companies and Securities Commission Act to make it mandatory that corporations give advance public notice of their intention to re-locate, as requested by me on 16 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1813).
  2. Will this provision be incorporated in the National Companies and Securities Commission Act; if not, will he urgently consider introducing alternative legislation which will have the same binding effect upon these companies and corporations, whether national or international.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Under the formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the six States on companies and securities matters, it is the responsibility of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities to approve amendments to the National Companies and Securities Commission Act and the other Commonwealth and State legislation provided for by that Agreement. The Ministerial Council consists of one Minister from the Commonwealth and one from each of the six States.

I have noted the matters raised in the honourable member’s question, in his earlier statement on 16 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1813) and in his telegram of 4 July 1980. These matters are probably most appropriately considered in the context of the Companies Bill which I introduced into this House on 27 August 1980. As I mentioned then, the Companies Bill was introduced to allow further study of the provisions of the proposed new Australian companies code by both honourable members and the public. Submissions were requested by 21 December 1980. 1 have directed the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs to ensure that the matters raised by the honourable member are brought to the attention of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities when it is considering all submissions made on the Companies Bill.’ During this consideration, I shall bear in mind the points made by the honourable member in his statement of 1 6 April 1 980 and telegram of 4 July 1980. As I mentioned to him in my letter of 28 August 1980 legislation of the type he appears to envisage raises both issues of general principle in relation to the purposes of company law and practical problems of devising an adequate legislative test.

Coal Industry (Question No. 6320)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

What recommendations made since 1 977 by the Joint Coal Board relating to the welfare and safety of workers engaged in the coal industry (a) have been accepted (b) have been rejected or (c) are still under consideration by the Government.

Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

None; the Coal Industry Acts do not make any provision for the submission of recommendations by the Board in these matters.

Industrial Research and Development (Question No. 6332)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) What grants have been given to encourage industrial research and development in Australian manufacturing and mining by or on the recommendation of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board in each financial year since 1 977-78.
  2. For each of the grants referred to in part (1), (a) who were the recipients, (b) what was the project involved, and (c) what sums were involved.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 makes provision for the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board to authorise commencement and project grants to Australian manufacturing and mining companies in respect of expenditures on industrial research and development. The Act also includes provision for the Incentives Board to authorise the payment of general grants in respect of company entitlements outstanding at1 July 1976 under the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967. The aggregate amounts of the grants given in each financial year since 1 977-78 are as follows:
  1. (a), (b) and (c) For the information sought in parts (2) (a) and (c) of this question, which is rather extensive, I would refer the honourable member to the annual reports of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board which are tabled in the Parliament. The Board’s report for 1979-80 is currently in preparation. In accordance with Section 22 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976, the information sought in part (2) (b) of this question cannot be disclosed.

Assistance to Inventors Scheme (Question No. 6333)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. For each of the last 3 years, (a) how many inventors received financial assistance under the Assistance to Inventors Scheme, (b) who were the recipients, (c) what were the individual invention projects, and (d) what sums were received.
  2. How many inventors received assistance of a nonfinancial nature under the scheme over the same period.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)(a),(b),(c)and (d)

  1. Approximately 750.

Australian Littoral Society (Question No. 6339)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment the following question on notice on 20 August 1 980:

  1. Why will the Commonwealth Government not announce which of the options proposed in the Report prepared by the Australian Littoral Society entitled ‘An Investigation of Management Opitons for Towra Point, Botany Bay’ it has accepted.
  2. What sums will be allocated to ensure that this outstanding significant tidal wetland area in the Sydney region, New South Wales, is preserved.
  3. What action will the Government take to ensure that the non-tidal sandpit, the Elephant’s Trunk, to the west of Towra Point, is preserved and not subjected to further erosion and accretion.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I have recently written to the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment agreeing in principle to option 4 of the Report prepared by the Australian Littoral Society, which is to establish the area as a Nature Reserve for environmental education and research.

  1. To implement the above course of action I have further agreed, in principle, to the transfer of the Towra Point land to the New South Wales Government under conditions to be negotiated. It is proposed that the land be used for nature conservation purposes, proclaimed under the New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Act and managed by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service assisting in the preparation of the plan of management and represented on a Management Advisory Committee.
  2. The Australian Littoral Society report will form the basis of the plan of management for the area and the erosion and accretion of the sand spit known as the Elephant’s Trunk will be taken into account in the preparation of the management plan.

Architects (Question No. 6340)

Mr Burns:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a recent Royal Australian Institute of Architects’ survey which shows a considerable drop in employment for persons associated with the architectural profession between September 1979 and March 1980.
  2. Following the recent success of an American firm of architects in the new Parliament House design competition, what steps will he take to ensure that the work developed by this project will be carried out by Australian architects resident in Australia.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to a survey of employment trends during the period September 1 979 to March 1980 which was conducted by the Victorian Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architecture.
  2. I am informed by the Parliament House Construction Authority as follows: The competition conditions required that the ‘competition winner establishes and office in Canberra and agrees to undertake all design and documentation thereat’. For the purposes of the Parliament House project, a new firm to be known as Mitchell/Giurgola & Thorp will be established and will operate from offices in Canberra. While this firm will be staffed by certain key people from the parent firm in the USA it is anticipated that by far the majority of professional, technical and administrative staff will be recruited from within Australia,

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Lusaka (Question No. 6354)

Mr Holding:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

In view of the Final Communique issued by the Commonwealth Heads of Government following their meeting at Lusaka, Zambia, in August 1979 and United Nations Resolution 435, what action, if any, did Australia take in the United Nations and other international forums following the South

African invasion of Angola which commenced on 7 June 1980,

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

Following the South African incursion into Angola in June 1980 the United Nations Security Council met to discuss the situation at the request of the Angolan Government. The Council is the United Nations body with the constitutional competence to deal with possible threats to international peace and security. On 27 June 1980 the Security Council passed resolution 475 (1980) which, inter alia, condemned the South African raids as a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola, condemned South Africa’s use of Namibia as a springboard for the attacks and demanded the recall of South African forces from Angola. Australia is not currently a member of the Security Council.

The Government regrets the suffering and loss of life which resulted from the South African incursions. It considers the raids to be a violation of the principle of mutual respect for the territorial integrity of all states. The Government also believes that the raids contributed to the difficulties confronting the negotiations on the UN/Western plan for a peaceful settlement to the issue of independence for Namibia.

Australia-Korea Business Co-operation Committee (Question No. 6356)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. What companies belong to the Australia-Korea Business Co-operation Committee.
  2. Is he able to state what is the nature of the business carried out by these companies in Korea.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Whilst the Government lends strong support to the activities of the Australia-Korea Business Co-operation Committee, the Committee is an entirely private sector organisation and I am therefore not in a position to provide a list of names of member companies.

For the information of the honourable member the Confederation of Australian Industries provides Secretariat facilities for the Committee.

  1. Again, I am not in a position to provide other than general information. I am informed that membership of the Committee includes representatives of a number of prominent Australian companies with trading and/or joint venture interests, as well as a range of other enterprises with related interests including financial institutions and consultancy firms,

Australia-Indonesia Business Co-operation Committee (Question No. 6357)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

  1. What companies belong to the Australia-Indonesia Business Co-operation Committee.
  2. Is he able to state what is the nature of the business carried out by these companies in Indonesia.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Whilst the Government lends strong support to the activities of the Australia-Indonesia Business Co-operation Committee, the Committee is an entirely private sector organisation and I am therefore not in a position to provide a list of names of member companies.

For the information of the honourable member the Confederation of Australian Industries provides Secretariat facilities for the Committee.

  1. Again, I am not in a position to provide other than general information. I am informed that membership of the Committee includes representatives of a number of prominent Australian companies with trading and/or joint venture interests, as well as a range of other enterprises with related interests including financial institutions and consultancy firms.

South- West Tasmania (Question No. 6394)

Mr Howe:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the reported recent announcement by the Tasmanian Government of a policy statement concerning the south-west of Tasmania.
  2. In view of the listing of the south-west of Tasmania by the Australian Heritage Commission and the Australian Government’s stated commitment to the preservation of the south-west of Tasmania, will he hold a public inquiry under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, either independently or in co-operation with the Tasmanian Government to determine the most effective means of ensuring that no development takes place in the south-west of Tasmania, either in the form of forestry development or hydroelectric power schemes that might damage the environment.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government has consistently maintained that we are prepared to assist the Tasmanian Government to establish a national park of world significance in the South- West. However, State Governments are responsible for land management and land use decisions in the States, except for Commonwealth owned land. The Government believes that decisions on the development of the State owned area of South- West Tasmania are the responsibility of the Tasmanian Government.

With regard to the possible application of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, you would be aware that before the Act can be applied a Commonwealth action or decision which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment must be proposed. No such action or decision has been referred to me for consideration under the Act.

Cosmetic Products (Question No. 6421)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1980:

Further to the answer given by the Minister for Health to my Question No.5848, part (3) (Hansard, 22 May 1980, page 3151) that the allocation of tariffs to cosmetic products was the responsibility of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, did he, in his reply to my letter dated 3 July 1980, state that matters in relation to the cosmetic industry fell within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Health; if so, why did he say this.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

Yes; because the matters raised in the honourable member’s letter of 3 July referred to animal cruelty in cosmetic testing, the desirability of labelling cosmetics to indicate whether animal derivatives were used and whether the ingredients involved experimentation on animals. These matters are the responsibility of the Minister for Health and relevant State Ministers.

The letter did not refer to tariffs.

The answer given by the Minister for Health in answer to Question No. 5848 does refer to tariffs.

The Customs Tariff is an instrument which is employed to: provide assistance to domestic import competing industries; or collect revenue in respect of certain imports where those goods attract excise revenue duties when produced domestically.

The Customs Tariff is not employed to achieve other objectives. .

Employment: Shortage of Qualified People (Question No. 6443)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 27 August 1980:

  1. Is there a shortage of qualified people in some occupations; if so, what occupations.
  2. What is the present shortfall in numbers required in each of these occupations.
  3. What is the additional shortfall expected in each of these occupations for each of the next 5 years.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The latest available information on the occupations involved is contained in the July 1980 edition of the Bulletin ‘Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation’ published by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. This publication was tabled on 21 August 1980, and is available from any office of the Australian Government Publishing Service.
  2. The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs bases the assessment of shortage upon judgments of many market factors. It is not possible to give precise estimates of the shortfall in numerical terms.
  3. The Department’s assessment primarily relates to occupational prospects over the next two years; forecasts are not made of possible imbalances over a five year period.

Declared Roads under States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 (Question No. 6461)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) Have any sections of the Australian roads system been declared national commerce roads under the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977; if so, what sections.
  2. Which sections of the Australian roads system are to be declared as (a) national and (b) developmental roads under the Roads Grants Act 1 980.
  3. Will these classifications be permanent, or will declared roads revert to former classifications following completion and payment for special works considered to be of national significance.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes. Roads declared as National Commerce Roads under the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977.

New South Wales

  1. Botany Bay Foreshore Road
  2. Maldon bridge and approaches on Trunk Road 95 east of Picton

Victoria

  1. Johnson Street Bridge
  2. Essendon Airport/Tullamarine Freeway interchange
  3. Princes Highway East between Dandenong and Traralgon

Queensland

  1. Lytton Road, and access road to new Brisbane Port (Fisherman Islands), Brisbane
  2. Kingsford Smith Drive ( Brisbane Airport Access)
  3. Bundaberg Port Road
  4. Boundary Street, South Townsville
  5. Keeleys, Andergrove, Bedford and Glenpark Roads between Slade Point Road and approaches to Ron Camm Bridge, Mackay

South Australia

  1. Lincoln Highway - from Lincoln Gap to Whyalla
  2. Wallaroo to Port Pirie Road (3.4 km), Port Pirie
  3. Eastern Parade - from Ocean Steamers Road to Grand Junction Road (Port Adelaide)
  4. Francis Street- from Ocean Steamers Road to Eastern Parade (Port Adelaide)
  5. Flinders Highway - from Pines to Edillilie Kyancutta Main Road 42 junction (0 Western Approach Road to Port Lincoln

Western Australia

  1. Derby Access Road from Great Northern Highway
  2. Leach Highway from Barbican Street to Hardey Road Tasmania

  3. East Tamar Highway - between Launceston and Bell Bay.

    1. (a) Roads to be declared as National Highways under the Roads Grants Act 1980 are expected to be the same as those declared under the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977, namely

Sydney to Melbourne- (National 31)

Melbourne to Adelaide - (Nationals 8/1 )

Sydney to Brisbane - (Nationals 1/15)

Brisbane to Darwin- (Nationals 54/71 /66/87/1 )

Brisbane to Cairns- (National1)

Adelaide to Perth- (Nationals1 /94)

Adelaide to Darwin- (Nationals 1 /87/1 )

Perth to Darwin- (Nationals 95/1)

Hobartto Burnie- (National1)

Maps showing the above National Highway system have been printed and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable members.

  1. The States’ proposals for Developmental Roads under the Roads Grants Act 1 980 are still under consideration.

    1. The planning of the existing National Highway system includes provision for town bypasses, and for other deviations to the existing alignment where technically desirable. Where a National Highway is located on its final alignment declaration of that route is regarded as permanent.

It is envisaged that Developmental Roads will be declared only for the period of construction and following the completion of works would revert to their former status. However, it is possible that some Developmental Roads may retain their National Road status.

Unemployment Insurance (Question No. 6485)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 August 1980:

Has his attention been drawn to reports of a widespread belief in the community that the Government is about to introduce a form of unemployment insurance whereby wage and salary earners will have a sum compulsorily taken from their wages so that they will then be eligible for 20 weeks insurance payments if they lose their jobs; if so, is there any substance in the reports.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Yes, I have seen the reports. There is no substance in them.

National Service Registration (Question No. 6487)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 September 1 980:

Have staff of the Australian Government Publishing Service had applications for leave in January 1981 denied; if so, is the reason for the denial of leave so that registration forms for national service can be printed.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

No. Staff of the Government Printing Office are encouraged to take leave during Parliamentary recess periods, particularly during December and January each year.

Definition of Billion (Question No. 6505)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1980:

  1. Can he say whether one billion is defined in (a) Great Britain and (b) Germany as 1,000,000,000,000 or 1012, and whether this is the usage of British Government departments.
  2. Can he also say whether one billion is defined in (a) the United States or America and (b) France as 1 ,000,000,000 or 109, and whether this is the usage of US Government departments.
  3. Is there confusion in Australia, even at Government level, as to what billion means and are the British and US terminology used interchangeably at times.
  4. Will the Government seek to end this confusion or will it permit it to continue.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The definition in use in Australia and Great Britain for one billion’ is a million times a million (1012). This convention is in accordance with the 9th CGPM (General Conference on Weights and Measures) meeting. So far as can be ascertained, this convention has also been adopted by West Germany, and is used in British Government administration.
  2. A different convention is in use in the United States of America and in France where ‘a billion’ signifies a thousand times a million (109). This meaning of ‘billion’ is in popular usage in the US and is used by US Government departments.
  3. Reference sources for the meaning of ‘billion’ (10”) in Australia include Australian Standard No. 1000 of 1974 and the Commonwealth of Australia Style Manual (Third Edition), at pages 59-60. However, public usage of the word billion’ to mean a thousand million (109) does still exist in Australia, particularly when reporting monetary sums, where the United States influence tends to predominate. I am advised that in the preparation of the 1980-81 budget papers, the use of the word ‘billion’ has been avoided.

The Style Manual recommends that until full international agreement is reached, and where the use of the word ‘billion’ is unavoidable, the word should be qualified thus:1 billion (US) or1 billion (UK). In the SI metric system, the problem of ambiguity of meaning of such words as ‘billion’ has been simply overcome by using defined prefixes such as mega (106), giga ( 1 09) or tera ( 1 012) with metric units.

  1. Any confusion in Australia over the meaning of ‘billion’ has been largely mitigated by qualifying the word with (US) or (UK), or by avoiding its use, using instead words such as one thousand million’ or a mixture of words and figures such as ‘1000 million’. It would appear that full international agreement will need to be reached on definition and usage of the word ‘billion’ to eliminate possible confusion.

Construction of the New Parliament House, Canberra (Question No. 6516)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 10 September 1980:

  1. How many (a) Australian and (b) overseas consultancy and manufacturing companies will be employed in the construction of the new Parliament House, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.
  2. What are the names of these firms.
  3. From which countries do each of the overseas companies operate.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by the Parliament House Construction Authority as follows:

The Authority was not authorised to engage any company for the construction of the new Parliament House, until Parliamentary approval was given to proceed with the project on 28 August 1980. No agreements have yet been finalised but it is expected that the architect, construction manager, project planner and cost planner will be engaged in the near future. No other consultants or manufacturers have been identified at this stage but it is anticipated that ultimately there will be several hundred consultancy and manufacturing companies employed on the construction of the new Parliament House. By far the majority of these companies are expected to be Australian based.

The companies to be engaged are:

Architect - Mitchell /Giurgola & Thorp

Construction Manager - Concrete Constructions/John Holland - Joint Venture

Project Planner - McLachlan Group

Cost Planner - Rawlinson, Roberts & Partners

The architects parent company is Mitchell/Giurgola of New York, United States of America, but the new firm Mitchell/Giurgola & Thorp will be established in Australia. The other companies named in (2) above are all based in Australia.

National Youth Advisory Group (Question No. 6531)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1980:

  1. 1 ) What percentage of persons who are not students between the ages of 1 5 and 25 years were unemployed at 1 September 1980.
  2. Have any unemployed young persons been appointed to the National Youth Advisory Group; if so, how many.
  3. If unemployed young persons have been appointed to the National Youth Advisory Group, is the number representative of the incidence of unemployment among young people in the community.
  4. Are (a) State or (b) Federal public servants and (c) secondary and (d) tertiary students represented in their respective capacities on the National Youth Advisory Group; if so, how many.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The information sought is not available.
  2. No.
  3. See (2).
  4. All representatives on the National Youth Advisory Group are appointed because of the personal contribution which they can make to the work of the Group.

Of the 1 2 members, one is employed by a State statutory body, one by the Commonwealth Government and another is a secondary school student.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 September 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800917_reps_31_hor119/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant