House of Representatives
18 September 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1465

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 Ewen Cameron, Dr Jenkins, Mr Shipton, Mr Short and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Hilton Hotel Bomb Disaster

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they want the victims of the Hilton bomb disaster to receive a fair and just compensation. They remind the Prime Minister and his Government that they found the sum of $190,000 to compensate the Hilton arcade shopkeepers for their loss of business and we the undersigned regard the loss of life and permanent injury 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 Chapman, Mr Giles, Mr Lusher, Mr John McLeay and Mr Street.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with

Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Fisher and Mr Martyr.

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 programme, and

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

Whereas a debt of $240,000 is being incurred in 1980, and whereas if funding is not approved by August the course will close and students’ careers placed in grave jeopardy,

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Haslem, Mr Lusher, Mr Shack and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

Great Barrier Reef: Oil Exploration

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 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. . 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 Authority with staff and resources sufficient for effective management of the region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred and Mr Howe.

Petitions received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage and Mr John Brown.

Petitions received.

Postal Services, Toongabbie

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

The lack of a large letterbox in the area of Fitzwilliam Road Toongabbie.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That a large letterbox be installed outside the fruit shop in Fitzwilliam Road, Toongabbie.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

Petition received.

Australia Post: Assistance to Non-English Speaking Customers

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:

We, the undersigned, wish to see the introduction by Australia Post of a Liaison Officer whose duties would be to assist non-English speaking customers with their daily business transactions at Post Offices in areas of significant ethnic or multi-cultural diversity, and in particular at the West End (Brisbane) Post Office.

Such a position would benefit both English and non-English speaking persons by eliminating present lengthydelays caused by a breakdown in language communication and explanation of complex forms.

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 ever pray. by Mr Humphreys.

Petition received.

Labelling of Cosmetics

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will:

Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate:

  1. 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.

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. 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.
  2. Recognize that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.
  3. Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and the 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 Nixon.

Petition received.

Education

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

We the Lebanese community of Parramatta would like to make it known to you that since the first Lebanese settlers came to Australia, we have been sending our children to Catholic schools. We would like to state that we prefer the Christian-oriented education the Catholic system imparts to our children. Many members of our community became very concerned if the children are refused admission to Catholic schools because of unavailability of places.

With the projected increase of mobility of our people to outer suburbs and other developing areas we would also like to ensure that our children will be able to get the benefit of a Catholic schooling everywhere in NSW.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

For an increase in 1981 per pupil grants to $216 for primary and $366 for secondary, adjusted from 1979 to 1981 prices.

For immediate supplementation of per pupilgrants to take account of increased costs in 1980.

For extension of interest subsidies to loans for construction of approved school buildings projects.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Building, Adelaide: Cafeteria Facilities

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Australian Public Servants respectfully showeth:

  1. . That there is an urgent and increasing need for the provision of Cafeteria Facilities in the Australian Government building at 65 King William Street, presently occupied by the Australian Taxation Office.
  2. The provision of this facility was given Treasury approval ‘in principle’ on 9 July 1974 but it was subsequently deleted from the Current Works Programme following Government expenditure restraints.
  3. There have been repeated delays and deferments of this project.
  4. Department of Finance approval for inclusion in the 1980-81 Civil Works Program was given on 29 April 1980.

In order that this project may not again be deferred, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the project be given priority in the provision of funds in the 1980-81 Civil Works Program.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Mr John McLeay.

Petition received.

Addison Road Community Centre

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

The Addison Road Community Centre, Marrickville, is under threat, because for nearly five years, the Ethnic and Community based groups which run activities in the Centre have been unable to secure any long-term lease. This means that this unique multicultural Centre, situated on ten acres of land in the heart of the city is being constantly thwarted in its attempts to develop. Not only does it provide a valuable community service in Marrickville it also has a large area of open space which is rare in the inner city.

Application has been made to the Department of Sport & Recreation for a $50,000 grant to up grade their community hall, Hut 24.

Unless a long-term lease is negotiated the Centre is not eligible for Capital Funding.

We urge relevant Federal and State Departments to act immediately to come to agreement on the sale of the land and the signing of a long-term lease with the Addison Road Community Centre.

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

Petition received.

Education: Language Teachers

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

  1. There is an urgent need for permanent funds for the teaching of community languages in New South Wales primary schools.
  2. There is an urgent need for additional permanent funds for the teaching of English as a Second Language in New South Wales schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will provide for 1 98 1 :

  1. . $2.5m for the employment of 1 30 community language teachers, employed as permanent specialist teachers additional to staffing establishment in New South Wales primary schools.
  2. the employment of 600 additional permanent ESL teachers, representing a doubling of present permanent funds in line with recommendations made in the Galbally Report.

We beg your urgent consideration of these requests. by Mr Les McMahon.

Petition received.

Road Safety: Motor Cycle Headlights

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain members of the Motorcycle Riders’ Association and certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:

  1. Legislation to make the use of motorcycle headlamps compulsory during daylight hours is not in the interests of the Motorcycle Community as there are grave doubts about the safety of such a law.
  2. Since 70 per cent of car/bike accidents are the fault of the car driver, driver awareness and road user education should have a far higher priority than discriminating and unproved ‘lights on’ laws.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that legislation to make compulsory the use of motorcycle headlights during daylight not be introduced and that existing regulations be repealed.

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

Petition received.

page 1468

GENERAL ELECTION 1980

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– When I informed the House that the Government proposed that the next House of Representatives and half Senate election should be held on Saturday 18 October 1980,I undertook to confirm details when replies had been received from the States. I am now able to say that all States are in agreement with the timetable which is as follows: The issue of writs, 19 September; close of nominations, 27 September; polling date, 1 8 October; and the return of writs, on or before 17 December 1980.

page 1468

AUSTRALIAN EX-SERVICEMEN: VOTING RIGHTS

Notice of Motion

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

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

That this House condemns the Government for its failure to alter the Commonwealth Electoral Act to give the wives and members of families of Australian servicemen stationed abroad the opportunity to exercise their right as Australian citizens to vote in the forthcoming elections.

page 1468

FINANCIAL POLICIES: TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

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

That this Parliament censures the Premier of Tasmania for his Government’s document of gloom and despair which carries that State’s financial policies for the next year.

page 1468

PARLIAMENT: LOGICA REPORT

Notice of Motion

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

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

That this House-

notes that Volume 2 of the ‘Planning and Design Study for the Information Systems and Information Services of the Parliament’, otherwise known as the Logica report, contains many far-reaching proposals which will affect all five Parliamentary Departments, their staffs and the financial allocation for the Parliament;

believes that due to the short 1980 Budget Session members and senators have not had adequate time for consideration of this report;

notes that the Senate has established a Select Committee on the Parliament’s Appropriation and Staffing which has not yet reported;

calls on the Presiding Officers not to make any decisions arising from the Logica report until members of this House in the thirty-second Parliament have considered and debated this report; and

believes that a joint select committee of the thirtysecond Parliament should be appointed to make a report on this matter prior to debate in either House of the Parliament.

page 1468

ITEMISED ACCOUNTS: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION UNIT EXPENDITURE

Notice of Motion

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

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

That this House -

deplores the expenditure of nearly $500,000 of taxpayers money this year on the Government Information Unit which was established to assist in reelecting this Government; and

requests that itemised accounts of Government Information Unit expenditure be tabled annually in the House, along with itemised accounts of any additional expenditures on the Unit’s co-ordination officers such as entertainment expenses, disguised in ministerial costs.

page 1468

RUGBY LEAGUE

Notice of Motion

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

That this House-

1 ) notes that 1 980 has been a great year for rugby league in Sydney;

congratulates Ted Glossop, George Peponis, Steve Gearin and all the Canterbury-Bankstown players and officials on the great display of clean, skilful football Canterbury has played this season and joins with the member for Grayndler in wishing CanterburyBankstown Rugby League Club in the league grand final on Saturday 27 September the victory it was unjustly denied in 1979.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I should rule the notice of motion out of order as it is hypothetical, but I will allow it to stand and let events prove it.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad you did, Mr Speaker, because I would not like to think you were a one-eyed Australian Rules supporter.

page 1469

DEFENCE FORCE RESERVE

Notice of Motion

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

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

That this House condemns the Government for its failure to provide proper support for members of the Defence Force Reserve against the economic effects of loss of civilian earning capacity as a result of disabilities arising from military training activities.

page 1469

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Notice of Motion

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

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

That this House views with concern the significant decrease in real terms of budgetary allocation to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and acknowledgement that this would lead to ‘a further slight contraction in the Organisation’s total research activities because of staff ceiling adjustments and the reduction in real terms in operating funds’.

page 1469

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Morris proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The notice of motion is out of order and it is disallowed.

page 1469

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1469

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is he aware that on information supplied by officers of the Australian Federal Police, nine people have been charged in Athens, Greece, with fraud against the Australian Government? Is he also aware that these charges relate to offences alleged to have been committed in Australia? Is the Minister aware that the action in Greece is alleged to have been taken at the instigation of the Australian Government and on information supplied by Inspector Don Thomas? Has the action been taken with the consent and knowledge of the Minister? Has the Minister acquainted himself with the fact that one of the defendants, Miss Anastasia Artopolou, has already been granted a pardon by the Governor-General for the same offence and that the Governor-General acted on the advice of the Attorney-General?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am aware of the general outline of the position as put in the question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If my memory serves me correctly, this has been replied to in the Senate in answers to questions both without notice and on notice. Certainly, whatever action was taken in Greece was taken on the initiative of the Greek Government and in no way was it taken on the initiative of the Australian Government. In fact, I think the honourable member will find that the Attorney-General is on record as having deplored this sort of think happening in any country.

page 1469

QUESTION

FUEL ETHANOL EXPERIMENTERS SCHEME

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs tell the House what the latest position is with respect to the Government’s fuel ethanol experimenters scheme? What interest has been shown in that scheme?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– There has been a very gratifying interest in the fuel ethanol experimenters scheme. Some 64 applications have already been received, and of that number 42 have been agreed to in principle for licensing under the experimental legislation. In fact, a number of licences have been issued to persons within the electorate of the honourable member for Dawson.

Two licence holders are undertaking distilling operations elsewhere at this moment. The harvesting in the months ahead of crops such as sugar beet, sugar cane and sweet sorghum- the basic raw materials for such experimentation - will lead to even greater operations.

I say on behalf of the Government that it is pleasing to see that the encouragement which the Government has given to research into renewable energy sources is bearing some fruit. The law relating to the distillation of spirits was amended by the Government last year to enable these experiments to take place, but I should emphasise that this experimenters scheme is not the only Government initiative in the development of ‘ethanol as an alternative fuel. For instance, through the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program a considerable number of separate initiatives have been undertaken on a commercial basis and are in progress.

page 1469

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING FILM

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Science and the Environment stopped the release of a film made by Film Australia on the environmental effects of uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers region? If so, what were the Minister’s reasons for instituting censorship on an environmental film which the top Government official, the Supervising Scientist, had approved as showing a balanced view of uranium mining in that region?

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

– I have not stopped the film. The film was viewed some time ago by a group of experts in this area, including the Supervising Scientist. It was decided that some of the script was out of date because of changes in uranium mining procedures in the area. The film is at present being viewed by my Department and I hope that it will be released very soon.

page 1470

QUESTION

MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs whether the services of the Commonwealth Employment Service will be available to the honourable members on the Opposition benches who will be unemployed after 18 October.

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

– I am glad to inform members of the Opposition that the full services of the Commonwealth Employment Service will be available to all of them after 1 8 October.

Mr Cohen:

– You will be the first applicant.

Mr VINER:

– I do not think so. In particular, it will be available to the honourable member for Fremantle because the Liberal Party of Western Australia is intent upon doing everything it can to defeat the honourable member for the reason that he has debased the standards of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will not permit the Minister to proceed along that line. It is not relevant to the question.

Mr VINER:

- Mr Speaker, let me explain further why it is that the honourable member for Fremantle is not likely to be a member of the House after 1 8 October.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I rule the matter irrelevant to the question. The question was whether the Commonwealth Employment Service would be available to certain defeated members. In answering that it is not relevant to identify a particular member and say why he should be defeated.

Mr VINER:

– I shall approach it in this way: We have seen in this House during the last three years attempts by members of the Opposition to debase the standards of this House in putting on trial people inside and outside the House.

Mr Morris:

Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to make those sorts of claims when he brought forged documents into this Parliament and presented them as genuine documents-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to remain relevant to the question.

Mr VINER:

– I am endeavouring to do so.

An Opposition member - Bloody hypocrite.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There was an interjection from my left. I am not sure which member used it but it involved language which is most unparliamentary.

Mr VINER:

– I was making the point that the services of the Commonwealth Employment Service will be available to those honourable members who are likely to lose their seats because of the way in which they have handled themselves during the sittings of this Parliament. Yesterday one member of this House embarked upon an attack on a person outside the House who is a Liberal Party candidate in the forthcoming election.

Mr Keating:

Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. This answer is an abuse of Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Keating:

– You know it and we know it. You should sit the Minister down.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I indicate to the honourable member for Blaxland that he ought not to continue speaking after I have asked him to resume his seat. The Minister is now beyond the relevance of the question asked. I ask him to cease pursuing the line which he is pursuing.

Mr VINER:

Mr Speaker, I am endeavouring to defend someone outside the House who has been the subject of scurrilous attacks in this House by a member who is likely to lose his seat.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is entitled to use the forms of the House to defend a person if he chooses to do so, but he must do so within the forms of the House. The present form is not appropriate because the answer being given is irrelevant to the question.

Mr Dawkins:

– I will debate the matter with Tuckey.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Fremantle will remain silent.

Mr VINER:

– The honourable member for Fremantle is not prepared to allow me to say anything in this House which is an attack on his credibility, but he is quite prepared to attack the credibility of people outside the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

page 1470

QUESTION

UNION MEMBERSHIP: TAXATION DEDUCTION

Mr FRY:

– I ask the Treasurer: Has the Treasury proposed to the Government that union membership fees no longer be an allowable taxation deduction? Is the Government giving active consideration to this proposal?

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

– The answer to both questions is no.

page 1471

QUESTION

OPPOSITION POLICY PROPOSALS: COST

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Finance able to confirm the accuracy of the figures he announced to the House in his statement of 26 August concerning the cost of the policy proposals of the Opposition?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– On 26 August I made a considered speech to the House based upon expenditure proposals. To the best of my knowledge that speech has not been challenged. Indeed, I must observe that the administration of the Department of Finance, in three years since I have been the Minister, has never really been challenged by the Australian Labor Party. I tell the House that I estimated the cost of five proposals in this sort of order: $ 1,000m for manpower, $380m for health, $276m for welfare, $164m for education and $175m for housing. In round figures that totals $2,000m. It is worth remembering that the Ministers concerned have said that they costed the proposals and the costs were verified by the Department of Finance. I want honourable members opposite to understand that when the Budget Papers are prepared, expenditure items are checked and verified and do not go into the Budget Papers until that is done by the Department of Finance. Mr Speaker, you will know, as a former Treasurer, that that is an accepted practice which has gone on in all governments over the years.

If one could let one’s imagination run riot for a few minutes and if a new Budget were prepared by a Labor government, the figures that the Department of Finance have verified would be the figures that would go into Budget documents. I do not sense “.hat anybody will question that. Indeed, the $2,000m that I have costed was on the conservative side. There was no possibility of the amount being less. There was every likelihood of its being considerably higher. I did not attempt to cost 200 binding commitments that appeared in the Labor Party’s policies and platforms. Fifty qangos, councils and committees have been recommended. In the main they were far too vague. One could not have costed those. I have to observe that the hydrocarbon authority would obviously amount to some hundreds of millions of dollars.

What I was able to do was to look over and above the $2,000m to the comment by the Leader of the Opposition on AM with regard to social welfare. He said that first of all the Opposition would move to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings for pensions. I can inform the House that the correct costing of that is of the order of $500m. If I take the Leader of the Opposition’s words when he said that the Opposition would move beyond that to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings, the costing is $ 1,900m so therefore well and truly over and above the $2,000m. It is a figure extremely higher than that. It is very clear that the Labor Party under Mr Hayden is a party of big spenders. Of course, the big spenders are the big taxers. As an honourable member said yesterday–

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There is far too much noise on my left from the Opposition benches. I ask honourable gentlemen to hear the Minister’s answer in silence. The fact that members of the Opposition may disagree is not a reason for the noise and unparliamentary procedure.. The honourable member for Prospect and the honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent. I call the Minister.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, I do not hear members of the Opposition saying–

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Minister not to comment on the interjections.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– May I make the observation that the Leader of the Opposition, during the term of the previous Government, developed a fairly nasty habit; that is, he found that he likes spending other people’s money. He now wants to pursue that a little more aggresively. If these sorts of proposals were ever implemented, as the Treasurer so rightly said yesterday, there would be more taxes, more borrowings and more printing of money. We have been through that exercise. We know the result of it. The Australian community is very well aware of the risk involved.

page 1471

QUESTION

SAUDI ARABIAN OIL PRICE INCREASE

Mr KEATING:

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning other people’s money. Will the decision by Saudi Arabia to lift its oil price by $2 a barrel immediately mean, under the Governments oil pricing policy, an increase in petrol prices of from lc to 1.5c per litre and an extra tax windfall to Commonwealth revenue of approximately an unbudgeted-for $250m of other people’s money?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman knows quite well that decisions in relation to the price of Australian oil are made twice a year - around January and July of each year. That has been past practice. The Government will make a considered judgment about that at the time. If the present increase to $30 in the price of Saudi Arabian oil flows through into Australian prices, the increase in Australian terms would indeed be marginal and would be much less than the predictions made by a number of spokesmen for the Opposition. That indicates again the desperation of the Opposition and the scare tactics which it is trying to perpetrate as we approach this election.

I think that it also needs to be understood that there are some encouraging signs as a result of the conference which has just been held. Quite plainly, the Saudi Arabians are seeking to establish a regime under which the dramatic and disturbing price changes of recent times will not be repeated. The indications are that they may be moving towards an agreement with other members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. But, it will take a little while for us to know firmly whether that is so. We do know that that is the Saudi Arabian objective. It is my understanding that Saudi Arabia would not have agreed to an increase from $28 to $30 a barrel unless there were some indications that that objective could be achieved.

It would be an advantage to all countries if there were a greater degree of predictability in these matters. This policy again underlines the importance of Australia’s pursuing a sensible approach to these matters and underlines the importance of Australia’s preserving her own national independence and security of supply, which our policies are achieving. If there were an increase in the price of petrol and in revenues as a result, the Government would make judgments about that situation at the appropriate time. But the increases are far less than anything that the Opposition might have wanted to predict and much less than obviously the Opposition had been hoping for.

page 1472

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Mitchell. I am sorry; I will call the right honourable member for Lowe.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Thank you Mr Speaker. I should advise, Sir, that I am the father of the House and that I beat my colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh to that honour by 2i minutes. So I claim some preference. Due to the extraordinary confusion caused by newspapers this morning relative to a question answered by the Minister for Defence yesterday, I now ask him to confirm without any reservations or doubts whatsoever that conscription for national service will not be introduced or tolerated by the Fraser Government.

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

– I can confirm, in the language sought by my right honourable friend, just that. I repeat to the House that no program whatsoever is in contemplation. It remains only for me to say that I received this morning a minute from the Chief of Defence Force Staff, Admiral Synnot, and the Secretary to the Department of Defence, which reads:

We have investigated a report of a so-called conscription plan MANHAUL. After intensive investigation we have discovered that there was, in about 1977, a Reserve Staff Group exercise in training Staff Officers which covered various aspects of Army mobilisation and expansion. It was a theoretical exercise.

We have not yet been able to locate this paper and it is not clear if the study was ever completed.

This paper had no formal standing and in no way reflected or expressed departmental or Defence Force policy development.

We confirm our advice to you yesterday that neither we nor the Chiefs of Staff, nor senior departmental officers had ever heard of this Reserve Staff Group’s exercise or the title Manhaul’ before.

I table the minute. I will tell the House the origin of the figures used yesterday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in a question to me. In March 1973 there commenced a study of the structure of the Army. It was chaired by the then Chief Defence Scientist, Dr Farrands. It included among its numbers then Major-General Hassett who subsequently became the Chief of Defence Force Staff. It was an expansion study. It was completed in 1975. It was a professional study. The figures used by my honourable friend, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, find their origin in that study which was done while the Government of which he was a member was in office. The report commands a very high classification, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to his Deputy that I would be delighted to make it available for their perusal.

page 1472

QUESTION

VIETNAM: HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether analysis of spraying patterns in Vietnam has confirmed widespread use of a mixture of arsenical, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and organic phosphorus agents and widespread contact of Australian veterans with contaminated air, soil, water and food. Have several studies, including control studies, suggested or demonstrated the occurrence of chronic, recurrent or delayed disorders including occasional neuropathy, demyelination, EEG changes, irritable, depressive and schizoid reactions, skin disorders, alimentary, liver, vascular and malignant changes, chromosomal damage and growing susceptibility to acute symptoms with cross-sensitivity to fossil fuel fumes, rubber and synthetic chemicals? Does the benefit of the doubt provision in repatriation law extend to determinations made on claims of disability due to herbicides and pesticides used in Vietnam? When will the Minister fulfil his early 1980 undertaking to me to table promptly all his Department’s documents relevant to Vietnam veterans’ claims of herbicide damage?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The honourable gentleman has asked a very long and, if I may say with respect, highly technical question. I will ensure that the technical aspects of it are referred to the officers concerned. I think it would be more appropriate to refer them to officers in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. All the documents that reside within the Department of Defence touching on this matter have been referred to the group which is considering all the ramifications of the issue to which the honourable gentleman referred.

page 1473

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In light of all available advice, what strategies does the Government reject as threatening national economic well-being?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I could really answer that question the other way around by saying that the Government strongly endorses the central thrust of the policies of the interdepartmental committee on economic strategy, especially its comments which appear at paragraph 4 on page 3 of its report which emphasised that the immediate need is for firm antiinflationary policies, including significant tightening of the monetary policy, continued fiscal discipline and wage restraint. That is the main element of responsibility and economic management which is needed in Australia at the present time. It is also needed in many other countries if they want to get inflation down and back to levels which will assist their own industries and their own people and which will assist in the reduction of unemployment.

If policies of that kind are to be adopted and implemented, it necessarily means that governments must reject the concept of big spending and big government which is inherent in the policies of the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party plans to spend, as has been documented over the last two days beyond any doubt, $2,000m in five areas of expenditure or $2, 500m in six areas, depending upon whether one listens to the Leader of the Opposition on the AM program or whether one listens to what he says in this Parliament in repudiating that firm and clear commitment. In any case the Labor Party’s policies will cost $2,000m or $2,500m for five or six programs.

There can be no doubt after what the Minister for Finance and other Ministers have said that the advice from the operative departments - the functional departments - confirmed by the advice of the Department of Finance is that those costings would have to go into any Labor Budget, if there ever were to be a Labor Budget.

I suggest that further credibility is given to those costings by what members of the Labor Party have said. The Hayden-Whitlam makework program in 1977 indicated that 50,000 jobs would be provided at a cost of $800m. But then in March of this year, it had become 100,000 jobs for $330m, and by the time the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the Budget debate it had become $180m for 100,000 jobs. That obviously is very different from the 50,000 jobs provided at a cost of $800m which Mr Hayden and Mr Whitlam announced a couple of years ago and which is, in effect, the accurate costing. Indeed, the costings that my colleague and the departments have given in this area obviously are extraordinarily modest. Under the Regional Employment Development Scheme, each job provided cost $200 a week. The total cost on 1974-75 figures would equal $20m a week for 100,000 jobs. On 1980 figures, with increased wages and increased costs of materials, it would cost roughly $300 a week for each job that is created. That would mean that to provide 100,000 jobs it would cost $30m a week or $ 1,560m a year. Since that was for 100,000 jobs one can see that that is totally consistent with the Hayden-Whitlam costings of $800m for 50,000 jobs.

There has been an attempt by the Australian Labor Party to pretend that it could provide services and various things and not have to pay the costs. The people outside this Parliament will believe this Government. They will not believe the Leader of the Opposition who on AM gave a firm commitment to every pensioner in this country but who then came into this Parliament and repudiated that commitment. The Leader of the Opposition does not like that very much, but that commitment did not last even a month. It is quite plain that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was under that kind of gentle questioning from AM, did not know or understand what he was saying.

It is not just a question of six programs costing $2,500m. There are another 300 programs which have not been costed by the Australian Labor Party. Those programs cover the economy, minerals and energy, and urban and regional development. There is a whole host of proposals that cost: Intervention and nationalisation, establish and extend public enterprise, expand the functions of the Foreign Investment Review Board, the national trading corporation, major labourintensive capital outlays, the Australian hydrocarbon corporation, the national fuel and energy corporation. All these things would cost hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money and the Labor Party is totally unprepared to cost them. It is quite plain that it is the same old Labor Party with no economic responsibility, big spending and high inflation. Raise the standard, raise inflation, rais” taxes and recycle Whitlam - at least that would be a change for this Parliament.

There is one comment from a noted commentator that I would like to read. He said:

Increasingly, as the seventies came to a close, ALP branches and trade unions were interacting in a way that carried ominous implications for the parliamentary party. Co-existing with the repellent effect of this increasingly radicalized image of the branches was an absence of policy formulation at the top. Instead of developing a new line, the parliamentary party was sentimentally locked into the failed Whitlam program. Its tactics rested upon selective recycling of what were considered the electorally attractive aspects of the program.

That was said by Maximilian Walsh, who is noted for his independence and for his critical analysis of many different events. It is the same tired old Labor Party. The only difference now is that it is trying to wrap up the Leader of the Opposition with one person who is not even in the Parliament and another person who, regrettably, has only half a voice - I wish he had his full voice - and who belongs to another parliament, and that is not going to work. This is the first time ever that a political party has gone to an election trying to say to the whole of the Australian public: ‘We have a leader but we do not want you to see him. We do not want you even to know that he exists. Pretend that he is not there’.

Mr Morris:

Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. To accord dignity to the Parliament and in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 321 , I require the Prime Minister to table the several documents from which he has been quoting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Was the right honourable gentleman quoting from a document?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, I would like to have the document I quoted from - Poor Little Rich Country - incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

After Whitlam - The Vacuum

Within the branches, the union control of party affairs discouraged all but the most dedicated and organizationally minded. The traditional blue-collar member was a declining force from the early sixties. He had been, by the end of the seventies, well and truly eclipsed by the middle-class radical. Branches tended to take up the interests of specific middleclass groups. In isolation, each issue would have imposed but a marginal electoral liability. When aggregated, however, the collection of proposals was totally at odds with any credible economic strategy for the eighties that would attract voting support. The policies varied from opposition to uranium mining and freeway construction, and advocating protection of the environment, to promising additional funds for all forms of education. In different states there were special factors - in Victoria, the left was strongly concerned about the cause of pan-arabism, and in Western Australia, homosexual rights was a major issue. Whereas in the past such issues would have been contained within the branch structure, educated activists recognized the leverage that they could bring to bear on the industrial movement by exploiting the branch connection with the Trades Hall.

Increasingly, as the seventies came to a close, ALP branches and trade unions were interacting in a way that carried ominous implications for the parliamentary party. Co-existing with the repellent effect of this increasingly radicalized image of the branches was an absence of policy formulation at the top. Instead of developing a new line, the parliamentary party was sentimentally locked into the failed Whitlam program. Its tactics rested upon selective recycling of what were considered the electorally attractive aspects of the program. Hayden, the true technocrat, was a captive of his own sense of responsibility, offering fiscal responsibility in the form of a totally unmarketable increase in taxes.

Mr Morris:

– There were at least four documents from which the Prime Minister quoted. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘document’ as a thing, especially a deed, writing or inscription, that furnishes evidence. There were several pieces of paper from which the Prime Minister quoted that constitute a document in terms of the dictionary definition which I have read out. I require that they be tabled by the Prime Minister to accord dignity to the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The practice I have consistently followed in this matter is firstly to ask the Minister concerned whether he was quoting from a document. If he says that he was quoting from a document, I then ask him whether it is confidential. I rely upon the statement made by the Minister. I asked the right honourable gentleman whether he was quoting from a document and he answered that he was quoting from one document. He asked for that document to be incorporated in Hansard and it was incorporated by leave.

Mr Hurford:

Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I would ask you now to ask the Prime Minister whether he was also quoting from other documents because I can tell you unequivocally that he was quoting from other documents. Will you ask him that and put it to him that those documents should be tabled as well?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I indicate to the honourable member for Adelaide that I put the question to a Minister and I must rely on what the Minister says. I put the question to the right honourable gentleman who is the Minister in this case and he gave me an answer.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, I could assist you in this matter. I was using notes but I do have one other document which also could be incorporated in Hansard. That is the document from the Australian Labor Party containing the Sydney statement of Mr Hayden and Mr Whitlam and also the Melbourne statement of March 1980 showing that the proper cost of Labor’s job creation scheme was $800m for 50,000 people. If the Labor Party would like that document incorporated in Hansard, I am willing to incorporate it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the right honourable gentleman asking for leave to incorporate that document in Hansard?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I am happy to ask for leave.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Sydney 1977

The Cost

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 $550m.

This makes no estimate of the flow-on effects, producing further jobs, greater consumption, increased profits and the resulting revenue to the government from all these sources.

A figure of$550m is easily manageable in an economy which will reach at least $90,000m. It is less than 1 per cent of the expected money supply (M3) in 1977-78, and is consequently insignificant in terms of its effect on costs, especially as it is to be spent in areas where resources are idle. This is a sober, modest response aimed at gently expanding the economy. It is designed to recapture the early recovery which was developing in the last part of 1975 and which was snuffed out of existence by the over-reaction of the Fraser government in 1976.

A Labor Budget, in short, would initiate programs which subsidise jobs. Labor’s purpose is to underwrite the private sector, so that jobs can be generated, growth carefully fostered and a healthier business climate restored.

Melbourne March 1980

  1. direct publicly funded employment creation schemes in accordance with defined guidelines and a specific budget;
  2. encourage employment creation in the private sector through a range of wage subsidy and training schemes intended to meet specific situations;
  3. assume responsibility for all Commonwealth involvement in training, retraining and apprenticeships;
  4. gather data, evaluate manpower programs and stimulate manpower planning and forecasting;
  5. assume responsibility for the Commonwealth Employment Service.

    1. Direct employment creation programs:
  6. The Community Service Corps will be established to promote employment of youth. It will create 50,000 jobs at junior level and pay minimum award rate for people between 16 and 24 who have been registered with the CES for three months or more. Priority will go to those still seeking their first job and to those with specific employment disadvantages, e.g. the early school leaver and long-term unemployed youth. The program of the Corps will cost $100m in its first year of operation. When fully operational, it will cost $200m a year.
  7. The WORK program will create 20,000 jobs for adults with dependants who are unemployed. Priority will be given to those who have been longest unemployed, and to cases of particular hardship. Workers on the program will be paid appropriate award rates. The payments would be higher than those payable to youths, but the return both in taxation and in savings in unemployment benefits otherwise payable to the workers are proportionately higher. In the first year of operation the WORK program will cost $60m a year; When fully operational $ 1 1 0m a year.
  8. Both the Community Services Corps and WORK will undertake projects submitted by public (e.g. local government) and community organisations (e.g. organisations representing the unemployed) which could not be undertaken with the normal resources of the organisation, and which would be of permanent value to the community. Priority would be given to those projects which utilise idle capacity of existing plant and equipment, and which could be undertaken without additional infrastructure. These conditions ensure that the work done under the programs will be additional to, and not just a substitute for existing work opportunities, and will minimise non-labour costs in the projects.

    1. Private sector employment and training:

Employment in the private sector will be promoted by a basic subsidy of 30 per cent of wage costs for a period of six months provided that: the employee had been out of work or full time education for at least three months in the last twelve months. the employee is additional to the normal intake. the training provided by the employer meets the standard setbytheAMO.

To encourage the employment of disadvantaged workers: an additional 10 per cent loading on the basic subsidy will be paid for new jobs in specified disadvantaged regions or for those employees from specified disadvantaged regions; to encourage businesses to take on those unemployed who are severely disadvantaged in the labour market a further 10 per cent loading on the basic subsidy will be paid to those employers who take on people who have been out of work for a period of nine months or more or for those who have never had a job;

Given the importance of small business as a contributor to new job opportunities, small businesses will be encouraged to take on further employees by extending the subsidy period from six to eight months.

Conclusion

In total, Labor’s job opportunities program aims to create an additional 1 00,000 jobs a year, the total cost in the first full year of operation will be:

It is a program designed to create the maximum number of new jobs at a cost which is consistent with economic responsibility.

Mr Keating:

Mr Speaker look -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is this a point of order?

Mr Keating:

– Yes. The Prime Minister was asked to table the documents. He did read from them. He is not going to table them. Frankly, the man could not lie straight in bed and his word cannot be believed or taken any notice of.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Blaxland and I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Keating:

– I never said he was a liar. I did not say that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I name the honourable member for Blaxland.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Blaxland be suspended from the service of the House.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 29

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The honourable member for Blaxland thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

page 1476

BANKS: PREMIUM LEVELS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

- Mr Speaker–

Mr Bourchier:

– Here is the leader of dad’s army.

Mr HAYDEN:

– There is a veteran, worn out. I ask a question of the Treasurer. Sadly, like Neville Wran, I have lost my voice. It would be–

Government members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Young:

– Members on the other side can do what they like.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent. Honourable members on Government benches will remain silent and pay ordinary courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It would be even sadder if, like the Prime Minister, I had lost my integrity. Is the forward cover premium offered by the Reserve Bank of Australia currently set to discourage borrowing overseas and to encourage borrowing in Australia? If so, does this mean that by setting the premium levels in this way, the Government is deliberately increasing the demand for investment funds in Australia, and in so doing is exerting further upward pressure on interest rates at a time when the private banks are warning that the Government’s monetary policies are out of control, that a consequence of that is that interest rates will have to increase, that such increases in the banks’ view are long overdue and that neglect to act in this regard is having a seriously damaging effect on the national economy?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The making of day to day decisions about the forward premium for borrowings is in the hands of the Reserve Bank and from time to time the forward premium is adjusted according to borrowing patterns which have taken place. My understanding at present is that the premium is fixed in a way that does not markedly encourage domestic or overseas borrowings. The Leader of the Opposition evinces by his question an interest in the subject of interest rates. I am delighted that he has given me the opportunity to say something about this Government’s policy towards interest rates. I have noticed over the past few weeks that the Australian Labor Party has been trying to establish the proposition that it is the party of low interest rates in this country.

Opposition members - That’s right!

Mr HOWARD:

– If we are to believe that the Labor Party is the party of low interest rates in this country, it means that if a Labor government is elected on 1 8 October its expenditure programs, which have been detailed today by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, will either have to be paid for by higher taxation or through the taxation of inflation as a result of using the printing press. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, if more money is spent, only one of three things can be done: Taxation can be increased–

Mr Armitage:

– Ho hum!

Mr HOWARD:

– The honourable member for Chifley and his colleagues had better get used to hearing these things because they are going to hear a lot more over the next few weeks. If the Opposition seriously believes that it is the party of low interest rates in this country and if it seriously believes that, if elected on 18 October, it can restrain rises in interest rates in the Australian community, it must therefore be saying that it is going to pay for its expenditure programs through either higher taxation or higher inflation. The Labor Party can take its pick.

page 1477

QUESTION

RADIO BROADCASTING SERVICES

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I expect that this will probably be his last opportunity to answer a question in this House. I refer to the need to improve radio broadcasting services in the mid North Coast area of New South Wales. Have representations made over a long period and the visit by the Minister to the area earlier this year yet resulted in a preliminary planning proposal for FM and AM broadcasting services in the mid North Coast area to be finalised to enable applications for broadcasting to be considered by way of public inquiry?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

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

– I thank the House. The honourable member has made strenuous representations about these services over a long period. My officials will have completed a study of the area by the end of this week. They advise me that I will have a draft planning proposal available by tomorrow which will be issued for comment by interested parties. After that, I hope to be able to call for applications as soon as possible. There are some processes through which we must go but the matter is well and truly on the track.

page 1477

QUESTION

CONDUCT OF THE HOUSE

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

- Mr Speaker, am I allowed at this time to put a question to you?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have established the procedure for putting questions to the Speaker.

Mr HURFORD:

– This is about the conduct of the House. May I have your indulgence to put it to you now?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I permit the honourable member to do so.

Mr HURFORD:

- Mr Speaker, in view of the action that you have just taken against the honourable member for Blaxland, would you please investigate episodes which took place in this chamber last night when the honourable member for Phillip was in a drunken condition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not entitled to use that language.

Mr HURFORD:

– He disrupted proceedings in this chamber. I ask you to investigate whether he threatened members of this chamber. I ask you to investigate the totally inadequate chairing of the House of Representatives by two Deputy Speakers at that time and to contrast it with the sort of action you took against the honourable member for Blaxland at Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Last night there were certain occurrences in the chamber. The practice of this House is for the Deputy Speaker who is in the chair at the time to be responsible for the discipline of the House. I have no comment to make other than to say that I will support in every way all the Deputy Speakers, from whatever part of the House they come. The honourable member for Adelaide has asked me to contrast the events of last night, of which I have knowledge only by listening and not be being present in the House, with the situation this morning involving the honourable member for Blaxland. The House will be aware that the honourable member for Blaxland made allegations of lying, et cetera, which I have said I will not permit because when that sort of lanaguage is used it provokes responses.

Dr Klugman:

– Jesus! What about last night?

Mr Scholes:

– What about when it is used on the other side? No one takes any notice. It is political bias.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Corio and the honourable member for Prospect will remain silent. They appear not to have heard my words. I will repeat them. What happened last night was in the hands of the person occupying the chair at the time. What happened today was in my hands and I will not permit from any member the language used by the honourable member for Blaxland. If this Parliament is to survive as the fulcrum of democracy, that sort of language must be expunged from this House.

Mr Uren:

Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak about the honourable member for Phillip. Mr Speaker, you are responsible for this House. If a member of this House behaves as the honourable member for Phillip behaved last night, I believe that he should apologise to the House; otherwise people will be saying that he is a drunk and that drunks can get away with it but other people cannot.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member is going too wide. No action was taken by the Chair when the incident of last night occurred and, likewise, no action was taken by any honourable members in the House. I am not willing to investigate incidents which occured in the chamber last night.

page 1478

QUESTION

VIETNAM: HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to reply to a question asked by the honourable member for Capricornia this morning.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question asked by the honourable member for Capricornia was directed to the Minister for Defence. I was aware that portion of the question may have related to the responsibilities of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has approached me and indicated that he would like to give an answer about that portion. I give the Minister my indulgence to give a short reply to that portion of the honourable member’s question.

Mr ADERMANN:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Defence properly replied to those areas regarding spraying and where spraying was done. A lot of work has been done on that. The honourable member did ask a technical question. Of course, some of the other questions are to be answered as a result of the study. I think that the specific answer to the question of the honourable member relating to my Department is that the repatriation system is available for members of the Australian forces in Vietnam or any others who feel that any disability they have relates to their war service to make application for disability pensions. Indeed, they have been invited to and a number have done so. The Repatriation Act and the system of application encompasses all of those things.

page 1478

URANIUM ADVISORY COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Uranium Advisory Council.

page 1478

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1 979-80 of the Department of Primary Industry.

page 1478

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Egg Board.

page 1478

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 14 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the corresponding provisions of the assessment Acts relating to sales tax, payroll tax, estate duty and gift duty, I present the fifty-ninth report of the Commissioner of Taxation. Honourable members will recall that it is the practice of the House to agree forthwith to a motion to print this paper so that it may be covered by parliamentary privilege. This course has the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). If the motion to print is agreed to, the paper will be circulated immediately.

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

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act, this House authorises the publication of the report.

page 1479

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973 I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Insurance Commissioner.

page 1479

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

Pursuant to Section 10 of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977 I present the third report on the operation of part II of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977.

page 1479

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Government’s response to the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the New International Economic Order.

page 1479

SERVICES CANTEENS TRUST FUND

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 I present the annual report for 1979 of the Services Canteens Trust Fund, together with audited accounts of the Fund.

page 1479

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Attorney-General’s Department.

page 1479

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL

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

– Pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Administrative Review Council.

page 1479

SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to section 83 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 I present the annual report of the Security Appeals Tribunal for the period 1 to 30 June 1980.

page 1479

GENEVA CONVENTIONS DISSEMINATION COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report for 1979 of the Geneva Conventions Dissemination Committee to the Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Australian Red Cross Society.

page 1479

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a statement relating to the establishment of an Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence.

page 1479

FAWNMAC GROUP OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a statement relating to the sale of the Fawnmac group of pharmaceutical companies.

page 1479

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the Government’s response to the 172nd report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the financing and administration of property owned or leased overseas by the Commonwealth Government.

page 1479

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1 979-80 of the Department of Postal and Telecommunications Department.

page 1479

GALBALLY REPORT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on action taken to implement the Galbally report on post-arrival programs and sevices to migrants, together with a statement relating to that report.

page 1479

EDUCATION

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

For the information of honourable members I present a report on Progress in Education 1980-81.

page 1479

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Government’s response to the report by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on tourism in the Australian Capital Territory.

page 1480

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960 I present the text of the annual report for 1979-80 of the National Library of Australia.

page 1480

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 I present the twenty-third annual report of the National Capital Development Commission.

page 1480

CONSUMER AFFAIRS COUNCIL

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973 I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Consumer Affairs Council and the Consumer Affairs Bureau of the Australian Capital Territory.

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

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, (1) authorises the publication of the report of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau for the year 1979-80, and (2) that the report be printed.

page 1480

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE

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

– Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972 I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

page 1480

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970 I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board.

page 1480

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman wishes to make a personal explanation? He may proceed.

Mr MORRIS:

– During the adjournment debate of 16 September at page 1347, Hansard shows me as having said that the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) referred to Mr George Crawford as being the President of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party of Australia. Hansard states further on line 5 of page 1347 that I said that Kevin Hardiman is the President of the Liberal Party in Victoria. I did not make those statements. The error was one by Hansard in its recording and Hansard has corrected its own record. I make the correction for the information of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I note that Hansard acknowledges the error. It is very rare for an error to be made by Hansard so we will accept it on this occasion.

page 1480

DEFENCE: MULTINATIONAL TRAINING EXERCISES

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave - I informed the House on 19 February 1980, when I outlined the Government’s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, that we intended discussing with our regional friends the further development of our defence relations with them. Amongst the specific measures that I mentioned then were combined exercises between the Australian Defence Force and forces of our South East Asian neighbours. The resilience of independent regional countries is an important element in contributing to regional stability, and the abiding security interests we have in common with our neighbours call for continuing consultation and co-operation in the defence field. The Government regards such cooperation as a long term measure of major importance.

I am pleased to be able to inform honourable members that I took the opportunity during the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in New Delhi to hold further consultations on defence matters with the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Hussein Onn, and with the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. We all agreed that all three countries would gain much from the conduct by our respective defence forces of multinational exercises. It was agreed that we should initially look to conducting these under the auspices of the five-power defence arrangements of which we are all a part. Since returning from New Delhi, I have consulted with my British and New Zealand colleagues. They have indicated that they endorse what is proposed. There is therefore now agreement in principle between all partners of the five-power defence arrangements.

Honourable members may be aware that the last major exercise involving all participants in the Five Power Arrangements, including both ground and air forces, took place in 1970. Air defence exercises are regularly held in the Malaysia and Singapore area and there are frequent bilateral exercises involving ground forces of the various participants. For example, today there are Singapore soldiers in Townsville preparing to take part in an exercise with Australian troops. An infantry company of the Malaysian army took part in a similar exercise in Australia in May-June last year. Now that we are all agreed that exercises having a more distinctive multinational character should be reinstituted, we will be taking early action towards this end with Malaysia and Singapore. It would be our hope that there would be at least one significant multinational exercise each year together with other exercises as appropriate. I have given instructions with the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) that Australia should move with full vigour to help put the agreement into practical effect.

Singapore recently requested that the Singapore armed forces be permitted to carry out their training exercises in agreed training areas in Australia. A small country, Singapore faces exceptional difficulties in finding adequate training space for its armed forces on its own territory. The Singapore request is for facilities to enable them to exercise their commanders and units, some of quite substantial size, of their ground forces. Some naval training and air crew training of some significance is also envisaged. Included in the last named is a request to deploy and maintain at Nowra Naval Air Station a small number of Skyhawk aircraft to facilitate advanced pilot training. We have been pleased to agree to Singapore forces conducting training exercises in Australia and have also agreed to their specific request to deploy Skyhawk aircraft to Nowra. All this has been discussed with Malaysia as a member of the five-power defence arrangments. I have already emphasised Australia’s abiding interest in the security of the area to our north. The Government is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to meeting the special needs of other regional countries. Indeed, I made this clear during my discussions in New Delhi.

Australia would agree to Australian training facilities being used by Singapore and other countries which are parties to the five-power defence arrangements, for example Malaysia if that were its wish. We are exploring with the Malaysian and Singapore governments arrangements for high level talks on a broad range of matters in the defence field including those to which I have already referred. I have indicated to Prime Minister Hussein Onn and to Prime Minister Lee our readiness to have the secretaries of the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and the Chief of the Defence Force Staff visit Kuala Lumpur and Singapore for discussions at an early date. The Government regards this increased co-operation and training between Singapore, Malaysia and Australia as something of real significance for the kind of relationship which has been developed and which will now be further enhanced by these measures. We regard it as something which is important in the light of changed strategic circumstances. I am delighted that, in New Delhi, it was plain that the Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore were obviously of a completely common mind with Australia on these matters. I present the following paper:

Defence: Multinational Training Exercises - Ministerial Statement, 18 September 1980

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The Australian Labor Party has no objection in principle to the multinational exercises and arrangements of the type that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has outlined today. The Opposition is also glad that the Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia are in accord with the Australian Government on at least this matter. We, as a nation, have responsibilities for assisting our friends and for assisting in the maintenance of stability in that area of the world in which we reside and where our security is as uniformly important to us as it is to that of the region in which we operate. Our responsibilities in this area extend not only to the north but also significantly to the east, into the South Pacific. That will be a significant and growing area of responsibility for Australia in the near future, especially with the substantial withdrawal of British influence, the effective withdrawal of United States influence and the very likely withdrawal of French influence from this area.

However Australia has to be careful that it is not again drawn into activities such as those which brought us into the Vietnam area. Also in co-operating with and assisting countries to the north we should ensure that the activities undertaken by the Australian Government do not assist or formulate situations whereby Australian assistance can be used for internal purposes against persons who disagree with or oppose the governments of the countries concerned. There is in Australia a very deep feeling of concern about the situation in Indonesia and especially about the situation in East Timor in the not-too-distant past. Quite obviously, military capacities which had been assisted by- various forms of Australian aid and training were used against the population of East Timor. The situation in that country must still give rise to serious concern for an Australian government, of whatever political colour. I refer to the exclusion from that country of independent news services when those services do not toe the internal government line and the repetition of reports from independent international agencies of the denial of civil liberties and the suppression of the rights of citizens. We have no shortage of evidence of the denial of civil rights of individuals in the Soviet Union and in most of the communist bloc countries, but I have noted in recent years that the subject of the denial of civil liberties in China is no longer fashionable amongst the conservative parties in this country. I think it is almost fair to say that our foreign policy is being tuned fairly closely to the requirements of the Chinese Government.

The situation, both military and political, in which we find ourselves with regard to the Asian area is, I think, one of supporting double standards. In distant places we are vocal and always prepared to make statements about civil rights in such situations. A week ago we even had the strange situation of the Prime Minister of this country supporting strikes in Poland. I am sure that, if those strikes had occurred in Australia, he would have had a different attitude. I think we are in an untenable position relative to Kampuchea because we are now joint sponsors of resolutions for Kampuchea to retain its seat at the United Nations. I think that is a position which no Australian government can, with conscience, support.

The Pol Pot regime was arguably the worst and the most inhuman regime in the last 1,000 years of history. The regime of Idi Amin may have rivalled it, but I doubt it. The atrocities carried out against a whole population now have the tacit support of Australia, which is something we ought to look on with absolute shame. Derecognition of that regime would not mean that we recognise the Heng Samrin Government or support the seat of that Government in the United Nations. There are precedents for United Nations seats not to be occupied by the government of the country concerned. There are precedents which indicate that the Australian position on Kampuchea is totally immoral and totally improper and gives credence and support to a regime which no Australian honestly could say that he supports in any way at all. It is a political exercise for which Australia should be damned, although it is only the responsibilitj of its Government.

I wish to make one other point relating to the use by other countries of Australian territory for military exercises. Substantial training already is undertaken by persons from other countries in our military academies, with our armed forces and certainly in other aspects of day to day life. This form of assistance has a long history and I do not think it has been challenged by any government. The extension which appears to be involved in this statement concerns the use of Australian territory for private military operations - that is, single country operations. The Australian Labor Party would wish to ensure that any such activities were supervised by and under the control of Australian military personnel and were properly carried out and that whatever activities were undertaken on Australian soil were not activities which we would find objectionable or which we would not allow if Australian forces or citizens were involved in them. We have an entitlement and a right to ensure that whatever occurs on Australian soil occurs with the agreement of and under the supervision of the Australian government of the day, whichever government is in office.

This country, by this exercise, is once again tying itself both politically and militarilyalthough, I fancy, not commercially - into the South East Asian area. We are leaving ourselves open, because of our almost deafening silence on civil liberties in those areas, to the accusation that we could be giving tacit approval to, or providing visible support to, the suppression of civil liberties in those areas. I hope that any agreement we enter into on exercises and supply of military aid and on the use of Australian territory to enhance the capacity of military forces from those areas is accompanied by a clear understanding that we are not facilitating the improvement of military forces for use against citizens of those countries, to suppress opposition to governments of those countries or to suppress the emergence of civil, political and academic rights.

One of the problems we face with respect to governments which are not concerned with democratic practices is that any support we give can result in a further suppression of the rights of individuals. That has to be weighed against the necessary stability of the area and the obvious intent and wish to stabilise and to improve the military situation in the area. It appears that this announcement coincides with the decision of the Australian Government to withdraw military support in some form from the South East Asian area. The announcement made earlier this week related to the stationing in Darwin of a squadron of our new fighter aircraft- which I now understand will be chosen some time next year - and to the provision of facilities for housing of the aircraft there. The consequence of that almost certainly will be the removal of our fighter squadrons from Butterworth in Malaysia. That will be an unpopular decision but one which, in our national defence interests, has to be made.

In all probability we will also be withdrawing from Butterworth the Royal Australian Air Force units which operate on station in Singapore. That is a consequence of the previous decision and probably almost parallels the 1973 decision to bring Australian forces out of Singapore but to extend our exercises with countries in the region to ensure that their military capacities and the stability of the area were protected. Australia has something to gain from this type of military activity. I suggest to the Minister for Defence in the next government, whoever he is, that some arrangement be made whereby officers and units of the Australian Defence Force Reserve can be involved in these exercises to the levels permitted by their training so that they can have first-hand and high level experience in military exercises which will enhance their ability to support the Australian defence forces. The United States National Guard engages in exercises as a frontline operation. Because of this its degree of preparedness and the degree of support it receives in the community is so much greater.

However, the Australian Defence Force Reserve at the moment lacks adequate protection for its civilian members if they are in any way injured while participating in the reserve forces. So far, this House and the Government has failed to provide that cover which would ensure that a member of the Defence Force Reserve who gave of his time and took whatever risks were involved in undergoing military training would not be seriously jeopardised in his future civilian life because of those activities. The Opposition does not object in principle to the announcement by the Prime Minister. When the Government has been changed after the end of October we will be looking to deal with the details to ensure that Australia’s interests and the interests of the people of the countries concerned are protected by proper discussions. We will look forward to the discussions that the Prime Minister has announced he has set up for us with the leaders of the countries concerned.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 1483

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SOVIET UNION

Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– by leave - Before I commence my remarks concerning the Government’s response to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on ‘Human Rights in the Soviet Union’ I draw to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery opposite me of Mr Valentyn Moroz, a Ukranian who spent 13 years in Soviet prisons and forced labour camps for disseminating anti-Soviet propaganda. I think all members of the House will warmly welcome him here today as I give the Government’s response to the parliamentary committee’s report.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr PEACOCK:

– The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Human Rights in the Soviet Union’ was presented to the Parliament on 8 November 1979. The inquiry which led to this report arose from the presentation of a petition in the House of Representatives on 2 November 1976 by the Honourable W. C. Wentworth who was then the member for Mackellar. The petition requested the Australian Government to take up with the Soviet Union the issue of alleged Soviet discrimination against Soviet jewry. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence appointed, on 6 September 1977, a sub-committee to inquire and report on the status of Soviet jewry. It resolved on 18 November 1977 to enlarge the terms of reference of the sub-committee to the following:

Human rights in the Soviet Union bearing in mind Australia’s support for the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement.

I say at the outset that the brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which has occurred since the Committee tabled its report has provided stark new evidence of the Soviet Union’s disregard for individuals and their human rights. Whilst the Helsinki Accords cover relations with Europe, they nevertheless involve a universal commitment. Soviet intervention in Afghanistan has breached not only the most fundamental human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords but also all other principles of the Accords such as refraining from the threat or use of force and nonintervention in the internal affairs of other states and self-determination of peoples - to name but a few.

The Government has considered the Joint Committee’s report and regards it as a very significant contribution to the knowledge of this Parliament and the Australian public at large of the internal processes of the Soviet Union, a vast and complex country whose aggressive actions have been debated in this Parliament at great length. Though a number of other parliaments and governments have given substantial attention to this problem over the years, to the Government’s knowledge this inquiry of the Joint Committee is the first official parliamentary inquiry into the general subject of human rights in the Soviet Union. The Government considers that the members of the Joint Committee, and in particular its Sub-Committee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union, chaired by Senator Wheeldon, are to be commended for their application in following through this most difficult task, and for the honesty of purpose which they brought to their inquiry.

The report is impressive notwithstanding the limits within which the inquiry had to operate. One particular limitation, to which the report draws attention, was that despite persistent efforts by the Sub-committee, no evidence was received by it from any official representative of the Soviet Government. It is clear from the report, however, that the inquiry went to some lengths to examine official Soviet material concerning human rights questions. It would be difficult to maintain that the conclusions of the report would have been substantially different had evidence been submitted by representatives of the Soviet Government. There are very clear indications throughout the text of the report that there has been a very scrupulous concern for the balance and objectivity of its judgments.

In his preface to the report Senator Wheeldon, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, addresses the question of why the Committee should study the situation of human rights in one country, namely the Soviet Union, when it appears that there are numerous countries throughout the world where human rights and civil liberties are denied. The Government considers the Chairman’s justifications to be most convincing. In the first place, not only is the Soviet Union a superpower with world-wide interests and ambitions, but also it promotes its own social and political system as the road to be taken sooner or later by all mankind. It does this not just through propaganda, but by patronage of revolutionary movements seeking to impose communism and by the use of its military might wherever opportunities arise. Australia of course has for long been the object of such attention in the form of the Soviet

Union’s continuing support for the communist movement in this country. Australian communists, whose declared purpose is to see our parliamentary democracy replaced by revolutionary means, are received with honour in Moscow and decorated for their efforts. But notwithstanding these considerations, the Soviet Union of course rejects all outside criticism of its own system as illegitimate interference in its internal affairs. The Government, needless to say, finds such a proposition spurious, and thus unacceptable.

Sixty-five points are set out in the conclusions and recommendations of the report. Fifty-three of these are conclusions derived from the evidence given the Committee and are all accepted by the ‘ Government. Quite obviously it would not be practicable to comment on these S3 conclusions individually. Collectively, they constitute a grim picture of a massive abuse of human rights in the Soviet Union. I note that a number of members of the Joint Committee have entered some reservations concerning the report. In particular, three members from the other side of the House have expressed general reservations about the report. Even they, however, concede that ‘based on the substantial evidence available, the civil rights of certain groups, especially minorities, in the Soviet Union are seriously infringed and fall below that which should be expected in any civilised society’. There would therefore seem to be some scope for a bipartisan attitude towards the issues raised in this report.

In brief terms the report notes that the best available estimate, which comes from Amnesty International, is that there are at least 10,000 political and religious prisoners in the Soviet Union, of whom at least 2,000 have been imprisoned for their religious beliefs. Western authorities have estimated that at any time some 300 Soviet dissidents are believed to be held in prison psychiatric hospitals and more in ordinary psychiatric hospitals. There is a good deal of evidence indicating that those identified as refuseriks, Soviet Jews who have publicised the Soviet Government’s refusal of their exit visas, have numbered in recent years between 2,000 and 2,500.

Quotations from some of the more general of the report’s conclusions sum up the situation. It states:

It would seem that there are several thousand Soviet citizens who have had the courage to attempt to exercise their rights to freedom of belief or freedom of expression, nominally guaranteed them in the Soviet Constitution, and enshrined in the international conventions on human rights to which the USSR is a party . . . These men and women are singled out for especially severe treatment within the Soviet legal and penal systems . , . Soviet dissidents cannot hope for any positive intervention on their behalf from those Soviet institutions that are intended to provide prisoners with an avenue of appeal . . . Conditions in the Soviet prison system are harsh, brutal, and degrading of human dignity. . . The Soviet Union is systematically abusing psychiatry through the forced treatment of mentally healthy people in order to ‘cure’ them of their political or religious beliefs . . .

The Government accepts these comments as a reflection of the terrible plight of some thousands of people in the Soviet Union. The Government notes with the deepest concern that Soviet citizens cannot depend on the guarantees of the Soviet Constitution, because the repressive state apparatus ensures that those guarantees are meaningless.

I now turn to the 13 recommendations put forward in the report.

Recommendation in paragraph5

The recommendation in paragraph 5 of the report’s conclusions and recommendations is that whenever possible the Australian Embassy in Moscow should send observers to Soviet political trials, and should keep the Australian Government informed on human rights violations. The Government accepts this recommendation, while noting that there will be limits on the Embassy’s ability to carry out the recommended role. Some of these limits will be imposed by the Soviet Government which seeks to prevent outside observance of such trials for reasons which are apparent to all; others will be as a result of the Embassy’s small resources. In recent years the Embassy has been directed to seek to observe a political trial in the Soviet Union, and it has reported extensively on human rights there.

Recommendation in paragraph 26

The recommendation in paragraph 26 is that the Government request the Soviet Government not to circulate in Australia, and on Soviet cruise ships in Australian waters, Soviet books and pamphlets which contain the type of anti-Semitic material quoted in the report. The Government is prepared to act on this recommendation and will approach the Soviet Embassy accordingly. Further approaches will be made should specific items cause offence. Honourable members will be aware that Soviet cruise vessels ceased operations in Australian waters from the end of May.

Recommendationin paragraph 31

The recommendation in paragraph 31 is that the Government use judiciously applied pressure on the Soviet authorities, so that the USSR will allow those Soviet citizens to emigrate who wish to be reunited with relatives in Australia. This recommendation is accepted by the Government. It has been and will continue to be the practice of the Government to make governmenttogovernment representations in those cases where there is a specific Australian interest. The majority of these cases involve family reunions.

Recommendation in paragraph 35

The recommendation in paragraph 35 is that the Government request the United Nations Secretary-General to utilise the United Nations information service in Moscow to make available copies of United Nations conventions on human rights. The Government accepts that recommendation. It has already taken steps to promote the dissemination of international instruments on human rights in all countries, including the USSR. The Australian delegation to the recent session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has actively promoted Australian initiatives aimed at securing wider publicity, at all levels, of the work of the United Nations in the field of human rights. These initiatives will set in motion a program for the wide dissemination of the international instruments in as many languages as possible. The relevant resolutions have all been adopted by consensus, involving, ironically enough, the support of the Soviet Union. The Commission in 1979 also adopted by consensus a resolution on the international covenants on human rights which urges all governments to publish the texts of the covenants and to disseminate them to make them known as widely as possible within their territories. In light of this activity I consider that further action by Australia would not be appropriate until the time comes, probably next year, to review the implementation of these resolutions.

Recommendation in paragraph 48

The recommendation in paragraph 48 is that the Government give consideration to seeking the establishment of a permanent, independent, international organisation to inquire into the abuse of psychiatry for political purposes. The Government has considered this proposal but takes the view that existing forums, particularly the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the World Health Organisation, would seem to provide adequate scope for inquiries of this kind. The Commission on Human Rights has in recent years been examining the question of the abuse of psychiatry, and the General Assembly has now received from the World Health Organisation a draft code of medical ethics which is currently under study. A proposal to set up a new international organisation would cut across these studies and would be unlikely to attract the support from other governments necessary for success.

Recommendation in paragraph 50

The recommendation in paragraph 50 is that the Government make every use of appropriate opportunities to:

  1. give full support for the principles contained in the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement;
  2. join other democracies in protesting against the repression of Soviet citizens who are monitoring the extent of the USSR’s compliance with the Helsinki Agreement; and
  3. seek the release from Soviet prisons and labour colonies of those Soviet citizens who have been imprisoned merely because of their Helsinki ‘watch group’ activities.

Australia is not a participant in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe - CSCE - which produced the Final Act in Helsinki. The Government has made it very clear, however, that it gives its full support to the principles contained in the Helsinki Final Act including those concerning human rights and civil liberties. We accept this recommendation. It was intended that compliance with the Final Act should be monitored not only by the CSCE governments, but also by the citizens of participating states. Such activity is encouraged by the Final Act and the Soviet Union’s repression and imprisonment of those who seek to monitor its provisions is one of its more blatant and hypocritical abuses of that Final Act. The Government is on record as strongly condemning these shameless abuses. We most certainly wish to see the release of these unfortunate people and the Government stands willing to lend its weight to international initiatives aimed at their release. The Government has strongly supported recent resolutions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on these issues and has added its voice to the many expressions of international concern at the fate of the prominent dissidents Sharansky and Sakharov.

Recommendation in paragraph 58

The recommendation in paragraph 58 is that in the course of bilateral discussions or negotiations with the USSR, the Government takes the opportunities that arise to state its disapproval of Soviet breaches of human rights. The Government accepts this recommendation. It has been the Government’s practice to register from time to time with a number of governments, including that of the USSR, public and official concern felt in Australia over abuses of human rights in those countries. The Government will continue to register these concerns. I might add that it is the Government’s experience that such approaches are more likely to be productive, in terms of alleviating actual human suffering, if attention can be drawn on these occasions to particular cases with a specific Australian connection.

Recommendation in paragraph 60

The recommendation in paragraph 60 is that Australia’s representatives at the United Nations and its agencies, particularly the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, be instructed to use these forums to raise human rights issues. The recommendation, of course, is already being implemented. The Commission on Human Rights is one of a number of bodies in which Australia takes an active part in the broad humanitarian work of the United Nations. Indeed, I remind honourable members that the Government’s singular commitment to human rights was recognised by our election to the Commission on Human Rights in 1978 and by Australia’s reelection to the Commission in May of this year for a further three-year term. Australia last participated as a member of the Commission as long ago as 1956. It took an initiative from this Government to have Australia elected to the Commission. This success was achieved in the face of strong competition and was a tribute to the leading role played by Australia in the previous three years in the development of the Commission’s procedures as well as in the evolution of its human rights philosophy. We will be playing a similarly active role during our forthcoming term.

The United Nations has made considerable progress in setting standards to be respected by member states for the rights and liberties of individuals and groups. In view of the gulf that exists between the setting of standards in international treaties and their implementation there is a pressing need to make the existing United Nations machinery stronger and more effective. Not only is it necessary for such bodies as the Commission on Human Rights to become more responsive to evidence of human rights violations, wherever they may have occurred, but also it is incumbent on us to ensure that the framing of human rights resolutions does not undermine the values expressed in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international covenants on human rights. Australia’s support for these values has been strongly reaffirmed with the Government’s recent decision to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This covenant, together with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, forms the backbone of the International Bill of Human Rights.

I have welcomed the decision of the Commission on Human Rights at its most recent session, in February, to adopt a strongly worded resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the resulting violations of human rights in that country. The Australian delegation also supported moves to have the Commission’s concern at the exile of Academician Sakharov brought to the attention of the Soviet authorities. Sakharov continues to be harassed and humiliated in isolated exile, deprived of his human rights and professional activity, simply for having the courage to speak his mind.

Recommendation in paragraph 62

The recommendation at paragraph 62 is that the Government try to persuade the Soviet Government that the USSR would be seen in a more favourable light if large numbers of its political and religious prisoners were released from prisons, labour colonies and psychiatric hospitals before the Olympic Games. Moscow’s ‘preparations’ for the Olympic Games, far from including the release of political and religious prisoners, involved a wave of new detentions and the enforced relocation of dissidents and even children away from the city. Whilst no one could deny the genuine concerns to prevent terrorist attacks, the presence in overwhelming numbers of the KGB and other security organs as well as at least 230,000 militia was clearly designed to insulate the Soviet people from human contacts with visitors and to prevent Western visitors from being exposed to the starker realities of Soviet life. Such practices were in direct contravention of the USSR’s obligations under Basket Three of the Helsinki Accords.

Honourable members will be aware thu this recommendation of the report was overtaken by the efforts of many governments, including Australia’s, to boycott the Moscow Olympic Games as a consequence of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Though incomplete, the boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow was undeniable in its effect. It denied the Soviet Union both the total propaganda victory and the comprehensive endorsement of its policies which it had hoped to achieve. It helped focus the world’s attention on the Soviet Union, on its activities in Afghanistan, and on Soviet foreign policy in general. It demonstrated plainly to the Soviet leadership the reality and depth of international anger at Soviet behaviour in Afghanistan.

Recommendation in paragraph 63

The recommendation in paragraph 63 is that the Government not allow the So1iet Government to take academic, cultural, scientific and other exchanges for granted. It should be made clear to the Soviet Union that these exchanges could be discontinued as a result of human rights violations. Whilst the Government accepts this recommendation, I note that in the terms it was put forward it has been largely overtaken by the Government’s decision to act to curtail relations with the Soviet Union in a number of fields as a response to the Soviet Union’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. For all practical purposes Soviet-Australian bilateral academic, cultural and scientific exchanges have been suspended. There is no longer any question of the Soviet Union taking them for granted. The Government accepts, however, that such contacts can provide channels through which concern on human rights issues can be conveyed.

Recommendations in paragraph 64

There are two recommendations in paragraph 64: Firstly, that the Government suggest to the Soviet Union that it may be possible to arrange a reciprocal exchange of views in Soviet and Australian newspapers, and in other publications; and, secondly, that Australia seek the right to distribute publications in the Soviet Union, in the same way as the USSR is allowed to do in Australia. Whilst the Government understands the sentiments behind these recommendations, in the light of the Soviet practices outlined in this report, there are no grounds for believing that proposals on these lines would gain any useful response from the Soviet Union. The Government stands ready to participate in a reciprocal exchange of views in the newspapers of both countries - indeed, I hereby give notice to the Soviet Union that we are willing. But I do not expect that this challenge will be answered. The report also makes clear that the prospects for reciprocal rights to distribute publications in the Soviet Union are not bright. Should we therefore place bans on Soviet publications in Australia? I think not. We should not seek to emulate in this country those fearing and restrictive policies of the Soviet Union which have contrived to take meaning from the printed word in that country. Our society is strong enough for us to remain indifferent to the availability of Soviet material here.

Recommendation in paragraph 65

The final recommendation, in paragraph 65, is that the Parliament establish a standing committee on human rights to report on serious violations of human rights in any country, including Australia. This is a matter for the Parliament rather than the Government to decide. I note, however, that four members of the Joint Committee have entered reservations on this recommendation. Two have noted that inquiries by the parliament of one country into the affairs of another country have implications which can be detrimental to external relations with countries which have different political systems, traditions, cultures and attitudes. Another has expressed the view that Australia can best work towards the strengthening of human rights throughout the world by lending its full support to the appropriate international organisations. The Government broadly shares these views and suggests that it would be adequate to maintain the present practice whereby human rights matters may be referred to existing committees as may be considered appropriate. Broad issues of foreign policy can of course be considered by the two parliamentary foreign affairs and defence committees under existing procedures which are adequate for the purpose. The report we are now considering is testimony to this. I could also note that effective and important work is already being done informally by the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International. I support its activities and believe that its informality and its broad base in the Parliament enables it to achieve more, and often more quickly, than a formal committee could.

Before I conclude I would like to refer briefly to what is now occurring in Poland. Events there have drawn attention again to questions of European security. They also point to the continuing struggle by people who live under Soviet control to achieve the basic freedoms of life which we in the West take for granted. Poland’s workers have acted with great courage and dignity in their efforts to establish free trade unions and it is significant that their demands include other fundamental principles of civil liberty and human rights. If Polish workers are successful - and one must hope that the authorities in that country will honour their undertakings to carry out those reforms in practice- this development will be of immense importance. It will have far-reaching implications not only for the people of Poland but also for those countries of Eastern Europe whose people have for so long been deprived of their basic rights and freedoms. Above all, it will demonstrate again that the people of Eastern Europe are not prepared to accept the oppressions and indignities of the Soviet model of human existence.

From recent reports it is also abundantly clear that abuses of human rights continue unabated within the Soviet Union itself in flagrant disregard of the spirit of the Helsinki Final Act and the other international conventions to which that country remains a signatory. I refer particularly to the recent trials of Father Yakunin, a Russian Orthodox priest, Tatyana Velikanova, and the lengthening of the sentence of Yuri Orlov, one of the founders of the Helsinki Monitoring Group. These continued abuses of the rights of Soviet citizens underline the necessity of heightened public consciousness, and condemnation of such policies. The bipartisan character of the Committee’s report makes an invaluable and timely contribution to that task. I present the following paper:

Human Rights in the Soviet Union - Ministerial Statement, 18 September 1980.

Motion (by Mr Groom) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 29 minutes.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on ‘Human Rights in the Soviet Union’ to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) has just spoken does present scope for a bipartisan attitude towards many issues raised in the report. Let me say at the outset that the report refers to the fact that this matter was referred to the Committee as the result of a petition presented by a former member of this House. I am also reminded by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) that for some years he has been pressing for the establishment of a standing committee on human rights. He was anxious that that issue should be adverted to. He is also anxious that we might draw attention to the fact that whilst the Committee sponsored the suggestion that there be a standing committee on human rights, the Government did not see fit to adopt such a suggestion at this stage. I notice that four of the Government members of the Committee disapproved of that recommendation. There has been a bipartisan attitude over a long period. The honourable member for Hawker is entitled to express an opinion. After all, he has worked in the background to get reports, such as the one before us, brought forward.

The report makes it clear that the Australian Labor party has been anxious to condemn the violations of human rights in the Soviet Union just as strongly as anybody else. Let me make it clear that the Chairman of the sub-committee which drew up the report was Senator John Wheeldon, a very forthright defender of human rights throughout the world. As honourable members know, human rights do not know any boundaries. They are not limited to one country. It is a world ideal; it is a world essential. I want to make a basic point on behalf of the Opposition. The Soviet Union continues to violate basic human rights and does so flagrantly. Its human rights record is a sorry one. The report puts that beyond doubt. But do not just let us limit it to that. The Minister for Foreign Affairs took the opportunity to introduce some politically highly coloured comments in the statement. For example, on page 4 of the statement he raises the Soviet bogy as an internal threat to the security of Australia through the Communist Party. The way in which the Minister has expressed himself makes me doubt whether he really believes what he said.

Mr Yates:

– That is childish.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– The Minister in his statement said:

Australia of course has for long been the object of such attention–

The honourable member for Holt is a recent migrant so let me give him a bit of history. The Minister continued:

In the form of the Soviet Union’s continuing support for the communist movement in this country.

It is fashionable to kick the communist can at election time. However, let me make it very clear that the one party which opposes communists in this country is the Labor Party. It is the very party that is out in the front line fighting for ideals so that we can get a better share of the wealth for Australians. It is a matter of record that the particular Communist Party in Australia referred to now has a membership of probably less than 400.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– You are a bit too sensitive.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– The honourable member has always adopted a view that if the suggestion can be made that everything is communist he will get a vote out of it. Let us look at the program of what we are about.

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

– Order! The Minister was heard in silence. I ask that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be heard in silence too.

Mr Yates:

– He is so provocative.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I have to be provocative when I consider the history of this country. You were not in this country when we had a referendum to ban the Communist Party. The referendum was thrown out by the Australian people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will address the Chair and not other members of the House.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– If the Soviet Union’s patronage of such a revolutionary movement to impose communism is the threat that the Minister seems to think it is, we would expect it would have been carried out with far more effectiveness than has been the case. What has been happening is that the membership of the communist group in Australia has long been declining.

The Minister raised the question of the Olympic Games. We are glad that he did. He said that the boycott was undeniable in its effect, it helped put world attention on Soviet foreign policy in general and it demonstrated to the Soviet leadership the reality and depth of international anger at Soviet behaviour. I have often felt that the Minister makes a lot more sense when he speaks off the cuff and expresses his own views than when he reads statements. I think the Minister was able to express what he felt on the Willesee program of 7 January last. When referring to the boycott of the Olympic Game, he said:

It is not a matter to which I am particularly moved … I am not altogether sure that Russia will suffer.

The Minister was absolutely correct; he was absolutely on target. It is a pity that in retrospect he feels constrained to continue to support the failed policy of an Olympic boycott which his Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) imposed upon him and his colleagues. Let us make it very clear, human rights go out the window if roubles can come in the door. The Government has traded furiously on the basis of money and that is where it has failed in Australian public opinion polls.

All Australians will not forget the attitude of the Prime Minister during the Games. In fact at that time his public appeal plummeted from an already low ebb. When our athletes were winning medals in Moscow the Prime Minister, in a most un-Australian way, refused even to congratulate them. Let us place on record that the Olympic ideals are about peace throughout the world. They are about individual merits. They have nothing to do with nations winning medals. Individuals win medals, not nations. That is what has to be clearly understood. We, as Australians, were able to congratulate the team. The Prime Minister could not bring himself to do it until a very belated hour of the day. When the same winners come here it is a little late for the Prime Minister to send a message around that he would like to congratulate them.

Let us put the right issue up front. We are concerned about human rights in the world. But what about human rights in our own region? What about the fact that we cannot say we have legislated for human rights in Australia. We have not been able to do that. We take pride in the fact that we were on the International Human Rights Commission in 1978 and that we were re-elected again in 1980. But we have failed to legislate for human rights in Australia. Whilst we applaud the workers of Poland because they went on strike, we want to gaol our workers in Australia if they dare strike. If they dare march down the streets of Brisbane they are likely to be gaoled. If they have a meeting in the Pilbara they are likely to be gaoled. How is it then that there is no mention of human rights in Australia or our region? Why do we always have to be dictated to by Mr BjelkePetersen and Sir Charles Court? The honourable gentleman is a better Minister than that and he can do better than that.

Let us get back to the question we are about. What about human rights elsewhere? Many Australians have families overseas. For example, what has the Government to say about human rights in Cyprus or about human rights in the Lebanon? We have never heard a word from the Government about what is being done to citizens in those countries whose rights continue to be infringed through invasion.

What about our own region? Are we placing too much exaggeration on human rights in the Soviet Union where the Government has next to no leverage, particularly when its usual policy is to ignore the violation of human rights in other countries? But we do have leverage in other countries. Why do we not use that leverage? The time honoured policy of this Government is to allow countries in our own region to believe that whatever they do to their people, they have nothing to fear from Australia. The message that the Fraser Government has given is that Australia wants to continue business as usual.

The Minister’s statement yesterday on the death-sentence passed on Kim Dae Jung is an honourable exception and I congratulate the Minister on it. This is one of the very rare occasions on which the Minister has threatened that Australia’s bilateral relationship will suffer unless the South Korean regime changes its intentions. But it is a little late in the day. I asked the Minister about this matter, I think 12 months ago. I saw Kim Dae Jung in Seoul in June last year when he was under house arrest. It was pretty clear then that he was going to be removed. He is an idealist. He is not a communist. He loves South Korea. He loves human rights and he was anxious that other people use their influence to guarantee rights for his people. He was one of those men that any country would be proud to have. His only crime was that he had opposed the President of South Korea in 1971 and the ballot was not counted. He has appealed to the world over a period of years about his country. Now he has been condemned to death.

I am glad that the Government has decided to take a strong stand. But that stand could have been taken a long while ago. He has been under house arrest for a long while. Human rights in South Korea have been denied for a very long while. But Kim Dae Jung is not the only victim of human rights violations in south Korea. Recently, South Korean church leaders claimed that beatings and torture have been used against 600 people held on political charges since the student protests took place three months ago. In one case, which the church authorities quoted, a man who had been so badly beaten he could not read was hospitalised and after being released from hospital he was sent back to gaol. In our opinion what the Minister has to do is use his leverage against people such as the South Korean authorities to make them appreciate that what they propose doing to Kim Dae Jung and to countless others–

Mr Peacock:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am most reluctant - using words that are generally accepted on the question of human rights that they know no bounds - to take this point of order. But I have been waiting for 10 minutes for the honourable member to address one of the Parliament’s most thoughtful and detailed discussions on a report on human rights in the Soviet Union. He has not addressed one of those recommendations. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to get him to speak to the matter before the Chair which is the Committee’s report on human rights in the Soviet Union.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)- The Chair was lenient with the Minister when he spoke on human rights in Poland. The Chair has allowed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to go for a certain time, but I now remind him to come back to the statement before the House.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Just a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak to that point of order. At page 10 of the circulated copy of this statement, the Minister says:

The recommendation in paragraph 58 is that, in the course of bilateral discussions or negotiations with the USSR, the Government takes the opportunities that arise to state its disapproval of Soviet breaches of human rights.

The Government accepts this recommendation. It has been the Government’s practice to register from time to time with a number of governments, including that of the USSR, public and official concern felt in Australia over abuses of human rights in those countries.

Where is it so limited?

Mr Peacock:

– You are too sensitive.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– The honourable member is so sensitive about being found out. I want to talk about human rights throughout the world.

Mr Peacock:

– I do not think you are dinkum on this issue.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– You think what?

Mr Peacock:

– I don’t think you are dinkum.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– The honourable member is the one person who is a phoney on this issue.

Mr Peacock:

– You are absolutely outrageously hypocritical on this.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Rubbish! Here is a man who was on trial for his life–

Mr Peacock:

– Absolutely hypocritical!

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– And you have done absolutely nothing about–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Peacock:

– Stick to the issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will keep quiet.

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to relate his remarks, in the rest of his speech, to the subject matter in the statement before the House.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I will do it in the terms of what it is about, as shown on page 10 of the statement, if I can have a bit of silence and less interruption. There is nothing but interruption because the Government is so sensitive about this issue. The statement talks about the Government being concerned from time to time with a number of governments.

How can we have any integrity if we limit it to one government? That is the point I am about.

How much more effective would we be with the Soviet Union, if we were just as strong with South Korea or with Singapore? These are the matters that we want to get clear and not have this stupid nonsense that human rights are only limited to one country.

Mr Peacock:

– Don’t duck the Soviet Union.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Let us talk about another matter. Let us bear in mind that we fought in every country for human rights in the First and Second World Wars. Our dead are buried in many countries, including Singapore. So recently what do we find? Mr Lee Kuan Vew described us as the loafers of the South Pacific. I do not think he is entitled to describe us as the loafers of the South Pacific, particularly when we bear in mind that Australia fought for him and his country. He has an issue to face and we can face him with it at any time. In Australia we are about to have an election on a free basis but he has not had a free election in the last 20 years.

Mr Hodgman:

– What has this to do with the Soviet Union?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– It has everything to do with human rights. Are we to have marked ballot papers like Singapore? Time is running out and the member for Denison is anxious to interject all the time.

Mr Hodgman:

Mr Deputy Speaker–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat and keep quiet while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is speaking. Likewise members of the Opposition will keep quiet while their Deputy Leader is speaking.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– According to Amnesty International, Lee Kuan Yew’s regime uses torture to gain confessions from political detainees. So it is important if we are talking about human rights that we strive for them in countries where we have some leverage. We will not be called loafers; we will not accept that one man can denigrate us when he does not practise human rights in his own country.

Let us talk about human rights in Kampuchea. To his credit, the Minister has declared his position on Australia’s continued recognition of the genocidal Pol Pot regime. It is the opposite to that of his Prime Minister. Again Australia is about to vote in favour of Pol Pot’s representative in the United Nations. This is despite the fact that Pol Pot’s regime fulfils none of the established criteria for diplomatic recognition. Pol Pot does not have effective control of Kampuchea. He does not even have a capital. No one, except possibly the Prime

Minister, could possibly argue that he has the support of the population.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, would you again examine the speech to see its relevance to the Minister’s statement?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair has already ruled on this matter. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– The point I make is about Australia and its position in the world and in this region- the region to which we should be addressing our mind is where we have the power to seek to guarantee human rights. I wish honourable members would understand that. I make that point very clear. Let me make it again. We talk about the recognition in the United Nations of the Pol Pot regime by a government such as ours. It appears to applaud that genocidal regime. Pol Pot’s delegates said when the United Nations last voted on recognition:

My delegation considers that the vote taken just now will give . . . the Government of Democratic Kampuchea a powerful instrument in their struggle.

Again we will vote to continue that sort of recognition. It compromises our position on the question of human rights in the world. I do not think that the Prime Minister can be gratified with that sort of recognition from Pol Pot’s representative, let us make it very clear that we have promised that we will do something to improve the lot of the people in Kampuchea. It cannot be done unless we talk about getting them human rights through ensuring that it is guaranteed that the torture and genocidal regime of Pol Pot has been put to an end.

It is important when we talk about these matters that we refer to what the Government has had to say. A Press statement issued on 13 December 1978 stated that the Government was establishing diplomatic relations with Pol Pot. It stated: the establishment of diplomatic relations would enable Australia to observe for itself developments in Kampuchea and could provide direct access to the Kampuchean authorities on a more regular and sustained basis,

It continued:

In this connection, the Minister referred to the Government’s continuing concern about reports of violations of human rights in Kampuchea. Mr Peacock expressed the hope that the Kampuchean Government’s evident wish to improve its relations with other countries would lead it to modify Us policies to accord more with accepted principles of human rights.

But that regime was worse than that of Adolf Hitler’s. That statement was issued on 13 September 1978. Two Australians were tortured to death by Pol Pot in the same month of that year.

It is essential that, when the Minister responsible for Australia’s stance in world affairs, talks about human rights, he talks about how his Government is behaving in respect of other governments, not only the Soviet Union.

When he returned recently from Kuala Lumpur he said that the recognition of Pol Pot was being reviewed. But it has not been changed. It is being maintained because, against the Minister’s wishes, the Prime Minister is anxious to emphasise the fact that we want to focus on minor issues only. It is important for us in this region that we clearly establish what human rights mean. When we subscribe to the International Covenant on Human Rights, its concepts must apply throughout the world. We have to use our influence in our region on that basis.

Among the many important matters that we must consider is the subject of refugees, including war criminals. There are war criminals throughout the world. Recently the United States has taken a number of steps to facilitate the bringing to justice of war criminals from Europe who have taken refuge in that country. Attorney-General Civeletti made that point when he visited Canberra. I believe that this Parliament and this Government have a responsibility to examine whether the most appropriate procedures are in place in Australia. For example, are there war criminals living in Australia? If so, what action has been taken? Is it a fact that last year documents were tabled in the New South Wales Parliament which concerned collaboration with Nazis in Yugoslavia? I believe that we have not heard the last of that matter. Material may still come to light which will have wider implications.

My reason for bringing all these matters to the attention of the House is that they are not simply limited to the Soviet Union and its failure to observe and flagrant breach of human rights. It is for us to use our influence not only internally but also in the region. It is important that when we talk about our concern for citizens, that that concern applies both to citizens of the world, not just to citizens of Australia. I hope that the suffering and persecution in Europe during the War is not lost sight of. If there are war criminals in Australia and if their offences were perpetrated some 35 years ago, that does not entitle them to escape retribution. These are the matters to which we have addressed our minds.

Whilst the report may be accurate, it is important that we do not look at the matter in a political light and call every communist a traitor of human rights. There are plenty of other traitors who are not communists, particularly in South America and many other areas of the world where human rights are suffering because democracy cannot prevail. It should be placed on record that the Opposition Labor Party is the one party that has been anxious to guarantee that at least in Australia there will be an effective system of human rights. Unfortunately, it could not guarantee that. The Government stands condemned–

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– That is just not correct. Tell us some of the things you did when in government. Absolutely disgraceful!

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– It is correct. Again, I have to answer the continued interjections of the honourable member for Lilley. He is so sensitive. His mind registers these matters and his mouth keeps opening all the time. Where is his pledge to support human rights legislation? We have not got it. We should have it and we should not be entitled to remain as a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights if we do not legislate in accordance with the Covenant. An obligation of that Covenant is that if a member country is a federation, it will legislate in a federal way, and we have failed so to do.

Debate (on motion by Mr Kevin Cairns) adjourned.

page 1493

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1980. Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1980. Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill 1980. Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill 1980.

page 1493

HOUSING

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

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

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

The Fraser Government’s neglect in providing adequate housing 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 UREN:
Reid

– After unemployment, the most serious social problem facing Australia at present is housing. After five years of the Fraser Government’s harsh strategy of neglect of social needs, the housing problem is worse. While many people are becoming more insecure in terms of shelter, the Fraser Government has become less concerned. The Federal Government’s expenditure on housing has been reduced from 3.9 per cent of total Budget outlays in 1974-75 to one per cent in 1980-81 while the housing needs have increased. I want to concentrate on two of the Fraser Government’s five main housing failures. The first is its failure to ensure equitable access to housing finance; secondly, its failure to contain the rate of inflation in housing prices; thirdly, its failure to provide security of shelter for poverty stricken people and those in need of emergency care; fourthly, its failure to maintain an adequate supply of public housing; and fifthly, its failure to stimulate the stagnant home building industry.

Let us consider the first failure of this Government, which is one of the key reasons why the Government decided to hold a Federal election on 18 October. It is the upward pressure on the home loan interest rate. For example, since the beginning of 1979 we have seen home loan interest rates rise from 9.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent in the case of savings banks, and from 10.75 per cent to 1 1.75 per cent for building societies in New South Wales on a $30,000 loan. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the changes on the home loan interest rates.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service from information shown in the Reserve Bank ‘Statistical Bulletin’ and ‘Financial Corporation Statistics’ published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. This year we have also seen the banks calling on the Federal Government to allow a further one per cent increase in home loan interest rates before the end of the year. We face a very insecure future if the Fraser Government is returned to power as interest rates on housing loans would increase by 2 per cent in the first year. Such a rise would impose inequitable and intolerable costs on the low and middle income earners. A rise in interest rates of one per cent - from 10.5 per cent to 11.5 per cent - would mean an increased repayment burden on home owners, who are repaying a loan of $25,000 over a period of 25 years, of $18 a month. This would add $5,400 to their debt. This penalty would fall upon not only those seeking a new home loan but also those already paying off their homes. Single income earners receiving less than $254 a week would be excluded from access to loans of $25,000 or more. Yet in 1980 the average weekly earnings were $234 and only three out of ten wage and salary earners were receiving that amount. The rise in interest rates would place home ownership out of the reach of a great number of people. A rise of 2 per cent, from 10.5 per cent to 12.5 per cent, would mean an increased repayment burden for home owners of $36.50 a month on a $25,000 loan and would add $11,000 to the total debt. Single income earners receiving less than $272 a week, that is, those whose incomes are less than 116 per cent of average earnings - I might say that is about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of wage earners - would be excluded from access to the finance required to purchase a home.

A loan of $25,000 is not sufficient to enable many first home buyers to purchase a home. At the bottom end of the market in Sydney the price of a new house and land package is $43,000. A deposit of $18,000 would be required if a $25,000 loan were to be obtained. Such a large deposit would take an average wage earner, saving 20 per cent of his income, 8 years to acquire, by which time the price of the house would be out of his reach. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the price rises in the Sydney metropolitan market in the last year.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr UREN:

– The table I incorporated in Hansard shows that house prices in Sydney have risen by 59 per cent over the past year. In some suburbs the prices have doubled and in others they have tripled. According to the monthly surveys conducted by the Real Estate Institute of

Australia, the moving annual median price for established housing in Sydney has risen from $53,000 in July 1979 to $65,000 in June 1980, with the actual monthly median price in June 1980 being $72,000. Clearly, a loan of $25,000 is insufficient for this market. The larger the loan required, the more severe is the impact of the increase in the home loan interest rate. It is clear that this Government has no policies for containing further rises in home loan interest rates. The philosophy of this Government is to withdraw from its responsibility to protect the needs of the people and to leave everything to the so-called market forces in a market that is distorted by the unequal power of big investment and large corporations.

The problems in the housing finance sector are directly related to the broader thrust of this Government’s policies. The Fraser Government is committed to a strategy of resource development at any cost. It is promoting that section of the international corporate sector which is interested in ripping out Australia’s mineral and energy resources at a rapid pace for high profits. The Federal Government is pushing on to the States the heavy social cost of providing the massive physical infrastructure that the largely foreign-owned corporate sector requires. The States have been forced into a position where they have to play off against one another to secure corporate investment in resource development projects. There is a wild rush for capital. The Australian financial market has been crowded as a result of competition for funds to provide electricity supply, ports, roads and the other physical infrastructure necessary for the one-sided pattern of development. The semi-government authorities are offering interest rates of up to 12.3 per cent for the building of power stations to back up the aluminium smelting industry. Banks and building societies can offer only 9 per cent or 10 per cent and as a result there is a squeeze on the liquidity of the housing finance sector and a push for higher home loan interest rates in order to attract investment to the banks and building societies to protect the profits of those institutions. The small lenders are adversely affected. Under the Fraser Government small businesses and low and middle income home buyers are further disadvantaged by higher interest rates.

The second failure of the Fraser Government is its inability and unwillingness to contain house price inflation. According to the Real Estate Institute of Australia, median prices of housing have risen in the last 12 months by an average of 22 per cent in Sydney, 9 per cent in Brisbane, 9 per cent in Canberra and 8 per cent in Perth. With a sharp decline in the vacancy rate in Melbourne, housing prices there are set to rise substantially in the coming year. In the last 1 2 months the price index for materials used in home building has risen by more than 16 per cent. Inflationary pressure is a result of the stagnant condition of the home building industry which nationally, according to the Government’s advisory committee, the Indicative

Planning Council for the Housing Industry, is 1 1 per cent below capacity. In Victoria the housing industry is 22 per cent below capacity and the price index of housing materials rose in that State by more than 18 per cent. There is insufficient activity for the industry to achieve economies without pushing up prices. The tragic irony is that at a time of growing need for housing in the Australian community the industry is in decline. At a time of high unemployment, the housing industry has a large capacity for providing jobs, directly and indirectly, but it is not receiving the stimulus or support from this Government that it requires.

This Government relies on a single program to deal with rising housing prices, that is, the Home Savings Grants Scheme. In the face of increases in house prices which in effect have made the grant useless to the majority of first home buyers, in the recent Budget the Government decided to raise the upper house price level to which the grant may apply. But the new level is still inappropriate and it raises the major problem of inequity because of the wide range of variation in housing prices across Australia. They vary very much from city to city and from State to State. I challenge any member of the Government to find available for sale in a seat held by a supporter of the Government within 30 kilometres of the Sydney General Post Office a home for less than $45,000, which would enable a first home buyer to obtain the full grant from the Home Savings Grants Scheme. In 1978-79 only one out of every five persons who received a home savings grant gained the full value of it. Last year the average grant was only $1258, or 63 per cent of the full grant. In 1980-81 even a smaller proportion of first home buyers will receive the full grant. Of course, they will obtain a partial grant at least nine months after the date of the application. The grant is too small, it is available to too few and it is provided too late to be useful for anything other than furnishing or legal costs.

No government can rely on a single program to resolve the housing problems in Australia, especially so marginal a program as the Home Savings Grants Scheme, which helps only a handful and not those in our community who really need help the most. The new Labor government will implement a wide range of programs to tackle the housing problems on a very broad front. Labor’s policy has three main thrusts. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the housing policy of the Australian Labor Party.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

page 1497

LABOR’S HOUSING POLICY

Basic Objectives

  1. Labor’s housing policy is based on the assumption that everybody has the right to shelter sufficient for them to live with security, dignity and comfort.
  2. Labor believes that people should be free to choose to either buy or rent their accommodation.
  3. It recognises that in the present economic situation many families can only be helped to achieve reasonable housing when a significant part of the stock is in public ownership.
  4. Labor recognises that measures designed to make better use of the existing housing stock must be taken.
  5. Labor recognises that special measures must be taken to slow down the rate of inflation in land and housing prices.
  6. It also recognises that there is a need to discourage financial institutions from making speculative investment in property - particularly land for residential development and Central Business Districts - because it is a major inflationary pressure in the economy, making it difficult for working people to purchase their own home.

Basic Family Housing Policies

  1. Labor will introduce a Family Home Ownership Plan. Under this scheme the Government will make available a Family Home Ownership Grant of $3,000 to eligible first home buyers. It will be paid over the first four years of loan repayment with the first year payment of $1,200; the second year $900; the third year $600; and the fourth year $300. The Grant can be used to increase borrowings or reduce repayments. It will allow for the average income earner additional borrowings of $1 1 ,330 from a savings bank and $9,750 from a building society. The Grant will be made available to single income first home buyers with an income up to $16,000 in the year prior to application, while for first home buyers with a dual income the limit will be $24,000. To qualify for the Grant applicants will be expected to have saved at least $3,000 with a recognised home lending institution over a period of at least 12 months. Arrangements will be made to enable Grant payments to be made direct to the lending institution on behalf of the home buyers. The Home Savings Grant will be continued for those who prefer to receive a $2,000 lump sum payment in preference to the Family Home Ownership Grant. All previous HSG commitments will be honoured.
  2. Labor will introduce a Home Improvement Program in co-operation with State and Local Government. Owner occupiers will be eligible for a loan up to $3,000 with a repayment period of five years. Loans will be made for home improvements such as hot water (including solar), heating, insulation (to economise on energy) , plumbing (including inside toilets) . The loans will be available to single income families with an income up to $12,000 and for dual income families with an income up to $16,000. The interest rate will be in line with Savings Bank home loans. In the first year $7.5m will be provided for the establishment of a revolving fund.
  3. Labor will increase public housing funds by $80m per annum for the construction of new housing as well as for the selective purchase of existing dwellings in inner city areas. Labor will abolish the system of ‘market related rents’ and, with the co-operation of the States, will seek to introduce an averaged’ cost-rent system. Subsidy provisions will be made for tenants in need so that no public housing rent exceeds 20 per cent of household income. These measures will be implemented through a renegotiated Commonwealth State Housing Agreement.

Supplementary Housing Policies

  1. . Labor will establish an earmarked revolving fund to improve the housing of the rural population. The Rural Housing

Improvement Fund Scheme will be developed in collaboration with the States.

  1. Labor will re-establish the Australian Housing Corporation which will - administer the Defence Services Homes Scheme with the objective of eliminating backlog; establish a second mortgage market; introduce deposit insurance schemes to provide security for people investing in building societies; introduce deferred repayment mortgages; and develop and finance cost-rent housing associations and co-operatives.
  2. Labor will increase the supply of land at reasonable prices in appropriate locations in cities where land price inflation remains excessive. Labor will conduct a review of the operation of the Land Commissions to ensure their effectiveness.
  3. Labor will enlist the co-operation of the States in measures to reform and speed up the conveyancing system.
  4. Labor will sponsor the development of energy efficient housing for the different regions of the nation. Labor will establish a program to educate builders and home owners about ways in which energy savings can be made by using modern design and materials. Funds will be made available for research into energy efficient housing designs and materials.
Mr UREN:

– First, Labor will introduce a home ownership assistance scheme. This is a grant of $3,000 that will reduce the deposit gap for first home buyers and allow them to borrow an extra $10,000 at no extra cost. Labor’s scheme will be means tested and those eligible will be persons on single incomes up to $ 1 6,000 and joint incomes up to $24,000. It will not be based on the price of the home. In other words, our scheme will permit those on average weekly earnings to get a loan of at least $35,000. Labor’s scheme will allow first home buyers to get their feet on the first rung of the home ownership ladder. Our scheme also could be used to help reduce the repayment burden of the first four years, when the burden falls heaviest on the family budget. Secondly, Labor will expand the provision of public housing and will make available at least $80m in its first year of government. These funds will allow the construction of new housing as well as selective purchasing of existing dwellings, especially in the inner city areas. Labor’s commitment to expand the supply of public housing will lead to an improvement in the situation for the 1 per cent of Australia’s population who are now homeless, for the 250,000 people living in temporary or mobile accommodation and for over 70,000 families at present on housing commission waiting lists. Our programs will take account of the widespread dislocation caused to people in their places of work and in their homes in the context of the structural change in the economy.

The third main thrust of Labor’s housing program wa be the re-establishment of the Australian Housing Corporation which will have, as one of its main roles, to provide a more stable housing finance liquidity. The need of the Australian Housing Corporation is becoming more obvious in the context of the so-called resource boom which is acting to draw .finance away from the housing sector and away from supporting the people. The main thrusts of the Labor’s housing policy are designed to assist greater security for people in their need of housing.

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

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

– The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has again delivered his set-piece speech filled with the usual emotions and distorted views on the state of housing in this country. The fact is - I know that it is well recognised certainly by a majority of honourable members of this House - that the housing policies and programs of the Fraser Government have been most successful in improving housing conditions in Australia. In administering those policies and programs we have moved forward with strength and with compassion. We have increased opportunities for Australians to obtain a home of their own which is the great dream and ideal of most Australians. In addition this Government has provided very substantial assistance to those people who are in genuine need in the community and who are seeking public housing.

The honourable member for Reid has conveniently, of course, overlooked the record of the Australian Labor Party when in office between 1972 and 1975 when we saw, in this country, so many irresponsible decisions made in the housing field by that Government. It was a disastrous period with housing interest rates rising. If we look at the figures between 1972 and 1975, we see that in 1972 housing interest rates were running at about 8 per cent on average around Australia. By the end of the Labor period in office they were up over 1 1 per cent which was an increase of over three percentage points in housing interest rates in that three year period. It was a time when we saw the cost of house building materials rise by over 60 per cent and waiting lists for welfare housing increase to well over 100,000 which is very much higher than they are at the present time. The Australian people will not allow those mistakes to occur again.

The honourable member for Reid referred to the Sydney housing market. He does tend to focus his attention regularly on the Sydney market. Of course, although Sydney is an important part of Australia, we have a very big country. I suggest to him that he should broaden his view of the country and look at the general situation. The fact is that Sydney is an exception to the rule. I agree that there have been some very large cost increases in housing in that city. I acknowledge that fact. But elsewhere in Australia the rate of cost increases for housing has been relatively low - between 2 and 10 per cent per annum. So I suggest to the honourable member that he should look at the national scene and he will see that Sydney is not a typical case.

I take this opportunity to refer to some of the many achievements of and initiatives taken by the Fraser Government since it gained office in 1975. I do ask honourable members opposite to take note of the details of this list. I ask them to look at how the rate of inflation was running in 1975. It was well over 17 per cent. Now of course it has been reduced to a little over 10 per cent which is a very significant reduction. Since 1975 over one million home seekers have been helped to get a housing loan. That is a very large number of people. Dwelling approvals are up by more than 14 per cent in the last financial year, 1978-80. The honourable member for Reid suggests that that is a decline in housing activity. I suggest to him that he should look at the facts. Nationally the housing industry is in the most stable situation it has been in for many years. That is recognised by leaders of that industry. We have encouraged lenders to maintain lending at high levels. There was a record level of housing loan approvals in 1979-80 with the major lenders - the banks and building societies - lending over $7,000m for the purchase of homes and units and for alterations and additions.

We have implemented responsible and effective policies to restrain housing costs. We undertook a major inquiry to look at the whole subject of housing costs. That inquiry has reported. It has looked at the housing industry and housing finance. Action has been taken on that report. For example, we have established a ministerial council on housing costs involving state and federal ministers to look at these important issues and to see what we can jointly do to restrain housing costs. The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act has been extended to provide grants for building research aimed at reducing housing costs. Again we have established the Australian Uniform Buildings Regulation Co-ordinating Council. That has been formed to seek more uniform and cost-conscious building regulations. That is another important step forward. Of course, the honourable member for Reid mentioned the Home Savings Grant Scheme. The Labor Government made a decision to abolish that scheme. It is an important scheme. It provides very valuable assistance to first home buyers. Soon after this Government took office we reintroduced that, scheme. Since then we have widened the eligibility conditions to include single people as well as married people and the age limit has been removed. Last year we increased the maximum grant payable under that scheme to $2,000 which is a significant amount of money. In the last Budget we increased the value limits applying under the scheme very substantially with a maximum grant payable for house and land worth $45,000 or less and grants finally cutting out where house and land package exceeds $55,000.

In relation to welfare housing the Labor Government had only one approach and that is to spend as much of the taxpayers’ money as possible. If we look at the policies the Opposition has enunciated in recent months we see that the only point in those policies is: ‘let us spend more and more of the taxpayers’ money’. Of course that was the approach when Labor was last in office between 1972 and 1975. The approach failed during those years and I have no doubt that it will clearly fail again. It is interesting to note - I have not heard the honourable member for Reid refer to this in the past - that the ALP cut back total housing funds in its last Budget, for the financial year 1975-76, by over $1 39m. So after three years experience in government at that time the ALP realised that the responsible thing to do was to reduce its expenditure. Of course, the current approach is to go back to the old failed ways and spend massive amounts of public funds because it sees this as the sole solution to housing problems in the community.

The policies enunciated by the Labor Opposition of course, are full of iniquities and inconsistencies. I refer to one matter today and that is the way in which the Labor home ownership scheme discriminates against single income families. I want to refer to some of the details of this. There is a lower means test of $16,000 applying to single income families whereas for double income families the means test is $24,000. For example, a single income couple with six children cannot receive a Labor grant if the total family income exceeds $16,000. But a double income couple with no children can earn $24,000 and still receive a grant. It appears to be deliberate discrimination against the wife who remains at home but, even more so against the couple who have children. It is a thoughtless policy biased against ordinary Australian families.

On the other hand this Government has been fair and just in the administration of housing policies and programs. We have done much to improve the delivery of welfare housing to the community. We have adopted a flexible and constructive approach to welfare housing issues. Our policies make sure that available funds are directed to those people in the community in most need of assistance. There has been good cooperation in the last five years with State governments. We have provided the States with greater autonomy and greater flexibility in the way they handle welfare funds. We have encouraged them to take an innovative approach to welfare housing. Substantial sums have been provided to the States and to the Northern Territory for welfare housing. This financial year $285m will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory for public housing. That is an increase of $1 lm on the amount provided in the previous financial year. Within that total amount, $32.65m will be earmarked for pensioner housing - the largest amount ever given for that purpose - and $22. lm will be provided for Aboriginal housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Again that is the largest amount provided for Aborigines under that Agreement. We have greatly increased the grant component of welfare housing funds to give State governments special opportunities to provide assistance for needy groups in the community. In recent months a special Housing Advisory Council has been formed to provide the Commonwealth Government with advice on housing issues of significance to the housing industry and also on government housing programs.

The honourable member for Reid and many honourable members opposite seem to concentrate their attention on public housing and ignore the private market. The fact is that 90 per cent of households satisfy their housing needs within the private market. The private housing market has served Australia well and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so. The Government’s policies recognise the importance of strengthening and encouraging the private market and, of course, the private housing industry. In Australia we have a housing finance sector, for example, which is based on private enterprise and vigorous competition. The record of private housing finance institutions in Australia stands second to none. Since 1975 the banks and building societies have helped over one million home seekers, as I mentioned earlier. The Government is very proud of that record.

I turn briefly to Labor’s promise to spend more money if it got into government. The Labor Party’s housing policies would be costly and ineffective. It is difficult to determine the upper limit of costs because the promises are difficult to understand and to analyse and are vague and ambiguous. The minimum net expenditure increase on top of the cost of present Government programs, on our estimation, would be SI 20m for the first year, rising to at least $1 75m in the fourth year. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) actually puts a higher figure on the cost of his programs than I have indicated. He said that in one year the extra cost would be $1 50m. Using his own figures, by year 4 the additional cost would be $200m. The question, of course, is where all this money comes from and what would be the effect of this massive increase in expenditure? The policies of the Opposition, if ever introduced, would obviously mean greater government expenditure, higher inflation, a higher deficit and, as a result, higher interest rates. Therefore, they would reduce the opportunities for ordinary Australians to purchase a home of their own. Responsible commentators have condemned the Labor Party’s policy. For example, I refer to the Canberra Times of 18 February 1980. In the editorial of that paper on that date it was stated:

Labor’s housing policy can hardly be described as a policy for the needy. There will be less money for the genuinely needy in the community as a result of it: Instead the poor will be subsidising the well to do.

The Government has a very different approach to housing. It recognises that if we are to use taxpayers’ money, we must use it very carefully and very wisely. Most importantly, the Government’s housing policies ensure that taxpayers’ money is directed to families in the community in need of help with their housing. In this way it is possible to achieve real welfare aims without the need for huge increases in government expenditure. The Fraser Government, since coming to office, has been able to improve the housing conditions of Australian families. It has improved the conditions for the Australian housing industry; that is recognised by the industry. The Government’s strategy is to attack inflation, to contain housing costs and to ensure the availability of housing finance. This has provided substantial encouragement for and significant assistance to Australian home seekers and to those who seek to rent accommodation.

Of course, Australians are prepared to help themselves. They tend not to be the sorts of people who want to rely on help from others. That is the approach of Australians. The role of Government is not to take over from individuals all of the responsibilities; the individual still has an important role to play in the community in providing for himself or herself, where possible. That is, of course, not always possible. There are in the community people in need of support from those a little better off within the community. Of course, the role of government is to provide the right sort of framework in which available public funds can be directed to those in real need and to ensure that those moneys are not wasted on people in the community who can fend for themselves and make do out of their own resources. That has been the general approach of this Government. I believe it has worked effectively. A great deal has been achieved in the five years since we took office in 1975. We will continue to act with ordinary common sense. That is the key to it all - to apply ordinary common sense to the implementation of these policies and programs. That is what we intend to do. We will continue to do the right thing for Australia.

Mr UREN (Reid)- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr UREN:
Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr UREN:

– There were two aspects on which I was misrepresented. Firstly, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) stated that I said that there had been a cut of $139m in public housing expenditure for 1974-75 to 1975-76. Of course, that is set out in a table at page 937 of Hansard for 28 August 1980. What the table fails to reveal and what the Minister failed to reveal is that the Labor Party was in government for only part of 1975-76.To indicate how we progressively built up public housing moneys in a full year of government, I will cite some figures. In the last year of the McMahon Government, $167m was spent on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. In the first year of the Labor Government $21 8m was spent. In 1974-75, the amount budgeted for was $260m but we finally spent $395m in the full year. What would have been our procedure–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has made his point.

Mr UREN:

- Mr Speaker, the procedure would have been that we would have increased substantially the amount spent on public housing in 1975-76 had we remained in government after 1 January 1976.

Secondly, the Minister stated that I had failed to deal with the private market. The whole basis of our scheme to increase the grant for first home buyers to $3,000 is to encourage the private market. The thrust of our policy would be, firstly, public housing, secondly, the private market and, thirdly, the availability of liquidity through an Australian housing corporation.

page 1501

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY ACCOMMODATION

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honourable members will be aware that Mr President and I have been endeavouring to find a solution to the accommodation problems confronting the Parliament. Our main objective is to find more space in this building for senators and members. In moving towards this end, we are mindful of the Government’s commitment not to expend large amounts of public funds on costly reconstruction programs in this building. However, we do not intend that the present Parliament House should deteriorate due to lack of proper care and maintenance, nor do we wish to act contrary to the needs of the Parliament where appropriate renovations can lead to a more efficient use of the space within the building. We have at least seven years left in this building.

On 1 May we wrote to each senator and member to ascertain whether there was a consensus view as to which elements of parliamentary staff should occupy this building between 1981 and 1988. The replies received to our submission contained such a wide range of views that it was not possible to draw conclusions which would lead us to make the necessary decisions. There was, however, an unsolicited view expressed by members that West Block would provide the most suitable alternative for the Parliament’s accommodation requirements. We have responded to this by again pressing our claim with the Government for the allocation of that building to the Parliament.

Mr President and I attach great importance to the question of the accommodation of all senators and members. We propose, therefore, to establish Presiding Officers’ committees comprising 6 members of each House. These committees will meet jointly. The task of the joint committee will be to advise the Presiding Officers which personnel, functions and services could be moved from Parliament House without diminishing the efficient functioning of either chamber and without diminishing the servicing of senators and members when discharging their day-to-day responsibilities. Our decision to adopt this course of action has been reinforced by the response received by Mr President and me from the Labor Party Caucus to our proposals of 1 May which raised issues with regard to a number of suggestions and options which we proposed. The Caucus response suggested that no change should take place without further investigation. We believe the investigation we propose will enable the matter to be approached in a constructive manner and result in recommendations which are in the best interests of the Parliament. Accordingly, we have decided on a Presiding Officers’ committee which will be represented from both sides in both Houses of the Parliament.

We hope to be in a position to make the necessary decisions prior to the resumption of the Parliament for the autumn session in 1981. I will therefore ask the leaders of all parties in this House immediately after the election to supply the names of members willing to serve on my committee. Mr President will do the same. There is no doubt that pressure on members’ accommodation will continue to increase until the new Parliament House is available. Mr President and I are hopeful that by involving senators and members directly in the matter a generally satisfactory solution will be found.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– by leave- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a short statement. I welcome the fact that this very important subject has received your attention. I indicate that the Australian Labor Party will be cooperating with you in your desire to have a more democratic process of involvement of members in decision making in this area. However, it would be remiss of me if I did not note the assumption that the same Mr Speaker will be calling together such a committee. There should be no such assumption.

page 1501

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Interim Report

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– by leave - I present the interim report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Peru, Venezuela and Brazil.

page 1501

NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - The House, I imagine, will understand the particular joy it gives me to make my last speech in the Parliament on a matter which concerns greatly those Australians in the bush and in the outback who for so many years have been the forgotten people of communications in this country.

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– All Australians.

Mr STALEY:

– Indeed, the statement does have great implications for the whole future of communications in the whole of Australia. I give credit and pay tribute to so many of my colleagues here and people outside. I give to those who have been such an inspiration and encouragement in this matter. I refer to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter), the honourable member of Maranoa (Mr Corbett), the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson), our Northern Territory representatives, Senator Collard, Senator Jessop, my own committee of communications which has done a great job under the leadership of the honourable member for Calare (Mr McKenzie), and the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron). If I said that they have been quite splendid, my friend, the chairman of the committee would say: Well, there is Staley again’. But they have been quite superb in the work that they have done in the interests of communications in this country.

It is now almost twelve months to the day since I announced to the Parliament the Government’s decision in principle to establish a domestic communications satellite system in Australia. In this time a great deal of developmental work has been carried out by the Satellite Project Office within my Department, in co-operation with other organisations within my portfolio. During this development period there have also been extensive consultations with other Commonwealth authorities, State governments and their authorities, and potential users of the satellite system. All organisations which have an interest in special communication systems have been given the opportunity to make their views known.

Today I am delighted to be able to announce to the House that the Government has decided to move to the next stage of this overall project. The Government has decided that a request for tender for the supply of a domestic communications satellite system will be issued by 30 October of this year and will close on 1 March 1981. A comprehensive document - Request for Tender for a National Satellite Communications System - has been produced and has involved the efforts of many officers from government departments and authorities. The technical specifications for the satellite system have been arrived at with the specific needs of the Australian community in mind. The importance of designing a system which is directly relevant to Australian needs has counted heavily in our development of this project. A particularly important aspect of this consideration is the Government’s commitment to enabling services provided by the satellite to be received in remoter areas via small and relatively inexpensive earth stations.

As honourable members would recall from my previous statements, the Government intends that residents of remote areas should be able to receive at least a good dependable telephone service, a national television service and a range of national radio services. In addition, of course, we would be looking to other possibilities. In many cases the only way to deliver these is by satellite. We are confident that the technology involved in delivering these satellite services via small, individual house or homestead earth stations is dependable. This will allow single residences and small Aboriginal, mining and station communities to also share in these new services at very modest capital cost.

Specifications for the basic system - defined as the space segment represented by the satellites; the tracking, telemetry, command and monitoring stations which maintain the satellites in their orbital position and monitor their performance; and the major ground stations which will have access to the satellite through locations in major capital cities - have been carefully assessed by consultants employed by my Department. The major consultancy has been with COMSAT - the Communications Satellite Corporation - which has prepared the technical specifications for all the INTELSAT communications satellites, which provide the international satellite systems which now link the world. The other consultant employed for this purpose was the European Space Agency - ESA - which is a consortium of 11 European countries, including the United Kingdom, and provides the technical design for satellites to serve the needs of those countries. These two organisations have confirmed that the design parameters of the space segment of the request for tender are feasible and suitable for tender. The consultants will review the final request for tender documentation prior to release.

I wish now to comment on the ownership and management of the satellite communications system. The Government has decided that at this time the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) - OTC- be designated as the authority to own and manage the domestic communications satellite system. The advice of the Attorney-General’s Department is that the issue under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 to OTC of appropriate licences for the establishment of radio communication services using ‘gateway’ earth stations to a satellite would enable OTC to undertake responsibility for the satellite system. I have this day issued licences to OTC authorising the Commission to establish radio communication services via a domestic satellite through earth stations in the capital cities specified in those licences.

Honourable members will be well aware of the high reputation of OTC and of the excellence of the services it provides for international communications. It provides tracking, telemetry, command and monitoring facilities for the INTELSAT satellites which are in orbital location over the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It has recently entered into a contract to provide a similar service for satellites of the European Space Agency. Through its existing earth stations at Moree, Carnarvon and Ceduna, OTC provides modern facilities for the reception and transmission by satellite of international traffic which is connected through OTC’s gateways in Sydney to the domestic subscribers of the Telecom network. OTC has many of the technical skills which will be required both in the planning and operations of a domestic communications satellite system. In the Government’s view it seemed an obvious conclusion that the technical expertise of OTC be utilised to the maximum in developing the next phase of the project.

Following the issue of the licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, OTC will take over responsibility for aspects of the request for tender which concern the space segment and the major city earth stations. Telecom, the Department of Transport, and the Postal and Telecommunications Department, in conjunction with the Australian Broadcasting Commission have prepared particular parts of the request for tender in accordance with their functional responsibilities. It is the intention that the request for tender be issued as one comprehensive document, but that each of the organisations concerned would evaluate the tenders received for its part of the total satellite system.

The Government has decided that in principle, users both Government and private, of the satellite system would own their own earth stations. It is expected that a number of smaller users will wish to have access to the satellite system in the capital cities by way of the major stations owned by the authority. The Government has not ruled out the possibility of an arrangement in which private capital and public sector capital would be jointly invested in a new satellite organisation. While the Government sees it as essential that it should maintain the major investment share in such an organisation, and it, of course, has the power to regulate the organisation’s activity as a common carrier the possibility of private and public capital being invested in a joint enterprise has the attraction that the skills and energies of private investors would be available to contribute to the success of the enterprise. There are a range of policy issues which have to be considered before a final and proper judgment can be made on the question of private investment. Consultations will be held with private sector interests to test their reactions before the matter is considered further by the Government.

I now wish to deal briefly with the matter of cost. The latest estimate from my officials is that the all-up capital cost to the Commonwealth of a satellite system involving two satellites in orbit, a spare satellite on the ground and a range of earth stations would be approximately $256m in 1980 prices. This figure compares with an earlier estimate of $210m in 1978 prices quoted in my statement to the House on 18 October 1979. Assuming an average inflation rate of 10 per cent, this means that the estimated cost has increased by only $2m. Our earlier estimates were pretty much on target.

However, I would like to remind honourable members that the capital cost of $256m is a gross cost to the Commonwealth or to its authorities which would fund such an enterprise through loan or other financial arrangements. This expenditure is, of course, income-producing and the actual net cost of the satellite will be a great deal more modest. In addition, it is estimated that the provision of additional services, capital equipment and facilities will increase this latest estimate by $26m. Until competitive tenders are received, there can be no further progress towards definitive costing of the satellite system.

I would like to touch briefly on another aspect of the satellite project which relates to mutual co-operation between Australia and other countries in our region. The system design makes provision for a likely requirement by the Papua New Guinea Government for thin route rural telephony services and the possible distribution of a national television service. A similar requirement for a number of south-west Pacific nations has been carefully considered, but regrettably could not be included in the proposed first generation satellite system without significantly increasing costs and substantially impairing the performance of the planned satellite system. This has particular reference to Western Australia.

Recognising the important role that satellite systems can play in the provision of national and international telecommunications for the South Pacific region, however, and mindful of the importance of Australia’s relationship with the region, the Government has taken a decision, in principle, that planning for the further development of the Australian system should take into account services for the South Pacific countries provided either in later Australian satellites or in a regional system shared with Australia.

The Australian Government has already indicated to the South Pacific countries its readiness to participate as soon as possible in detailed discussions to identify their telecommunications needs and how these might be best met through INTELSAT and/or in co-operation with Australia.

I point out also to honourable members that Australian industry has been extensively consulted in the finalisation of the request for tender documents. This will continue. My officials have indicated to me that industry believes that a sensible application of the existing policies on preference for Australian-made supplies and offsets will provide industry with the opportunity to maximise Australian involvement in the design, manufacture, installation and operation of the system. In the time available for me to make this statement to the House, it has not been possible to outline the detailed service requirements envisaged for the first generation national communications satellite system and the systems design which the request for tender incorporates. I know that the satellite system contemplated will be of great interest to honourable members and to others outside this House. I have therefore arranged that the more significant aspects of the proposed request for tender be set out in a separate document. I seek leave of the House to have this statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows -

page 1504

THE NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM- OUTLINE OF PROPOSED SERVICE REQUIREMENTS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Volume 1 : General outline of organisational and contractual arrangements.

Volume 2: Space segment- satellites and TTC & M stations.

Volume 3: Major city earth stations.

Volume 4: Telecom remote telephony satellite service.

Volume S: Department of Transport earth stations.

Volume 6: Homestead and community broadcasting satellite service, HACBSS.

Volume 7: Regional (TV) earth stations.

Volume 8: Minor earth stations.

The first three volumes have been prepared by the satellite system management unit. This unit will become part of OTC (A). Volume 4 on earth terminals for telephony purposes, has been prepared by Telecom Australia. Volume 5 has been prepared by the Department of Transport for air safety applications of the satellite system, while volumes 6 and 7, which cover the homestead and community broadcasting satellite service terminals and the earth terminal for the relaying of ABC programs to sound broadcasting and television transmitters of the national broadcasting services have been prepared by the Postal and Telecommunications Department.

Volume 8 covers technical specifications for small earth stations for various applications including the use of the satellite for the School of the Air Services. It was prepared by the satellite systems management unit. A technical design committee, representing all Commonwealth authorities with major involvements in the proposed satellite system, has ensured that there is compatability between the space segment of the system and the earth stations which will be required for transmitting and receiving particular services via the satellite.

Volumes 2-3: Space segment and major city earth stations

Volumes 2-3 of the request for tender require potential manufacturers-suppliers to respond to the request for a threesatellite system with two tracking, telemetry, command and monitoring earth stations - TTC & M - and for main or gateway’ earth stations in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Canberra, Townsville, Rockhampton and Darwin. The proposed space segment would comprise one operational satellite and one spare satellite in orbital position, and one satellite on the ground as a spare or back-up. The draft agreement which accompanies these volumes of the request for tender also provides for an option for the ordering of a fourth satellite within 1 8 months of the date of delivery of the second satellite, if user demand shows the need for two operational satellites. Each satellite is proposed to have IS transponders, four of which will have a power output of approximately 30 watts. The other eleven transponders having an approximate power output of 1 5 watts. The four higher powered transponders in each, satellite are primarily intended for the homestead and community broadcasting satellite service - HACBSS - to remote and isolated families and communities.

The tender documents seek ‘fixed price’ offers for the supply of the three satellites for the first generation system for delivery to the launch site. The satellites will operate in the 14-14.5 GHz frequency band in the up-link, and in the 12.25-12.75 GHz frequency band in the down-link.

In the earth-to-space (up-link) direction, the satellite will have a national beam capable of receiving signals from anywhere within Australia. Down-link transmissions will be receivable in the following coverage configurations: A national beam essentially covering all of Australia and in addition the North-West Shelf, the Pacific Shelf and Lord Howe Island; four spot beams covering Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia- Northern Territory, and New South WalesVictoriaTasmania. These beams will be primarily for the HACBSS, but could also be used for other State based telecommunications services; and a spot beam covering Papua New Guinea.

The tender specification calls for satellites with a design life of at least seven years and with battery capacity to continue full operations during eclipse periods.

The orbital locations tentatively chosen for the satellite system are 156 degrees east and 164 degrees east above the equator, but confirmation of these positions will be subject to international agreement through the usual co-ordination arrangements. Another position set tentatively at 160 degrees east will be selected for a spare satellite in orbit, keeping in mind that the latter could provide some pre-emptible capacity. The satellite has been designated as a D-class spacecraft capable of being launched on one of the three alternative classes of launch vehicles:

Delta - An expendable launch vehicle developed and marketed by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration - NASA - and capable of launching one D-class satellite.

Ariane- An expendable launch vehicle being developed by the European Space Agency - ESA - and approximately capable of launching two satellites of approximately D-class size; and

Space Transportation System, Shuttle - A recoverable launch vehicle being developed by NASA and capable of launching a wide range of satellites including the D-class.

An ‘earnest’ payment of $A 100,000 has been made to NASA for a shuttle launch. This payment has secured the right to a launch by the shuttle service in January 1986. However cancellations of other bookings on the shuttle will probably allow a launch date around mid 1985. The $US10.5m cost of a launch by the space shuttle compares with costs of $US20m using Ariane and $US27.25m using Delta launch vehicles. The final decision on the launch vehicles to be used for the first and subsequent launches will be made in due course.

Volume 4: Remote Telephony Satellite Service

The technical specifications allow for the incorporation of an automatic remote telephony satellite service - RTSS - which would give subscribers easy calling access to: near neighbours; residents beyond the relevant local call access area through the subscriber trunk dialling service; and overseas residents through the international subscribers dialling service. The request of tender specifies earth stations for a highly reliable telephone service with the requirements that equipment be designed to withstand the extremes of climatic conditions of remote and isolated areas. The RTSS would provide for subscribers in any location to be connected to the Telecom network. Tenders will be called for three types of earth stations:

  1. A remote telephony earth station providing a single telephone circuit suitable for use at an individual homestead*;
  2. A community telephone earth station with a capacity of up to 1 2 telephone circuits*;
  3. A transportable earth station with a capactiy of up to 12 telephone circuits for use to restore services in emergency situations.

*As options, these stations would provide for reception of HACBSS TV and radio signals, as well as for a conference or switchable facility which could be used for School of the Air services.

Volume 5: Department of Transport Earth Stations

The technical specification prepared by the Department of Transport provides for two particular applications;

  1. For air traffic control using highly reliable voice and data communications between manned traffic control centres; and
  2. Equally reliable voice links for unmanned airgroundair VHF repeater stations and traffic control operations.

The Department of Transport proposal is that this will be a Australia-wide communications system using earth stations at some 240 locations involving two-way voice circuits and medium-speed data. It is proposed that these services be operated simultaneously through two satellites, one being the primary operational satellite, and the other being either the spare satellite or the second operational satellite.

Volume 6: Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service- HACBSS

The request for tender envisages system capability for the broadcast of radio and television programs direct via satellite to remote communities and individual homesteads. The ABC proposes to use the service also for distribution of television programs to regional transmitters in some States. The tender documents seek prices of a minimum of 100 HACBSS earth stations for field trials. It is estimated that the potential market for these receivers is in the range of 25,000 to 100,000 units.

Volume 7: Regional - TV - Earth Stations

The request for tender calls for the supply of receiver only earth stations, to provide program signals to sound broadcasting and television stations of the national broadcasting service in Australia. It is proposed that these earth stations working off the national communications satellite system would replace the earth stations which are now being installed to receive the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television programs through the satellite capacity leased in the INTELSAT IV-A satellites.

Volume 8: Minor Earth Stations

This volume seeks responses for the supply of either single or multiples of single voice channels for typically voice, teleprinter or data for use by a variety of bodies, such as police, health, education, government departments, mining companies and for the provisions of school of the air services. It is estimated that the potential market for these earth stations is in the range of 1 0,000 to 1 5,000 units.

Consultancies

Two internationally recognised consultants, the Comsat Corporation of the United States of America and the European Space Agency - ESA - were engaged to assist with the development of the national communications satellite system design. Comsat has prepared the technical specifications for all the INTELSAT communication satellites, while ESA has provided the technical designs for satellites to serve the needs of countries who are members of that agency. Both organisations are of the highest international repute in the technical design of satellites. Further consultation by these organisations is envisaged in relation to the review of the final RFT documentation.

Australian Content

In line with current Australian Government policies for local industry involvement in government purchases, the request for tender will include conditions of tender giving preference to Australian-made supplies. Where major component purchases are negotiated with overseas suppliers, the application of the Australian offsets policy will also be sought and will constitute a substantial proportion of the Australian Government orders-

Mr STALEY:
LP

– The Government confirms its commitment to the establishment of the domestic communications satellite system which will provide modern communications services essential to Australia. With this development our community will at last begin moving to a position where all Australians will be provided with communications information and entertainment services on a more equitable basis. The Government is confident that the work and study carried out in the last 12 months had served only to reinforce the wisdom of previously taken decisions. Australia, of all countries, must utilise the benefits of the most up-to-date communications technology foi the benefit of the whole community. The Government will never ignore this responsibility. I present the following paper:

National Communications Satellite System- Ministerial Statement, 18 September 1980

Motion (by Mr Adermann) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I crave the indulgence of the Chair simply to say to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) whose electorate borders my electorate, that I think all honourable members and people who have been engaged at any level of political life understand the pressures which public office and service in the Parliament place upon anyone with a young family. Whilst I do not agree and many of my colleagues do not agree with the Minister’s policies, we all want to wish him well in his retirement and wish his family the very best.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr HOLDING:

– In relation to the Minister’s statement, it must be said on behalf of the Opposition that the Australian Labor Party is not opposed to the satellite per se. It welcomes the provision of services to people in the outback, as I am certain all honourable members in this House do. I think it is true to say, as has already been pointed out, that these services in many cases cannot be provided in any other way. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the policy adopted by the Labor Party at its Adelaide conference because often those policies are subject to misinterpretation, particularly by Government spokesmen. That policy sets out, I think succinctly and in full the basis upon which the Labor Party approaches the whole question of the development of a satellite. That policy states:

In the development and use of a domestic communications satellite in Australia, a Labor Government must be satisfied that Australia’s security would not be endangered and that the following requirements are guaranteed -

maintenance of the terresterial system of internal communications;

expansion by Telecom of telephone and broadcasting services to the needs of isolated rural communities;

public investment in Telecom facilities is not jeopardised;

maintenance of employment opportunities;

no increase in private ownership monopoly of media and communications;

public ownership and management of the satellite; and

independence of news and cultural content.

Those criteria unfortunately are not fulfilled by the Government’s intentions. Therefore, we oppose the satellite proposal as it now stands.

The choice of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to run the satellite is no surprise. The intransigent opposition of Telecom Australia to the economics of ‘Staley-bird’ is well known. In spite of the Minister’s justifications for the choice of operator, OTC has been until now purely an overseas carrier. The satellite is its first domestic role and, as such, it becomes a competitor to Telecom. The suggestion that competition promotes efficiency is not accepted in the case of public bodies. Instead, it will breed parallel bureaucracies and over-capitalisation through spare capacity.

To those Government members who do not share that view I point out that one has only to look at the experiences of a number of State governments, some of them run by members of the Liberal Party, when they inherited statutory corporations which, in terms of areas of the retail market, compete with other corporations. In all cases it has been the view of State Liberal governments that that competition ought to be reduced and the services rationalised. One has only to look at the approach of the State Electricity Commission and the Gas and Fuel Corporation in Victoria to realise that a Liberal government in that State became increasingly concerned that important energy resources were being squandered in many ways by virtue of unnecessary competition in many areas.

Under Labor, the satellite would be run by Telecom with the preservation of the common carrier principle and the elimination of wasteful public authority competition. Under Labor, the satellite would be completely publicly-owned. The question of the extent of private sector ownership which the Liberals and this Government would allow has been shelved for the time being, but ultimately that issue will have to be faced. The Government has at least committed itself to majority investment and retention of power to regulate the system. Business is being brought in for two purposes: A slice of the profit action if and when a profit is finally made and, more importantly in the short term at least, to enable business to steer satellite services and pricing policies in the direction of its own priorities. It is more than likely that prospective private equity in the satellite will come from prospective users, such as the IBM organisation and Packer and perhaps Murdoch. In our view, clearly this is a bad thing.

Mr Baillieu:

Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch to you.

Mr HOLDING:

– I have no doubt that anybody as servile as the honourable member would not only say Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch but also bow with the obsequiousness for which he is known and for which he is not held in great regard, even by members of his own party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr HOLDING:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the interjection because it is probably the last occasion that we will hear from the honourable gentleman in this House. I repeat, despite the high respect and obsequiousness of the honourable member, that it is the view of the Labor Party that prospective users, such as IBM, Packer and Murdoch, ought not to be involved in this kind of satellite development. The door is also being opened for national commercial television networking with the satellites themselves being designed to accommodate a second, almost certainly commercial, remote area broadcasting service. This might not be as far away as the second operational satellite.

Whilst the Satellite Project Office tells everyone with the time to listen that there are only five broadcasting transponders on the first satellite and that all of them are to be used by the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the homestead and community broadcasting and satellite service, the ABC expects to use a fifth so-called rebroadcasting transponder for direct television broadcasting in South Australia. Whilst the Satellite Project Office denies that this is technically feasible, the ABC can produce reports of Canadian studies to show that this is being done right now. Either the Project Office has not done its job or an attempt is being made to mislead the community as to the real capacities and effectiveness of the services that can be provided.

In making this statement the Minister has again underestimated the satellite costs and has produced figures which, on the best view, are slightly rubbery. After giving a $256m figure - $46m more than that for a year ago - he blithely added another $26m later in his statement. By playing with words, the Minister has suggested that the cost has risen by only $2m when 10 per cent inflation is accounted for. Thus his official cost estimation was not precise. As so much of the satellite and its ancillaries involves high technology in which real costs are dropping for a number of reasons, an ordinary inflation multiplier should not be the criterion in the method of accounting used. In addition, launch costs were not included, which would add another $30m to $80m to the Minister’s admitted figure of $282m. These costs to users and consumers have not been taken into account. I stand by the statements made on behalf of the Opposition in this House that the satellite’s first generation will cost over $400m and may not make a profit in the first eight years. Recently the Minister released figures which suggested that the satellite authority’s profit may be as little as $7m over eight years. There will be ongoing losses to Telecom of $8m per annum. Telecom suddenly will be vastly oversupplied with broadband trunk links in regional Australia and the remote area telephony programs will require a continual subsidy.

An important and interesting new development is the Government’s proposed extension of satellite services to South Pacific nations. Clearly, this involves a large investment even for Australia, but more particularly for the Pacific nations’ domestic traffic, and could well be one of the factors of real interest to private business involvement in the satellite. It will increase the opportunities for the merchandising in the Pacific region of new of the kind which occurs in Australia, largely to the disadvantage of the Australian community. The essential difference between the approach of the Labor Party and the approach of the Minister as contained in his statement is the need for effective public ownership and control of the satellite.

I think all honourable members will concede that it is a very important development for Australia. Because of its importance, the Opposition takes the view that public ownership and control ultimately means the discharging of a sense of responsibility by the government of the day as to community mores. A sense of responsibility has to be discharged to the Australian community at large. Because of its importance, we believe that this is an area in which public responsibility has to be the criterion, not the kind of motivation which unfortunately has emerged in Australian society in terms of there being so much private media ownership of the whole source of communication. For those reasons, the Opposition regards the Minister’s statement as being unsatisfactory, unresponsive to the needs of the Australian community, and unresponsive to the future needs of the Australian community.

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

– I will take only two or three minutes. I congratulate the Government for making this decision. I also congratulate the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) for steering this decision through Cabinet. I thank him for taking such a personal interest in the matter over a considerable period. I know that people across the length and breadth of Australia, particularly people living in isolated areas such as at remote homesteads, in remote Aboriginal communities and in very widely scattered groups, are deeply appreciative of what the Government has done in deciding to put up a communications satellite for Australia. It is with a great sense of satisfaction that I rise today to say to the Minister and the Government on behalf of all those people, whether they live in the electorates of Kalgoorlie, the Northern Territory or Kennedy or any other remote part of Australia, thank you very much.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 1508

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980.

Railway Agreement (Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway) Bill 1980.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980.

Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1980.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1980.

Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

page 1508

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– by leave - The Government’s industrial policies are based on two essential principles: First, each member of the community has rights and obligations; and second, the rights of individuals must be protected while at the same time obligations must be met. Accordingly, our policies are designed, in the first place, to provide protection for the community from the harsh effects of industrial disruption. Legislation has also been introduced to protect the rights of individuals in industrial relations. We have been active in promoting the use of communication and consultation. Finally, the Government has encouraged and assisted the development of democratic procedures in industrial organisations.

Although it operates under severe constitutional restrictions, this Government has done more than any other to improve the standard of Australia’s industrial relations. We have acted to reinforce the influence and authority of the conciliation and arbitration system while encouraging better understanding and more effective consultation between employers and employees. The comprehensive, national approach we have used to improve the quality of Australia’s industrial relations stands in marked contrast to the narrow, sectional views of the Australian Labor Party.

The basic proposition which runs through the Labor Party’s industrial relations platform is that the trade unions should be placed in a specially privileged position, above and beyond the law. The policies endorsed at the 1979 conference, repeated again and again, and to which any future Labor government would be committed, all contain this one common theme - the Labor Party would place unions above the laws everyone else is expected to observe. The fact is that their socalled policies reveal that their only concern in industrial relations is to buy off the extremists within the trade union leadership and those of the socialist Left who make up such an influential section of their own party. This Government is completely opposed to the ideologically-inspired platitudes of the Labor Party. Our program of major reform to industrial relations institutions and practices will be continued. Today I will outline some of the steps the Government will take after re-election. (Quorum formed).

First, however, I wish to make some comments about the Industrial Relations Bureau. Briefly the Bureau’s work can be divided into three categories: Day to day award inspection; providing information to both individuals and organisations on their rights and obligations under industrial legislation; and securing the observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and regulations. In relation to the first of these functions, award inspections, there has been some fall-off in the rate of inspections since the Bureau took over this responsibility from the Arbitration Inspectorate. I have informed the Director of the Bureau of my concern at this fall-off. I am conscious that there have been certain difficulties mainly due to retirements and high staff turnover which were largely beyond the Bureau’s control. However I have made it clear to the Director that it is essential that the fall-off in the rate of award inspections be reversed.

As I said, the Bureau’s second function is to provide information to both individuals and organisations on their rights and obligations under industrial legislation. Given that this is a major function of the Bureau, it is a matter for some regret that no system of formally recording enquiries directed to the Bureau was instituted for 1978-79. At my request the Bureau has recorded the number of enquiries for 1979-80 and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows that the number of complaints received and recorded inquiries over the last financial year total 410.

Leave granted.

Mr STREET:

– Finally, there is the Bureau’s role of securing observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In this third function the Bureau has been considerably circumscribed by challenges on constitutional grounds in the High Court. These challenges are still to be decided. Consistent with the normal ongoing responsibility of government, we will consider the role of the Bureau in the light of these decisions.

Since we came to office, this Government has constantly kept our system of industrial relations under close review and has acted when necessary to make it function properly and effectively. AH of the Government’s major initiatives have been directed to that end. Honourable members will be aware that since August 1976, all elections for offices with management functions in federally registered unions and employer organisations have had to be by secret postal ballot. After long and detailed consultation with the National Labour Consultative Council, legislation has also been passed requiring all industrial organisations within Federal jurisdiction to present to their members audited financial accounts every year.

We now propose a further extension in this process of giving rank and file union members a greater say in the conduct of industrial affairs. Over the years there have been many proposals for some form of secret ballots to be held prior to or during industrial action, and indeed the Conciliation and Arbitration Act already enables a secret ballot to be ordered. However this provision has been rarely used. The Government believes a major reason for this is that there has been no trigger mechanism by which rank and file union members could indicate that they wanted to test the degree of support or lack of support for industrial action in which they were being asked to take part. We will remedy this situation by extending the secret ballot provisions to enable employees at a particular workplace, if they so desire, to apply to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a secret ballot to ascertain the views of employees at that workplace.

An important feature of this proposal is that the request for a ballot must come from the shop floor. Ballots will not be imposed - making secret ballots mandatory has never succeeded in reducing industrial disruption - but this process will provide a means by which the ordinary man and woman on the shop floor can ask to have their say, and make union leaders much more careful about calling a strike without full consultation with their members. This will be another important step in the Government’s progressive campaign to encourage greater rank and file participation in the conduct of industrial relations, and as usual will be subject to consultation with the National Labour Consultative Council. The Government is firmly committed to the use of consultation in industrial relations. It was for that reason that we established the National Labour Consultative Council. There can be no question of the significance of the role the Council fills and what has been achieved through its committees.

The Council was established in 1977 as the forum for consultation between Government and peak organisations of employers and unions on industrial issues of national concern. In three years, its standing has grown to the point where it is now expected to fill a wide ranging and demanding set of functions. Despite these demands, the Council has been able to maintain the broad national outlook on which it was based. The hard issues have not been ignored. Through its committee system, the Council has been able to examine in detail, fundamental industrial issues. The work of the committees on regulations concerning accounting practices and financial reporting requirements, on women’s employment, and on amalgamation of industrial organisations clearly illustrates the constructive role the committees have played. They have proved an important vehicle through which the Council has been able to involve the wider industrial community in its work. For over two years the Council has been examining the many complex issues raised by the subject of amalgamation of industrial organisations. The Government has considered the Council’s proposals and I will now outline the major decisions the Government has taken in relation to our general approach of favouring a move towards more industry-based industrial organisations.

In any examination of changes to amalgamation procedures there are certain considerations that must be borne in mind. First, indiscriminate amalgamations which can result in the formation of conglomerations of employees with disparate industrial interests should be avoided. They could not properly further the particular industrial interests of each of the diverse occupational categories they would represent. Secondly, any system of amalgamation should give members of the organisations concerned opportunity to exercise their democratic right to say whether they approve or disapprove the amalgamation. The Government believes that decisions on important and far-reaching questions such as amalgamation should properly reflect the wishes of those concerned so that an organisation does not unwittingly allow control of its destiny to be determined by a minority faction. The Government believes that this principle is fundamental to any acceptable system of amalgamation. The third, and most important, consideration is the effect on the public interest. It is impossible to forecast all the consequences that would flow from changes in trade union organisations brought about by a significant degree of amalgamation, especially if it were to be effected over a relatively short time span. Undesirable consequences would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to reverse. This, in large measure, is the reason for the gradual approach that the Government has adopted. It is anxious to work in close cooperation with trade unions and employers to ensure that any changes will be to the benefit of union members and the community generally. Such an approach takes more time to achieve a result, but in relation to a matter as important as this, it has been time well spent.

At present provisions for amalgamations of federally registered industrial organisations are laid down in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is now widely agreed that the current amalgamation provisions impose considerable constraints, and can operate to delay or prevent what might otherwise be desirable amalgamations. However, it has to be remembered and the Labor Party should take particular notice of this point, nothing can be achieved by government imposing change and trying to force industrybased unions on the union movement, employers or the community generally. The Government believes that its responsibility is to provide a legislative framework which encourages unions to move towards industry-based organisations themselves. The decisions the Government has made in relation to amalgamations meet that responsibility. The provisions on amalgamations which already exist in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will remain. However, there will be an alternative path available for amalgamation.

The Government will introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide that where an application is made by an organisation proposing amalgamation, and a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decides after full and open hearing that a proposed amalgamation would be in the public interest, and in the legitimate industrial interests of the organisations concerned, the Commission can make a declaration that there is a ‘community of interest’. Where such a declaration is made, it will be sufficient for 25 per cent of union members to vote, rather than 50 per cent as provided for in the legislation, and for amalgamation to be approved by a simple majority of those voting. Factors which the Commission would be required to take into account in assessing ‘community of interest’ include whether a substantial number of members of each union are engaging in the same or similar work; whether a substantial number of members of each union are employed under the same awards or whether they are employed in the same or related work by employers engaged in the same industry. Similar provisions will apply to amalgamations of employer organisations.

It is also proposed that where more than two organisations wish to amalgamate, members of the organisations concerned are to be able to vote on alternative forms of amalgamation. This will overcome shortcomings in the present provisions of the Act which provide that where a ballot of members of one of the organisations fails to approve the amalgamation, the remaining organisation is required to go through the entire process again. Where three or more organisations propose to amalgamate the question on the ballot paper will provide for an alternative, so as to enable a vote for either firstly, amalgamation with all the other organisations which are parties to the scheme or secondly, where a vote of the members of one or more of the other organisations fails to approve the proposed amalgamation, the amalgamation to proceed with the remaining organisations which have agreed to the proposals.

There is one other point that should be made. Currently where an amalgamation of two organisations is proposed and the membership of one of the organisations is not more than 5 per cent of the other, the Industrial Registrar may grant the absorbing’ organisation an exemption from a ballot. The new legislation will provide that no union will be able to absorb another union whose membership is 5,000 or more without the absorbing union being required to hold a ballot of its members. This provision will prevent large ‘absorbing’ organisations from taking into their membership larger and larger unions without a vote of their own members. In all cases, of course, there must be a secret postal ballot of the members of the smaller union. With regard to the payment of expenses incurred in the conduct of an amalgamation ballot, the Act currently provides that these expenses shall be borne by the Government and this will continue to be the case. In addition, the free service provided by the Industrial Registrar in providing advice and technical assistance will be maintained. These proposals are consistent with the thrust of the recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia, and indeed go to the specific detail on how agreed objectives can be achieved.

As I said at the outset, the contribution of NLCC to the Government’s deliberations and the final outcome has been invaluable and, on behalf of the Government, I thank the Council for its work. I might also add that this achievement shows that Government, employers and unions can work together and produce tangible results for the benefit of each other and the community. The new amalgamation provisions are yet another demonstration of how the Government is meeting its responsibility to provide an industrial relations framework which takes account of the views of the parties and meets their needs, while paying due regard to the public interest. The fundamental difference between our policies and those of the Australian Labor Party is that the Government is not prepared to place the interests of one section of the community before that of the community as a whole.

I would like to quote from the policies endorsed at the 1979 Conference of the Australian Labor Party. A Labor government would, and I quote directly from the Australian Labor Party platform, ‘recognise the rights of unions to regulate their own affairs in a democratic way free from government and judicial intervention’. In other words, open slather, with the community as the victim. Labor would allow unions an unlimited right to strike, ‘Immune from any pains or penalties’. This Government will have none of that. We will continue to place the interests of the community before the demands of any one group. The Labor Party’s policies demonstrate that the claim of a ‘special relationship’ with the unions is just a public relations sham. The so-called ‘special relationship’ merely means that a Labor government would try to buy industrial peace by aiding and abetting union demands. The experience of the Labor Party’s period of government shows quite plainly what a futile and misguided approach that is. Under Labor, an average of $4.1 million working days were lost each year. Under this Government the figure has been reduced to 2.5 million working days lost each year on the basis of statistics so far available.

In the area of wages policy, the Labor Party’s platform represents a new high in irresponsibility. For a start, the policy endorsed at the 1979 Conference commits any future Labor government to supporting automatic full wage indexation every three months and nothing any of the Labor Party’s industrial relations spokesmen say can change that. At that time one of the prop forwards, Mr Wran, described it as a ‘hotch-potch’ and the other prop forward, the candidate for Wills, described the policy as a gutless sellout to the left. Now the candidate for Wills faces the ultimate irony - his leader has forced him to become the apologist for the gutless sellout. Labor’s policy is quite specific on what minimum wage increases should be, yet nothing has been said about a maximum. To the Labor Party, full indexation is clearly the base on which unions with industrial muscle would be free to build to get even larger wage increases.

In August the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the Labor Party candidate for Wills announced some radical new additions to this policy as part of a deal between the Labor Party and the trade union movement. For instance, the Labor Party now proposes to conduct a royal commission into the distribution of income and wealth. It has made it clear that the commission would have the power to subpoena people and companies for the purpose of interrogating them on their private, commercial and business activities - Labor’s economic kangaroo court. Since this proposal was announced the Labor Party has had nothing to say about it, but let who ever is its parliamentary spokesman stand up today and deny that this is what it is planning.

A Labor government would seek control of non-wage’ incomes. It has yet to explain what that means. It could mean that Labor plans additional taxes for people such as farmers and small businessmen not on a wage. It could mean that small investors would be hit by new, crippling taxes on their dividends. Probably it means all of these things. Labor would also seek - this is another quotation from its platform - to influence the allocation of resources between the various sectors in the economy in accordance with priorities set by the national economic and social strategy’. In short, it is a blueprint for an economy in which all major decisions are taken by one central government, dominated by influences not responsible to Parliament. The deal shows that the cave-in which began in Adelaide last year is continuing and in government the Labor Party would surrender even more to the far left within the trade union leadership.

We are left to guess where all of this will end. What will be the ultimate price the community has to pay for Labor’s sell-out to its own extremists? What other extortionate demands are yet to be made? The Labor Party in government would use industrial relations as it did between 1972 and 1975, as a lever to divide employer and worker, to set those in secure employment against those whose jobs would be threatened, and create a socially disastrous division between wage-earners and those on fixed incomes. But the greatest harm caused was the creation of a mentality which encouraged trampling over individual rights and the public interest for fear of being left behind in the grab for more money. This callous, selfdestructive approach is totally unacceptable to this Government. We will do everything within our power to protect the rights of individuals and the community. At the same time we will continue our work of encouraging the growth of a climate in which more constructive attitudes can prevail and the selfish, sectional policies of the Labor Party are rejected. I present the following paper:

Industrial Relations - Government Program- Ministerial Statement, 18 September 1980

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

– I move:

That the House take note of the paper.

I seek leave to propose a motion that the honourable member for Port Adelaide be allowed to speak for 25 minutes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Yates:

- Mr Deputy Speaker–

Mr Ruddock:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is not the Labor Party spokesman on industrial relations meant to speak on this matter?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Motion (by Mr Adermann) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Port Adelaide speaking for a period not exceeding 25 minutes.

Mr Yates:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I wish my objection to be recorded because the person who is to speak is not the official spokesman for the Labor Party on this matter.

Mr Holding:

– You are not the official spokesman for anybody.

Mr Yates:

– Wait and see.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member’s objection will be recorded. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I welcome this statement. It gives us the opportunity, after five years, to see how the Government will oversee industrial relations in the next few years.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– You are only a private member, Mick.

Mr YOUNG:

– We are all just private members and we are all here because we carry the tags of our parties. The honourable member for Lilley is not here because of his glowing personality and I am not here because of mine. I am here because I represent the greatest political party in Australia, and the honourable member is there because he has been–

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– What about the people of Port Adelaide?

Mr YOUNG:

– The people of Port Adelaide are in very good hands. It is rather ironic that the Government should see fit in the closing hours of the Thirty-first Parliament to tell us what it would like to do in the Thirty-second Parliament, when it has had five years to carry out the program contained in the speech of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). There are two very significant features of the Government’s administration of industrial relations. This is the first time in the history of this country that an Australian government has been condemned by the International Labour Organisation. It was condemned because of action it took in legislation against its own employees.

The second thing that occurred was that the Minister was rebuked in the administrative act taken by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm

Fraser) in setting up his own industrial relations organisation within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I have a strong feeling that the speech delivered this afternoon by the Minister was written in the office of the Prime Minister, not by the Department of Industrial Relations. This Government’s industrial relations policy has been very much the brainchild of the Prime Minister. The establishment of the Industrial Relations Bureau, which the Australian Labor Party, the trade unions and the employers want to see abolished, was the brainchild of the Prime Minister, as is so much of what is contained in the speech delivered this afternoon.

The other inkling I have about the Minister’s speech is that he felt it would be opportune to try to exploit the situation - if he saw it as being to his advantage, and he would have to have a twisted sense of humour if he did so - with the appointment by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) of the greatest industrial relations practitioner in this country, Bob Hawke, as the Labor Party’s spokesperson on industrial relations. I do not care very much, and I do not think anyone else in Australian cares very much, about what the Government says of Bob Hawke. The fact is that overwhelmingly the people of Australia believe that, in the task of settling industrial disputation and in the task of approaching the very complex matter of industrial relations in this country, there is no greater practitioner, no one has contributed more, no one has settled more disputes and no one has brought more common sense to this very complex area than our candidate for Wills - the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the spokesperson for the Labor Party on industrial relations, Bob Hawke. I join everybody else on this side of the Parliament in welcoming Bob Hawke to this Parliament and in congratulating him on his appointment as the spokesperson on industrial relations for the Labor Party. I am convinced that a lot of people in Australia, having seen Bob Hawke join the ranks of the Labor Party as a candidate in this election, will vote for the Labor Party because they believe that in the area of industrial relations, where we have had so much trouble over the last five years, Bob Hawke is the best person to be in charge.

I conclude on the matter of the appointment of Bob Hawke by saying that it was my suggestion to the Leader of the Opposition that he take this action, because between now and 18 October many questions will be raised about who has the right or wrong policies on industrial relations and many questions will be posed about the advantages and disadvantages of the way the Government has controlled this area in the last five years so that we need only one spokesman on this matter, -and Bob Hawke will be that person. I congratulate him for achieving that position. I notice that there is no reference in the 18-page speech of the Minister for Industrial Relations to the Minister or any other member of the Government challenging Bob Hawke to a debate at any time and anywhere on the question of industrial relations. Why does not somebody on the Government side do that?

Mr Yates:

– Yes, I will.

Mr YOUNG:

– Not you, Margaret Thatcher; someone of significance from the front bench. Why do they not challenge Bob Hawke to debate the question of industrial relations? I will telephone him straight after I have finished speaking and arrange it for the Minister if he would like to do it. Let us give the voters of Australia the opportunity of witnessing a debate between the Government’s spokesperson on industrial relations and ours. Let us set it up somewhere in Australia, invite the television and the radio stations to cover it and let the people of Australia make up their minds as to who has the wisest course for this country to follow in the important area of industrial relations. I hope there is such a debate and that it is more widespread because I would like to get Viner on the platform somewhere, too. Let us see how his policies stand up. Let the people of Australia make up their minds as to whether they want Street and Viner or Young and Hawke in these two vital areas. I think we would win.

Mr Ruddock:

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

Mr YOUNG:

– I withdraw; what I meant was the Government Ministers or the Labor spokespersons.

Mr Ruddock:

– My point of order is that Ministers should be referred to by their proper titles.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)

Order! The honourable member has corrected his statement.

Mr YOUNG:

– I wish to refer now to a couple of other matters. In the three years in which I have carried the responsibility for the Labor Party in this House I have enjoyed the role immensely. I enjoy my close relationship with the trade union movement. It is responsible for my being in Parliament. I acknowledge that and I will never run away from it. But, like myself, the trade union movement understands that it cannot govern the country. It must be up to the Parliament to do that. Laws must be set down and the confines of those laws must be adhered to by all citizens.

However, that does not mean that this Government should set out to bring in laws which can be accepted by the people of Australia; quite the opposite. This Government has set about bringing in laws affecting the trade union movement which it knows will provoke industrial disputes. To that extent, we say they are bad laws. They are like the laws of conscription which the Government is always cuddling, and they are laws which will be rejected by the overwhelming majority of Australian people.

Another person who ought to be mentioned this afternoon, the last day of this Parliament, is a person who has been here for 3 1 years and who is perhaps the most knowledgeable person in this Parliament in the area of industrial relations. Certainly he is the most knowledgeable about the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I refer to my great friend the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) . Today is his last day in Parliament. I do not think anyone would deny his contribution to Australian politics, to the Australian Parliament or to industrial relations. From the days when he was a young shearer to those when he was a union organiser, a union secretary, a parliamentarian, a Minister and a father figure in the House he has played an outstanding role for the people of Australia. I wish to acknowledge the role he has played and the influence he has had on my political career. I wish there were many more people in Australia like him. He has never run away from the people he set out as a youth to represent. He has represented the working class in the way in which he felt it was best represented. He has done a sterling job, whether in Government or Opposition, on behalf of the working people of this country.

Some of the things in the speech of the Minister for Industrial Relations border on being laughable. The Minister speaks on behalf of the coalition which, between 1972 and 1975, used every opportunity to block the amalgamation of unions in Australia. Everybody in Australia has been crying out for the amalgamation of unions. There are over 300 registered organisations in Australia. Everybody knows that is crazy. Everybody says it is crazy. The Myers Committee is the latest authoritative source to tell us that there ought to be amalgamations of unions. Here we have the Minister, after five years in office, telling us what he will do if the people of Australia give the Government just another three years. There is something one cannot do with this Government, and that is believe it when it gets close to an election. The people of Australia should ignore totally any promise this Government makes between the time of the announcement of the election and the election itself, because we do not know what to believe and what not to believe. How could one believe this Government, which refused the Labor Party the opportunity when in government between 1972 and 1975 of bringing in laws which would facilitate amalgamations and which has spent five years in office but done nothing about it, when it tells us it will do it in 1981. It has to be a sham.

I do not think that the Government really understands the situation. It has rewritten the laws of this country to make it almost impossible for unions to amalgamate. It is terrified of unions amalgamating. The Government has no idea of the benefits and advantages that would flow to the Australian community from union amalgamation. My friend the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) sits here sniggering. He does not understand. If he went to the car factory in his electorate and spoke to the people going through the gates every day, noting the number of unions to which they belonged, he would get to understand the advantages of all those people belonging to the one trade union. There are many advantages to the community, to the union movement, to the employers and to the governments of this country in the amalgamation of unions. I do not think it is possible for anybody to believe a government which rewrote the laws of this country to prohibit amalgamations, which prevented the Labor Party changing the laws to facilitate amalgamations and which now promises it will do something about it in 1981. It is just not believable. I do not believe it and I do not think anybody else in Australia will believe it.

The Minister referred to the Industrial Relations Bureau. One does not have to take the word of the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Council of Trade Unions for it, one has only to look at what the employers’ spokesman, Mr George Polites, said. He said that the IRB, the brainchild of the Prime Minister, is a worthless tool in industrial relations and should be abolished forthwith, as everybody except the Government agrees. The Industrial Relations Bureau is a money-wasting exercise which does nothing to facilitate or minimise disputation in this country. It ought to be abolished. When we are elected on 18 October it will be abolished. The person who wrote the speech for the Minister ought to be abolished with it.

The Minister refers to the problems of wages and wage indexation and says that a Labor government will facilitate anything the unions want, that if the unions want total wage indexation, plus productivity cases, plus work value cases, then we are here to see that is done. In the matter of wages, this Government has a deplorable record. Except for looking after the Ministers, everybody else in Australia, according to the Government’s wages policy, has been expected to tighten his belt. In the majority of cases in which we have had national wage applications since this Government came to office, it has been before the bench and asked the Arbitration Court not to pass on any wage increase at all. The Government expects the people of Australia to make the ultimate sacrifice, to watch the cost of living going up by 9 per cent, 10 per cent, and perhaps, this year by 12 per cent but it does not want to see wage and salary earners compensated at all. The Government’s submissions have not been for half indexation or three-quarters indexation. Its submissions on the majority of occasions have been for no wage increases at all.

I invite honourable members opposite to go to the supermarkets in their electorates and to watch as the people do their shopping. People find it difficult to come up with the money they need to pay for the basic commodities which they want in their homes. People all over Australia are finding it increasingly difficult to live. There must be a realistic wages policy in this country. We cannot have inflation roaring like it is at the moment, with the Government’s oil pricing policy and health insurance policy, and say to wage and salary earners: ‘You have to take a 10 per cent drop in your living standards every year’. We cannot expect people to starve to death because of the futility of this Government’s policy. The Opposition has a realistic policy. At the moment there would be absolutely no doubt that we would support wage indexation, but not just in rhetoric. We would be saying to the people of Australia: ‘Yes, we do believe there is a legitimate case at the moment, in a national wage case for the consumer price index to be passed on to wage and salary earners’.

How can we ask wage and salary earners or organised labour in this country to respect government or respect the conciliation and arbitration system if the Government wants to interfere to the extent that it is going to solve all the economic problems by starving people to death. There has got to be some understanding of the hardships that are being imposed on the working people of this country. There has to be some understanding and tolerance by Government spokesmen to know that a lot of people- two million according to the Catholic Church - are living in poverty in this country. In many cases those people are living in poverty because of the inadequacy of the wage system in Australia. The wage system is such that we cannot get those people out of poverty. There will have to be a lot of government mechanisms looking after those people.

For the Government to talk about a realistic wages policy when it has had none for five years again, I say, is just not believable. We cannot expect that the Minister for Industrial Relations or the Prime Minister, if re-elected on 18 October, will take an attitude between 1981 and 1984 which is different from the attitude they took in the last five years. In fact, we can expect quite the opposite. It is expected that inflation will be greater next year than it has been in any year in the last five years. What will the Government say? If inflation has been the basis of its opposition to wage increases then it will be more bitterly opposed to any wage increase taking place. Of course now we have on our plate the argument over the way in which productivity gains should be passed on to the work force. The Government will say: ‘Shock and horror; we want you to produce more, but we do not want you to share in the benefits’. They will go into the court in the productivity case which is being initiated by the ACTU and say: ‘Please do not pass anything on. We want everybody to work harder. We want new machinery, new technologies and greater productivity, but we do not want the work force which is giving us that greater productivity to share in the benefits’. What a totally unrealistic and provocative attitude to take towards organised labour in this country. That is why there is a clear difference between what we say about industrial relations and what the Government says.

We live in a democracy. We cannot put chains on a. free trade union movement and we cannot speak with forked tongues. For the last month we have heard a number of Government spokesmen supporting and congratulating the Polish workers for having won the right to strike and the right to organise. If the Government prefers to congratulate and support the Polish workers, then it cannot ask for laws to exist in Poland that it is trying to dismantle in Australia. We do have a democracy, and we do have a free trade union movement. The idea of industrial relations is to bring about harmony between government, employers and employees so that we minimise disputation. There is no recipe for abolishing disputes altogether. We cannot do it in the battle between capital and labour. We cannot abolish disputation altogether, but we can work to minimise it. That is the idea and the concept of industrial relations.

This Government has heaped abuse on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission through unrealistic and totally unaccepted wages policy, the use of the Industrial Relations Bureau, the use of the Trade Practices Act and the use of penal powers where it has tried to restrict the role of the trade union movement. This has only provoked and brought about greater disputation. In addition to this it has used an unholy war against 6 per cent or 7 per cent of our people in trying to quieten the trade union movement down in Australia by building up a massive army of unemployed. That is the other weapon the Goverment has used in its industrial relations policy. All of those things, irrespective of the charges that might be made about the Labor Party are totally unacceptable to it. I suggest that it would be a very good idea - I am sure that everybody would congratulate the Government if it would accept the idea - of having Bob Hawke and the Minister for Industrial Relations appear together to speak for their respective sides about industrial relations and let the people of Australia make up their minds as to whose policies they want to accept. Bob Hawke will bring sanity back into industrial relations where it has been missing for the last five years.

The Prime Minister unfortunately sees some political significance and some political advantage in trying to exploit disputation between employers and employees. He says things which the employers in Australia will not condone and support. He takes on actions on behalf of people like Laidely which brings whole industries to a standstill. The culprit was Laidely, not the unions, not the companies and not the New South Wales Government. The culprit was the person who initiated the breaking of an agreement which he had in the first place with all the other parties. We saw the Prime Minister use the Parliament to write in new laws which only brought about greater disputes. In the great technology dispute within Telecom Australia we saw the Prime Minister ranting and raving about what he would do to the Telecom workers because they dared to hold a strike. They wanted to know about the new technologies which were to be introduced into Telecom and how their jobs would be affected. The Prime Minister said that they had no right to know those things. He said that they had no right to have communication with management about technological change. He said that any money they lost as a result of a strike they would not get back. But when the workers sat around the table with Justice Mary Gaudron, a settlement was reached between the management and the union at the behest of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Government’s rantings and ravings were totally ignored.

The people of Australia, as I say, ought to take time to think about how acute the problems of industrial relations will be in the 1980s. What will be the great issues? They will be a shorter working week, superannuation for all, training leave, educational leave, full employment and technological change. What will be the problems which will affect the thinking of working people in this country. I and other people on this side of the horse - I mean House - including practitioners like Bob Hawke are working towards trying to solve some of these problems.

Mr Lynch:

– Gift horse.

Mr YOUNG:

– The Minister just came in and said I am a horse.

Mr Lynch:

– I did not. That is untrue.

Mr YOUNG:

– I would like to apologise for the Minister’s having said it. I thought he was out selling land down on the Mornington Peninsula. I am surprised to see him here.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! I do not think those sorts of remarks help the House.

Mr YOUNG:

– Tell the Minister to keep quiet and I will not have to say anything. The Labor Party is working to try to solve these problems. We cannot solve them all but we can work towards solving them. The greatest step we have taken in the last week to try to solve them is to give the Australian public the greatest advocate for industrial common sense that this country has to offer in the person of Bob Hawke. I hope that he gets plenty of exposure in the next three weeks so that people will be able to see not only the magnificent job he has done over the past 10 years but also the increased influence he will have on industrial relations as the next Minister for Industrial Relations in this House. If the Minister for Industrial Relations does not take it up perhaps the Prime Minister will take up the offer that I make. We will pay for the hall, for a taxi cab to and from the hall and for dinner at the best restaurant in Sydney or Melbourne. But just put one or the other on the stage with Hawke and let the people of Australia make up their minds. That is all we ask, because that will increase our chances enormously.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned.

page 1517

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr YATES:
Holt

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I make a statement?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr YATES:

– Yes, I do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr YATES:

– The House heard honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) a moment ago say that I was sniggering about union reform and amalgamation. I draw the attention of the House to page 1260 of Hansard for 1 1 September 1980 where it is reported, in reference to the 284 unions and the 3,759 wage awards throughout Australia, that I called on the Government in cooperation with the Premiers and parliaments of the States to appoint a royal commission to examine employer organisations, trade unions and the wages and award systems in Australia and to make recommendations in the national interest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member happy with that personal explanation.

Mr YATES:

– I have explained that what the honourable member for Port Adelaide said is not true. I have now quoted from Hansard. I am completely satisfied.

Mr Ruddock:

– Perhaps the honourable member for Port Adelaide will apologise.

Mr YATES:

– I do not ask for an apology. I do not require one.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Holt has said that he does not require an apology.

page 1517

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN AUSTRALIA: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Ministerial Statement

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– by leave- Honourable members would be aware that in December 1978 the Government appointed a Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change under the chairmanship of Professor Rupert Myers. The Committee was asked to examine, report and make recommendations on the process of technological change in Australian industry in order to maximise economic, social and other benefits and minimise any possible adverse consequences. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) tabled the Committee’s report in this House on 19 August. At that time it was indicated that a more detailed statement would be made during the Budget session of Parliament. Full details of the Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations are set out in the attachment to this statement. At the end of this speech, I will seek the leave of the House to table that statement.

The report identifies technological change as one of the main sources of economic growthgrowth that enables Australians to enjoy greater prosperity and living standards while making ever improving provision for those in need. The Committee concluded that Australia will be best served if industry remains abreast of world technological developments, and makes the fullest possible use of Australian expertise in developing new products and processes. No evidence was found that current unemployment is attributable to technological change, or that future technological change will be likely to cause significant problems of workforce adjustment. The report warns that attempting to slow or prevent the introduction of new technologies would pose great dangers for the Australian economy. Our living standards and our capacity to create employment opportunities would be directly threatened. In particular, the costs of inhibiting technological change are likely to be especially high in terms of industrial competitiveness. The Committee specifically highlighted this point.

The report warns that attempts to reject or to slow down significantly technologically-induced improvements in industrial efficiency will inevitably give rise to severe adjustment problems. This advice - from an expert and representative committee in the light of detailed investigation - is obviously worthy of close consideration. In recent years predictions that technological change will have dire unemployment consequences have become all too familiar. With microprocessors and other highly visible new technologies spreading during a period of high unemployment it is perhaps understandable that this situation should lead to fears of so-called ‘technological unemployment’. However, the Committee’s report provides strong reassurance to those who have been apprehensive about the effects of new technologies.

The Committee points out that such predictions ignore relationships between technological change, productivity and rising incomes which lead to the creation of new employment opportunities elsewhere in the economy. Increased productivity raises incomes. As a result wages rise, prices are reduced and profits are enhanced. The spending of those increased incomes leads to new employment opportunities, often in areas quite unrelated to the initial change. These effects of higher incomes are readily evident in many areas of the economy. Greater discretionary income is reflected in increased spending on services including entertainment, sport and recreation, meals away from home, travel and education. As our living standards increase, assisted by technological advances, so do our demands for goods and services and more people find employment in providing them.

Innovative technologies also have another very important effect. They frequently create their own demand. The modern jet airliner is a case in point. The rapid spread of national and international air travel could barely have been imagined 20 or 30 years ago. Consumer durables such as television receivers are also examples of significant new industries which have developed as a result of technical innovation. While emphasising the positive aspects of technological change, the Committee also cautioned that the adjustment process is not necessarily free of stress. Necessary accommodations can involve the geographical relocation of employees, the learning of new skills, transfers to different tasks, and changing industry or employer.

The Committee warns that, in future, these adjustments will need to be approached in a more co-operative and mutually supportive way than has been usual in the past. Specific proposals have been advanced to facilitate this process. The Committee particularly emphasised the need for adequate notification and consultation with employees when a particular new technology is to be introduced into the workplace. The Government strongly endorses this view. Many enterprises already ensure that their employees are kept properly informed. However, this is far from universal. The resultant uncertainties in the minds of employees are a potential source of costly resistance to change. This obstacle can be substantially reduced by employers adopting a more cooperative approach.

The Committee believes that the guidelines for notification and consultation developed by the National Labour Advisory Council constitute good management practice. The report notes, however, that most employers are not familiar with those guidelines.

The Government therefore proposes to invite the National Labour Consultative Council to review and update the guidelines as a matter of urgency. Just how quickly that might be done will be for the NLCC itself to determine. The Government wishes to see the work completed as quickly as possible and will convey this view to the Council. The Government will also propose the review of guidelines for the period of notice of retrenchment, assistance to employees seeking alternative employment, and standards to be observed in the use of electronic systems to monitor individual employees. Once the review has been completed the Government proposes that the NLCC should actively promote wider implementation of the revised guidelines. The Government believes that this approach will be more effective than a test case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as proposed by the Committee. Effective communication between employers and employees depends heavily on the goodwill and common sense of the parties involved. Procedures for notification, consultation and provision of information have generally been settled by negotiation and agreement. These are not matters which lend themselves to effective legislation or award prescription. The NLCC was established by the Government to provide a formal tripartite forum for consultation on important industrial questions. It is the body best placed to bring about workable improvements.

The Committee also concluded that technological advancement would be facilitated by a reduction in the number of unions and by the organisation of unions on an industry basis. A multitude of fragmented unions is necessarily a complicating factor in negotiations. It also leads to inadequate resources on the union side, inhibits the movement of employees from job to job and promotes demarcation disputes, restrictive work rules and other impediments to productivity, efficiency and innovation. The Committee therefore recommended that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Act and other relevant legislation be amended to facilitate the formation of larger, industry-based unions. Most importantly, it recommended relaxation of present amalgamation requirements.

At present, as the House is aware, in each union conducting an amalgamation ballot at least 50 per cent of those eligible to vote must do so, and of those voting at least 50 per cent must vote in favour of amalgamation. The Committee proposed that approval be granted if a simple majority of the formal votes cast were in favour of amalgamation. However, this relaxation would apply only in the case of proposed amalgamations consistent with the formation of industry-based unions. In other instances the existing provisions would continue to apply. Union amalgamation is one of a number of policy areas covered by the CITCA recommendations in which the Government has already moved in the direction advocated by the Committee. Following a proposal by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1978 the National Labour Consultative Council began an examination of the question of union amalgamation, and my colleague, the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), has announced the Government’s response to the NLCC proposals.

The Committee emphasised the desirability of the labour force, businesses and the community generally being informed about the process of technological change. This view was reflected in a number of recommendations in relation to education, training needs and the monitoring of technological change. In each of these areas the Government has accepted the greater part of the Committee’s proposals. The Government has also accepted the Committee’s recommendations for a technology awareness program, which will supplement existing activities in this area by the departments of Productivity and Science and the Environment. The Committee emphasises that technological change will affect not only the location of future jobs but also the types of jobs available and the safety and general conditions in which they are performed. A number of recommendations were aimed at ensuring that technological change continues to be accompanied by improvements in working conditions. Here again the Government welcomes the recommendations and has already moved in the direction advocated by the Committee. For example, the Government has been actively pursuing with the States the establishment of a consultative committee on occupational safety and health. The endorsement of the Common wealth/State Labour Ministers’ Conference has already been obtained and the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) is currently seeking similar*- endorsement from his State counterparts.

The National Health and Medical Research Council will be asked to examine ways of increasing research on occupational health and the Government will be consolidating and promoting distribution of the Commonwealth Government codes on occupational safety and health. The Committee also recommended that additional emphasis be placed on research, the provision of information and the co-ordination of uniform standards in the working environment field. This proposal is accepted in substance. A council of advice will be established, including employer and union representatives, to advise on a suitable program of work.

I come now to the CITCA proposal for a two part retrenchment compensation scheme, including additional temporary income maintenance for retrenched workers. I have already indicated that the Government fully endorses the Committee’s emphasis on the need for Australian industry to keep abreast of the latest technologies. It follows, of course, that any measures that may reduce resistance to the introduction of new technologies are deserving of the closest and most careful considerations. The Committee showed that, typically, only about 7 per cent of firms find it necessary to retrench workers as a consequence of technological change - and in most of those situations only a small proportion of workers are retrenched. In the great majority of cases, resistance to change is due in significant measure to the general uncertainty among employees as to their individual prospects. This would be particularly likely where there is, of course, inadequate consultation. If employees are notified of change in good time there should be no need for concern among the many workers who will not be affected. Uncertainty can also be reduced and perhaps even avoided amongst those workers who will be affected but who will be redeployed or retrained for other jobs within the firm. More importantly, effective consultation arrangements will minimise the need for retrenchment. Among the very small percentage of workers who find themselves facing retrenchment, the highest priority will clearly be to obtain a new job. This, in turn, will be far easier if employees receive adequate notice and if their employer assists them to find new employment. Where employees are retrenched with adequate notice, experience has been that half of them on average quickly find alternative employment. Usually this is as a result of their own efforts or with some assistance from their employer.

It follows that proposed steps aimed at increasing consultation, notification and assistance with employment search will have important effects in easing adjustment to change. These same measures will also enable more effective use of government programs of assistance to those who have difficulty finding alternative employment. The Government therefore proposes to improve those programs even though this action was not called for by the Committee. The Commonwealth Employment Service will be strengthened to improve its capacity to assist displaced workers particularly where large scale retrenchments occur. Improvements will also be made to the Relocation Assistance Scheme and the National Employment and Training System to provide more effective assistance for retrenched workers. Details can be found in the statement which, with the leave of the Opposition, shortly will be incorporated in Hansard. The Committee’s proposal for the provision of additional income maintenance for retrenched workers has far-reaching implications for the present social welfare system. That system is based primarily on the principle that assistance to individuals should be provided according to their needs. The particular proposal put forward by the Committee would raise the difficulty that some unemployed persons would receive more generous benefits than others whose needs may be greater.

The Committee’s proposal was also clearly linked with improved and more widespread redundancy payments by employers. While such payments could facilitate acceptance of change, they would have the potential to add significantly to labour costs at a time when such costs are already a worrying source of inflationary pressures and unemployment. These proposals raise complex and major issues for the Government, employers and unions alike. Before taking final decisions the Government will seek full consideration with employers and the trade union movement. The Committee was also asked to review the efficacy of Government policies and programs facilitating the introduction of new technology. In responding to that reference the Committee examined many policies and programs and made recommendations for modifications and improvements. Relevant Ministers have been asked to examine carefully the Committee’s detailed recommendations on individual programs.

The Government has, however, already considered in detail the Committee’s recommendations on the current Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. Recommendations from previous expert reports on industrial research and development, as well as the latest report from the Australian Science and Technology Council, were also considered. As recommended by the Committee, the Government has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Industrial Research and Development Act and its other assistance measures for industrial research and development. The importance that this Government attaches to encouraging industrial research and development is reflected, in the substantially increased assistance provided in recent years under the Industrial Research and Development Act. Funding has risen from $ 14m in 1977-78 to $54m in 1980-81. The present Act expires on 30 June 1981 and a new Act will be drawn up for a five-year program to apply from that time. The main focus of support for industrial research and development will continue to be the project grants component of the Industrial Research and Development Act. The commencement grant program under that Act will continue. More detailed guidelines for project grants and public interest projects will be issued and the Industrial Research and Development Board will be strengthened. The grant limits for both project and commencement grants are to be increased. The Government will be increasing the proportion of its Industrial Research and Development contracted out to industry. It will also be increasing its support for new and existing research associations.

The major conclusions of the Committee are very much in line with the Government’s own assessment of the economic and employment effects of technological change. The Government is fully aware of the adverse long term implications of endeavouring to reject or resist technological change. Competitiveness and employment prospects would inevitably suffer. Our long term industry policy is aimed at encouraging the development of internationally competitive, export oriented, specialised and innovative industries. Attempts to delay or prevent technological advances could only work against that general objective. Enhancing Australia’s international competitiveness has also been an important general economic policy objective of this Government. That objective has been met handsomely. Australian business men and women can now meet their international rivals on more favourable terms than at any time since 1972. This increased competitiveness has been reflected in the strong growth in exports of manufacturers over the last two years. In addition, it has led to strengthened output and investment in many traditional import competing industries.

The Government has mounted a steady and persistent attack on inflation and other economic problems that emerged during the 1970s. The result has been improved confidence, a continued expansion in economic activity and, over the last year or so, the strongest expansion in new employment opportunities for many years. Since coming to office, this Government has consistently maintained that restoring the competitiveness and vitality of Australian economy is the only way to achieve a sustained high rate of creation of permanent, productive jobs. An important message to emerge from the Committee’s report is that the process of restoring the economy to full health and vigor would be made very much more difficult if we failed to take advantage of advances in technology. I have outlined the many positive and constructive steps which the Government is taking in response to the CITCA report. The Government believes that these will play a significant role in achieving a more positive climate for technological change in Australian industry and commerce. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Government’s responses to the recommendations of the Committee.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN AUSTRALIA

Notification and Consultation

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the government sponsor a test case before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with a view to the setting by that Commission of minimum standards to be observed by enterprises on notification, provision of information, and consultation when technological change is to occur. The Committee recommends that the government support the prescription of standards similar to those set out in the NLAC guidelines taking due account of more recent awards and agreements.

Response

The Government strongly endorses the objective of more adequate notification, provision of information and consultation. The NLCC will be invited at its next meeting to review, and update the NLAC guidelines and promulgate the revised guidelines.

UNION ORGANISATION

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that legislation relating to the organisation of unions be amended to facilitate the formation of larger industry-based unions. In particular it is recommended that the following changes be made to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Response

Accepted in substance. At the time the CITCA Report was released the Government had under consideration, and has subsequently decided to accept, legislative amendments proposed by the NLCC. These proposed amendments represent a positive response to the CITCA recommendations.

Section 158N should be amended so that, where the Industrial Registrar is of the view that a proposed amalgamation is not contrary to the formation of industry unions as described in Chapter 5 of Volume1 of the Committee’s Report, the proposal will be taken to have been approved by the members if, in a ballot, a majority of the formal votes cast are in favour of the amalgamation.

Response

Substantially accepted. Where a Full Bench of the Commission determines that a proposed amalgamation would be in the public interest and that there is a ‘community of interest’ between the organisations concerned, then an amalgamation may proceed and be approved by a simple majority of formal votes cast, provided at least 25 per cent of those on the rolls of voters cast a vote.

To assist the process of amalgamation: Section 158k should be amended so that eligibility to vote in amalgamation ballots is determined by the rules of the relevant union dealing with eligibility to vote in ordinary union elections (in the case of most unions this would mean that only financial members would be entitled to vote in amalgamation ballots);

Response

Accepted. The roll of voters to consist of members eligible to vote in accordance with the rules of the organisation one month before the opening date of the ballot.

provision should be made in section 1 58N or elsewhere to allow a multi-union amalgamation to proceed even though in the ballot one or more of the unions concerned failed to secure the necessary support for the amalgamation, so that those unions securing the support might still amalgamate provided an opportunity existed for voting on alternative amalgamation arrangements.

Response

Accepted. In multi-union amalgamations members will be able to vote on alternative forms of amalgamation.

  1. to assist in reducing the number of very small unions, section 1 32 should be amended to allow organisations to apply to be registered only when they represent 2000 or more members, and a provision be included to require unions to show cause why they should not be deregistered when their numbers fall below 1 SOO.

Response

The National Labour Consultative Council will be asked to consider the question of the minimum size of registered organisations.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Public Service Arbitration Act be amended as necessary to ensure that the conditions specified in Recommendation 2 apply in its area of coverage.

Response

Accepted. The amendments proposed in response to Recommendation 2 apply equally to organisations operating under the Public Service Arbitration Act, since such organisations are registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that a Union Amalgamation Assistance Unit be established within the Department of Industrial Relations. The functions of the Unit should be to encourage unions registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to amalgamate in a manner not inconsistent with the long-term goal of industry unionism and to offer assistance during the process of amalgamation.

Response

The appropriate role of Government is to provide a legislative framework as well as appropriate technical, financial and other assistance to enable unions themselves to amalgamate and move towards a more rational industry-orientated structure. The Industrial Registrar’s Office already has the statutory responsibility and expertise to provide advice and technical assistance in this area.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that funds be made available through the Union Amalgamation Assistance Unit to meet reasonable costs incurred by unions seeking to amalgamate in a manner not inconsistent with the long-term goal of industry unionism, such costs may cover materials, legal advice and temporary administrative staff necessary to handle the amalgamation.

Response

The Government provides advisory and technical assistance to unions contemplating amalgamation. It conducts and bears the cost of elections. These services will continue to be provided as required following the implementation of the proposed legislative changes.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that, further to Recommendations 2 to S, the government sponsor through the National Labour Consultative Council a study of the ways and means by which registered industrial organisations in Australia could be actively encouraged to regroup on an industry basis.

Response

The Government will be monitoring the effect of the proposed legislative changes and will further consider this proposal, if appropriate, in the light of developments.

WAGE STRUCTURES

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the government initiate discussions with employer and union groups in the National Labour Consultative Council with a view to devising a coordinated approach to the reappraisal of wage relativities to provide for wage margins that more properly reflect skills and responsibilities.

Response

The Commonwealth package to the Wage Conference includes a proposal that the wording of Principal 7a (relating to work value) be amended to require the Commission to pay particular regard to skill and responsibility when it awards a wage increase based upon a change in the value of work performance.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the government initiate discussions in the National Labour Consultative Council with a view to actively fostering consideration in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of cases that seek to broadband job classifications into groups within awards.

Response

Accepted. NLCC endorsement of broadbanding will be encouraged, subject to the requirements of the current wage fixation principles and such exercises being conducted on the basis of consensus between the parties.

WORKING ENVIRONMENT

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that a Bureau of the Working Environment be established within the Department of Productivity from elements of the Working Environment Division and with direct responsibility to the Minister for Productivity. The aim of the Bureau should be to assist in the improvement of the quality of working life for all Australians. The work program of the Bureau should be established by an appropriately constituted Council of Advice, which would include employer and union representatives. The Bureau should be headed by a recognised expert, perhaps on secondment, and should keep abreast of overseas developments, undertake and commission research, including research on safety at work, disseminate its findings as widely as possible, monitor standards and practices and make recommendations for change where appropriate.

Response

Accepted in principle. Additional emphasis to be given in the Working Environment field to research, information provision and the co-ordination of uniform standards and Codes of Practice; such emphasis can be accommodated within the present structure of the Department of Productivity. The proposed Council of Advice is accepted.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth actively promote the establishment of a National Consultative Committee on Occupational Safety and Health to foster the adoption of improved and uniform regulations throughout Australia.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Minister for Health ask the National Health and Medical Research Council to examine ways and means that would enable more research of direct relevance to Australian conditions to be done in the field of occupational health.

Response

Accepted. The Government will also be examining the availability of vocational training in occupational health.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that the proposed Bureau of the Working Environment prepare as a matter of priority a consolidation of the Code of General Principles on Occupational Safety and Health in Commonwealth Government Employment and the supporting codes of practice approved to date, and that the consolidated document be widely disseminated.

Response

Accepted - within existing Departmental structure.

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends that, consequent on its reorganisation and increased role in relation to technological change, the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia (PPCA) be renamed the Working Environment and Productivity Council of Australia (WEPCA), that its funding from the Commonwealth government for salaries and administrative expenses be formalised through direct grants to WEPCA, that its existing direct grant be maintained, and that provision be made for a new secretariat responsible directly to the Governing Board.

Response

The Minister for Productivity will be discussing with the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia the most viable and economic way of giving effect to the proposal, including clarification of the role of the Council and its relationship to the Department of Productivity.

page 1523

RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends that the government support the introduction of a two-part retrenchment compensation scheme that would include:

Provision in awards for: a period of notice before retrenchment monetary compensation for lost seniority and other accumulated credits only assistance to find alternative employment

The award provisions would have to be established by a test case. The Committee recommends that the Government sponsor such a case based on standards in general accordance with the NLAC guidelines.

A temporary income-maintenance scheme that would: be funded by the government and administered as a supplement to unemployment benefits provide for persons retrenched through no fault of their own to receive for a fixed period after retrenchment a fixed proportion of their weekly earnings averaged over the 3 months prior to retrenchment, up to a maximum of the national average weekly earnings for the preceding quarter.

The period of income maintenance might vary from 1 month for persons who were employed by the same employer for 3 to 5 years, up to 6 months for persons who were so employed for 10 years, or more. The rate of benefit might vary with the period of employment from 60 per cent of weekly earnings as defined above to 75 per cent. A loading might be added for persons with dependants.

Response

The Government accepts and strongly endorses the need for adequate periods of notice and of employment assistance. These matters will be included in the review of NLAC guidelines recommended in response to CITCA’s recommendation on notification and consultation (Recommendation 1 ) .

The proposals concerning redundancy arrangements and temporary income maintenance raise complex and major issues for the Government, employers and unions alike. Before taking final decisions the Government will seek full consultation with employers and the union movement.

Improvements will be made to employment service and manpower programs. provision of specialist staff to co-ordinate employment services and manpower programs in respect of retrenchments; to facilitate relocation of retrenched workers increase the maximum refund for removal expenses under the Relocation Assistance Scheme (RAS) from $750 to$1250: all allowances under the scheme to be reviewed annually; removal of the requirement under RAS that the location of the proposed job be the nearest available; make available normal NEAT on-the-job subsidy to employers who release for retraining persons still employed under notice; more extensive retraining of retrenched workers under NEAT special projects.

page 1523

EDUCATION AND TRAINING NEEDS

Recommendation15

The Committee, mindful of the importance of education in facilitating technological change, and of the special relevance of achieving adequate literacy and numeracy levels, recommends that the government increase its support of programs for national monitoring of literacy and numeracy, the collection of data on subject choice and the subsequent education and employment history of students, and the dissemination of the results. The Committee recommends further that the government keep under review the data derived from the above programs, with special attention being given to the Committee’s comments on education in mathematics and the sciences.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that in addition to the government’s initiative to establish a National Research and Development Centre for Technical and Further Education it sponsor, through the Industry Advisory Councils and the Industry Training Committees, studies of technological change at the level of industries to assist the Centre for Technical and Further Education in its work.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 26

With a view to enhancing the capacity of the union movement to study and respond to technological change, the Committee recommends that the following steps be taken.

The Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA) should be requested to consider and make recommendations to the government on the adequacy of the provision of training relevant to the needs of trade unionists who are involved in representing employees during the process of technological change. Additional funds should be made available by government where significant needs are identified.

Response

Accepted

The ACTU should be invited to consider the establishment of a unit specialising in matters concerned with technological change, particularly such aspects as consultation practices, working environment, adjustment mechanisms and economic analysis, to enable the ACTU and its affiliates to participate more fully in the various tripartite bodies established by the government. If such a unit is established, the government should provide a grant to assist with its establishment and operating costs.

Response

Under the Training in Industry and Commerce program, the ACTU is eligible, along with employer organisations, for a matching grant of up to $31,000 per annum for five years towards the establishment of a Manpower Development Unit.

page 1524

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Recommendation 17

The Committee, having studied the effectiveness of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme, recommends that the government review the existing Industrial Research and Development Incentives legislation and operations as part of its consideration of the Committee’s report.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 18

The Committee recommends that the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act be amended so that, in addition to the provision for the making of grants, a provision be made for the making of loans that could be interest-free and would be repayable in the case of projects that were successful and profitable.

Response

Project grants will remain the main focus of IR & D support. Project grant limits will be increased from $500,000 to $750,000 per enterprise per annum as from 1 July 1981.

Recommendation 19

The Committee recommends that commencement grants be retained.

Response

Accepted. The grant limit will be increased from $25,000 to $40,000 per annum.

Recommendation 20

The Committee recommends that the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act be amended to include conditions under which projects may be funded in the public interest; such conditions should provide that approved projects would normally involve the commercial development phase of research undertaken in public sector or non-profit research institutions, and would be of major importance and attract widespread public support, and should ensure that funding under this section would not be in place of funding otherwise available.

Response

Accepted in principle. A new IR & D Incentives Act will require such guidelines for public interest projects to be promulgated in regulations.

Recommendation 21

The Committee recommends that the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act be amended to achieve the following aims.

The membership of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board should be enlarged to provide for a chairman and not more than 1 1 and not less than 7 other members;

Response

Accepted. the chairman should be part-time and appointed from outside the public service;

Response

Accepted

The Board should include a full-time executive member;

Response

Accepted. technical standing committees should be established to provide specialist advice including technical and commercial assessment of projects prior to approval, during progress and on completion;

Response

Accepted. The Board may appoint technical standing committees where the Minister for Productivity considers this necessary to obtain specialist advice. the Board and its technical standing committees should comprise research workers and industrialists eminent in relevant fields of industrial technology.

Response

Accepted

The Board should be reconstituted as a corporate statutory body responsible to the Minister for Productivity and with independent staffing and funding.

Response

The Board will be expanded and strengthened and the technical expertise of the staff assisting the Board will be strengthened.

The powers and functions of the reconstituted Board should include the administration of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, and also policy advice to the Minister on industrial R&D incentives including recommendations on the choice of projects in the public interest (section 39).

Response

Management responsibility for and advice on selection of public interest projects will remain in the Department of Productivity, with advice on selection of projects being provided by a reconstituted Australian IR & D Incentives Advisory Committee. This will not preclude the I R & D Board offering advice on policy matters relating to I R & D Incentives.

Each public interest project should be funded by a separate budget appropriation and be subject to the same gazettal procedures as other Ministerial directions to the Board.

Response

Accepted in principle. A Ministerial statement to be made on each public interest project.

Each public interest project should be accounted for and reported on, including details of Ministerial directions, separately in the Annual Report of the Board.

Response

Accepted

Financial and Taxation Matters

Recommendation 22

The Committee recommends that the government sponsor the establishment of a private venture-capital corporation to provide risk capital to individuals and to small and mediumsized enterprises to facilitate the bringing to production and the marketing of promising inventions and innovations.

The venture corporation should operate under the following guidelines.

The corporation’s investments should normally be in new or small established companies and should not exceed 49 per cent of the total equity.

Such investments should be based on a careful technical, financial and market analysis, often through consultants, thereby allowing an asset value to be placed on the innovation; supported projects should be based on prototypes capable of commercial production in less than 18 months; the innovation should preferably be patentable.

The corporation should take an active role in managing the company by close financial and technical monitoring.

The corporation should only take on equity investments in technological innovations that cannot attract finance elsewhere.

The corporation should aim at realising profits by sale of its equity to the other owners or to an approved third party (or parties) after production is successfully established.

The government contribution to the establishment of the corporation should include a guarantee of loan funds up to a maximum of $25m over15 years, such loans to be matched by the private investors in the corporation.

Response

This recommendation has been referred to the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and will be considered in the light of that Report.

Recommendation 23

The Committee recommends that the review of depreciation rates envisaged by the Study Group on Structural Adjustment be brought forward without prejudice to arrangements to apply upon expiry of the investment allowance.

Response

Accepted in principle. A 20 per cent loading to existing depreciation rates was introduced by the Government in the 1 980-8 1 budget and rates will remain under review.

Recommendation 24

The Committee recommends that Commonwealth and State governments include in their on-going discussions on arrangements for State revenue-raising an examination of the ways by which the pay-roll tax may be replaced.

Response

Changes to the payroll tax are a matter for consideration by State Governments.

page 1525

TECHNOLOGY AWARENESS PROGRAM

Recommendation 25

The Committee recommends that a Technology Awareness Program be established and administered by the Department of Productivity under the guidance of a steering committee of employer, employee and government representatives, which would be established for the purpose.

The Program should contain a number of general elements for different audiences, such as pamphlets and films on the general nature of technological change and on its effects on the economy, industries, the labour force and society.

Such material may in the first instance be based on the material in this Report and should be prepared in close cooperation with the proposed Bureau of the Working Environment and the Working Environment and Productivity Council of Australia, as well as the Industry Advisory Councils, the Industry Training Committees, the Bureau of Industry Economics and the Bureau of Labour Market Research.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 27

The Committee recommends the following steps.

The first industry-oriented stage of the Technology Awareness Program proposed in Recommendation 25 should be a Microelectronics Awareness Program.

Response

Accepted

A once-only grant should be provided to enable small businesses (perhaps up to 80 employees) to employ consultants to advise them on the application of microelectronics and computer-assisted manufacture. The grants should have a ceiling of $2,000 and should be on a dollar-for-dollar basis for consultations with an approved organisation.

Response

The employment of consultants for this purpose is more appropriately a matter of businesses themselves in the light of the usual commercial considerations.

page 1525

MONITORING AND EVALUATING TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE

Recommendation 28

The Committee recommends that a Standing Committee of ASTEC be established with representatives from industry, the trade unions, scientists and technologists (from the natural and social sciences) and government (including State governments on a rotating basis), and with terms of reference as follows: to review on a continuing basis the processes and trends in technological change in Australia and elsewhere; and to evaluate and report on the direct and indirect effects of technological change at the national level.

The Standing Committee should have its own Secretariat and should have power and funds to commission studies, although it should work closely with: the Industry Advisory Councils the Industry Training Committees the Bureau of Industry Economics the Bureau of Labour Market Research the proposed Bureau of the Working Environment the proposed Working Environment and Productivity Council of Australia

Commonwealth departments and agencies

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 29

The Committee recommends that a Council on Technological Change be established comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers. The Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs would seem to be the appropriate Commonwealth Minister to be chairman.

Response

The attention of existing Ministerial bodies, such as the Commonwealth-State Labour and Industry Ministers’ Conferences, will be drawn to the need for adequate Commonwealth-State consultation and co-operation.

page 1526

PRIVACY

Recommendation 30

The Committee recommends as follows.

A review should be made of legislative action proposed to safe-guard personal privacy in relation to information stored on data banks. Efforts should be made to enact appropriate legislation in the near future.

Response

Accepted. The matter has been bought to the attention of the Law Reform Commission.

The parties directly involved in electronic systems that monitor individual employees should consult on appropriate standards to be observed. If necessary this matter should be the subject of government action.

Response

Accepted in principle. To be considered as part of the proposed NLCC Review.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I present the following paper:

Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia: Government Response- Ministerial statement, 18 September 1980.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 22 minutes.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition’s response to this statement is firstly to draw attention to the fact that we are now in the dying hours of this Parliament. There could not be a more important matter than this one but because of the time restraint there will be little opportunity for other honourable members to participate in the debate. We are debating the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia in a climate of massive unemployment. In fact, unemployment is double what it was some five years ago. These factors certainly must bring home to all Australians what is happening to our industry and what is happening to our country. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) was anxious to point out that technological change brings advancement and employment opportunities. He mentioned, for example, the aircraft industry and the electronics industry. I am indebted to my colleague, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), for mentioning to me that 35,600 people were employed in the electronics industry in 1971 but now the number has dropped to 20,300 people. The Minister will be aware that with the energy crisis, the suggestion that we will have major aircraft movements is unlikely to be correct. In fact, in the decade ahead the number of aircraft movements is likely to be reduced because of these problems.

The Opposition believes that the report is inadequate. It regards the Government’s response as being worse because the most important thing happening to our society is technological change. With that change comes unemployment and the possibility of lower living standards. It is important - it is obligatory - for governments to face up to that issue. The suggestion has been made - it is often Treasury influenced- that the displacement of workers does not really matter, particularly if it is in the manufacturing base, that the service industries certainly will pick up the impact. That has been proved to be fallacious. I refer the Minister to the French Nora report which has predicted that 30 per cent of all employees in the banking sector will become redundant within 10 years because of computerisation. That prediction applies also to the insurance industry.

We have, for example, in the Myers report the suggestion that in 1985, 80,000 word processors will be installed. That means a job loss potential of 400,000. Nobody will be able to ignore this problem. Governments will have to get involved. The report itself did not grapple with the situation as we see it. With computerisation, with the advent of the silicon chip and with the microcomputer technology we need skills but in this process of change, this process of new technology, a number of divisions are being created. We have operators who become de-skilled and then we require the services of those with higher skills. There is a great widening of the gap between workers - between those who are redundant, those who are de-skilled and those who are skilled. It places a tremendous burden on those who are deemed to be obsolete, that is, the older worker. What are these workers to do? What policies have been developed for them? What is the Government’s response in those areas? It does not always follow that new products create new jobs. Often they are just replacements of existing products.

We should not become luddites and resist technological change. That is not feasible, sensible or possible. At the same time, we do not want to create disastrous consequences for our society and our own people. The key question is control over the rate of introduction of technology and the maintenance of skill levels and employment opportunities. The problem is succinctly described in this way: The way the new technology is being used now means that the machines are running the workers. We need technology that enables the workers to run the machines. Government cannot leave it to free market forces to do it. It has an obligation to the community, to the people, and to the nation to guarantee that it becomes involved and plays a role.

The Myers Committee’s report has been the subject of comment by people who are entitled to claim expertise from a background of association in this respect. For example, Mr Ashley Goldsworthy of the Australian Computer Society had this to say about the report:

The report comes across as a series of rather superficial observations and even more superficial solutions. It does not get to the heart of the problem.

What we needed was a blueprint for change, change that is a must if we are to replace a complete lack cif planning with a modicum of anticipation and foresight. What we have been given is, unfortunately, a plethora of rather facile and nonproductive suggestions.

The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures thought that the report was ‘a superficial approach’. Professor Vance Gledhill of the Faculty of Mathematical and Computing Sciences of the New South Wales Institute had this to say:

While the well known Nora Report in France -

I have referred already to that report - is moving that country . . . into technological independence, this ‘Nero Report’, produced as a blueprint of Australia, fiddles while the holocaust . . . burns on.

It would be a tragedy if the Australian Government thought that the recommendations of the Myers Committee satisfied demands for a blueprint for the technological future of Australia.

The thrust of the report becomes evident on a breakup of its 30 major recommendations. Eight of those recommendations relate to industrial relations, five relate to working environment, two relate to education and training, two relate to technological monitoring and assessment, one relates to privacy, one relates to welfare provisions for those disadvantaged by technological change, and eleven relate to the stimulation of technological change. The Myers Committee adopted the premise of the Government, against most available evidence, that technological change enables employment. Any losses that have occurred are deemed to be tied to economic conditions. Whilst we can all agree that the vast increase in unemployment over the last five years could be due to the Government’s failure, there can be no doubt that some part- this will apply in the future - of unemployment is due directly to technological change.

There is no systematic approach in the report. There is a lack of method. The report ignores the impact of technological change relating to women. The report shows a dearth of comprehension, a dearth of conceptionalism and a dearth of analysis. This can only be expected as the Committee set out to visit organisations likely to support its initial premise. The basis of selection for public meetings was not the pursuit of evidence. Largely only employers were invited. The few unions invited were asked such banal questions as: Is your union compulsory?’

The data brought back from visits to the United States of America, Canada and Japan was used selectively. Over 20 consultant reports were commissioned by the Committee but these were hired as the need was identified by the Committee. This led to the somewhat ridiculous situation whereby a consultant hired on a Wednesday had to report back by the following Monday. A rush of projects was organised in 1980 when the members of the secretariat provided from the Public Service were already back in their departments. Some consultant reports were still in progress in April when the draft had already been written. There is a distorted summary of reports in the final report. According to the Press yesterday one of the reports was plagiarised without due acknowledgment. The result was predetermined from the beginning.

The report neglects the consequences of locking the Australian economy into a dependent role in a world economy dominated by multinational corporations that are the chief promoters and beneficiaries of micro-electronic technology. Earlier this year Sir Geoffrey Badger, the Chairman of the Australian Science and Technology Council, warned that this reliance on imported technology would make it more difficult to regulate the pace and the extent of change. We have a substantial deficit in our technological balance of payments. Our receipts from overseas for patents, licences and royalties amounted to only 1 1 per cent of the payments that we have to make to overseas companies.

For the numbers of Australian workers likely to be affected, the report could be summarised in two ways: Firstly, these people will be told when they get the sack and, secondly, out of the public purse there may be some payment for those people affected by technological change. This only encourages employers to dismiss workers, particularly if there are no problems, such as redundancy payments. Let us look at the situation at the Pagewood plant where 1,200 workers were dismissed. There is no real solution for those workers. Two-thirds of those workers are from ethnic backgrounds. I have had people say to me: I am aged 44. 1 am too young to retire and I am too old to get another job’. That is the situation on the evidence that has been presented to me. We are heading for a situation in which fewer people will be paying more taxes to pay to greater numbers of unemployed people with less government expenditure but, of course, greater profits.

On this last sitting day of this Parliament we have the Government’s response to these recommendations. The Government has endorsed the overall thrust in favour of rapid introduction of new technology. It is just a re-run of the submission made by the Department of the Treasury to the Myers Committee, that is that market forces should be relied upon to determine the technological flow. The Government has rejected recommendation No. 14, which is the most important of the lot and which calls for a social safety net. This recommendation recognised that the goal of government policy should be to provide security of employment so that change could occur without redundancy. However, where there was redundancy the needs of the individual had to be taken into account. This was a minimum recommendation for the Australian people but it has not been accepted. It entailed a two-part retrenchment compensation scheme that included, firstly, the provision of periods of notice of redundancy, monetary compensation for lost seniority, and assistance in finding alternative employment and, secondly, a temporary income maintenance scheme funded by the Government and administered as a supplement to unemployment benefit.

That scheme is insufficient in itself. For instance, none of our young people would be able to get it because of the three-year eligibility criterion. Dependent spouses would not be able to get it because of the provisions of payment of unemployment benefit. The Government has rejected that. It endorses provisions in awards for a period of notice before retrenchment. We do not oppose that, but we point out that we have already foreshadowed legislation to provide for such advance warning. The length of notification would depend on the size of the company and the number of people employed. Australia is lagging sadly behind the rest of the world on the question of legal responsibilities of companies for their workers. Throughout Western Europe and the United States compulsory notification and consultation procedures are required to be met before dismissals for economic reasons can be effected. In Australia, companies are free to make collective dismissals, as happened at Pagewood, and the worker has no recourse. No notification procedures is written into any federal award. The system generally is not appropriate for long term protection of jobs and must be supplemented by legislation giving trade unions the right to be consulted about issues affecting the future of their members.

The Government has not accepted that part of the package concerning redundancy arrangements and temporary income maintenance. This was fobbed off under the heading of ‘further consultation’. The Government is relying on the claim that improvements will be made to employment service and manpower programs, with particular emphasis on the National Employment and Training Scheme. Let us look at the NEAT Scheme. Funds allocated under the NEAT Scheme have been cut by 54 per cent since 1978-79. The NEAT Scheme serves predominantly the adult unemployed. In real terms, funds have been cut by 40 per cent since 1978-79. Last year the funds allocated were underspent by $13.3m. This year fewer than five of every 100 registered unemployed persons will receive training and retraining assistance under the NEAT Scheme, compared with 11 out of every 100 persons in 1978. Moneys taken from the NEAT Scheme have not been allocated to any other job creation or retraining program. Yet the Government now says that the NEAT Scheme is to be the safety net. On the industrial relations recommendations relating to union amalgamations and wage relativities the Government is relying on the unions by refusing to provide any union amalgamation assistance. Surely on that basis it needs to have a unit within the Department of Industrial Relations and funds should be made available for this purpose.

What the Government is ignoring is the industrial reality that many unions would not seek amalgamation on industry lines even if it were offered to them. The Government is still intimidated by the fear of the growing concentration of power of unions such as the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union during the late 1960s and early 1970s. As regards broadbanding of job classifications, this is already under way in many industries and awards. The Government has provided nothing new. In terms of the notification and provision of information on technological change, the Government has not recognised nor is it aware of, for example, the Swedish legislation entitled: ‘The Joint Regulation of Working Life Act’. That legislation gives to the trade unions and employers a right to negotiate. It imposes on employers a primary duty of negotiation.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– And to inform.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– And to inform. An employer must negotiate on his own intiative before deciding on important changes. He also must negotiate on any other matter, if requested to by a trade union, if there should be some agreement. To ensure the effectiveness of this, the Act makes it a duty of the employer to keep the trade union representatives informed of the financial and production aspects of the business, and the principles on which his personnel policy is based. The Swedish legislation therefore enshrines three important principles for trade unions: The right to negotiate on any matter which concerns them; the right to information; and the right to demand that the status quo be applied until agreement is reached. As far as those recommendations relating to the working environment, particular occupation, health and safety are concerned, the Opposition welcomes the Government’s recognition of the deficiencies there. However, something needs to be done about establishing whether there is a human relations problem. That ought to be a function surely of the Department of Productivity which has not been a major force in industry thus far.

In respect of education and training, the Government has only suggested minor changes. But it does not address the obvious crisis that is happening in Australia. At the present time we are scouring Europe for skilled tradesmen when we have over 400,000 unemployed. The Government does not seem to have any strategy. It has a sort of shot gun approach. We should look at the problems facing this nation. For example, we should look at the technology we are losing. I am reminded that the Japanese are now about to get into the brown coal deposits of Victoria and develop the technology of producing oil from brown coal. That project will be Japanese owned. Yet the Japanese will use our resources in Victoria. We will not have any benefit from that technology. If we want to get it back we have to buy it. I am also reminded that we are now buying back, perhaps for the third time, technology we developed in respect of the Bell Bay aluminium project.

There is no co-ordination of science in Australia. We have the stupid situation of State governments playing each other off and the national Government not taking any interest in the matter.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– And subsidising them five to one or six to one in electricity costs.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Yes. This is what is happening in this tragic area. What will happen to our country? Will we just become a quarry? Why cannot we develop and benefit from our own skills and our own technology?

The report identifies the problems of women, migrants, older workers and youth and says that these people are vulnerable. Certainly they are, but there is no recommendation for their protection. There are no detailed strategies on how to reduce wage inequalities between groups in the work force because of technological divisions. There is no real attempt to deal with issues of education, training and re-training. The important point to note is that even if technological change did not cost existing jobs, it will cost potential jobs at a time when, particularly over the next decade, we will require an additional million jobs just to remain where we are.

The Government’s response is not adequate. A Labor government would adopt a more realistic and significant response to the challenge. A Labor government would ensure that technological change takes place in existing firms and industries only with the fullest possible evaluation of its consequences and the closest possible consultation between all the parties concerned. We will establish an independent representative technology planning council, including trade union representatives, to review the socio-economic effects of new technologies and to advise the Government on the formulation of plans to cope with inevitable social and economic readjustments. We will act to establish minimum standards to be observed by individual enterprises on notification, provision of information and consultation about expected technological change. When we do that we will have a chance, at a national level, for a government to face up to its responsibilities.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I begin by declaring an interest. I was the only one of Australia’s 784 members of Parliament to make a submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia. The four volumes of the Myers report are intellectually shallow, limited by tunnel vision, historically ignorant, philosophically materialist, Philistine and determinist, Friedmanite in their economics and lacking in imagination, sensitivity to human needs or vision. The report was commissioned by a government even more defective in all these qualities.

There are a number of specific objections to the conclusions made by the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia.

First, technology is treated as a single entity, monolithic and incapable of being differentiated. There is no suggestion that there are varieties of technologies or that it is possible for nations to choose between them. This is the ‘cargo cult’ view of technology. We wake up one morning to find a computer in the garden, it has arrived impersonally and we must take it or leave it as we find it; we are not permitted to modify it. If we reject it we will be punished. If we accept it, the prerecorded birds will sing all day and artificial lighting will abolish night.

The Myers report makes no attempt to differentiate between varieties of technology. It does not distinguish between labour displacing technology as against labour complementing technology. For example, the computer is labour displacing and the car is labour complementing. The report does not distinguish between megatechnics, such as nuclear energy, as against polytechnics, such as solar energy. It does not distinguish between centralised and decentralised, or between high entropy and low entropy technologies. It does not distinguish between environmentally harmful and environmentally benign technologies. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short table indicating the difference between labour complementing technology and labour displacing technology.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Second, the Committee reports in paragraph 1.18 the not very surprising conclusion:

All countries and virtually all organisations visited recognised the benefits to be gained, at the national level, by encouraging technological change; in no case was government proposing to discourage technological change.

The Committee used the term ‘technological change’ as a motherhood phrase. But the issue it does not tackle is: Are there some forms of technological change which would be more or less desirable than others? Are there some forms which would be more or less employment generating? These questions are never addressed. There is no suggestion that Australia might have the right to choose. Undifferentiated technological change is treated as an abstract ‘good thing’ and its adoption is made to seem compulsory.

Third, CITCA adopts, without using the actual phrase, the philosophy of ‘technological determinism’, the concept that ‘if you can, you must’, that humans must adapt to technology rather than the other way round. For example, the Report urges that education be fitted to technologically determined needs rather than vice versa.

Fourth, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the impact of technological change on employment. The following comment, which is the key to the report, is made in paragraph 4.57 of the report. It states:

The Committee . . . does believe that the available historical evidence shows that technological change has in the long term created wealth and employment and that future technological changes will continue to have this effect.

I might say that in 1,500 pages of the report barely one and a half pages are devoted to the central historical argument on which the Committee relies so heavily. This sentence comprises the total examination by the Committee of this complex and controversial issue although paragraphs 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22 produce brief lists of developments in the Neolithic Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and the adoption of the deep plough in Europe about 1000 AD.

The assertion in paragraph 4.57 on which so much of the report is based begs four questions. First: Why is the evidence of the past regarded as the best guide for future development? Second: What evidence is there to suggest that the present era is one of continuity rather than discontinuity with past economic history? If so, where is it examined in the report? Third: How long is long term - 10 years, 20 years, 50 years? I ask all honourable members to remember, as J. M. Keynes said, that in the long term we are all dead. The period itself is critical to appropriate social planning. Fourth: Does technological change produce increased or reduced employment in the specific area affected? Historically, the impact of technological change has been to reduce employment in the area affected in the medium and long term, that is, the Agricultural Revolution which led to the development of commercial and later mechanised agriculture which decimated agrarian employment, and the Industrial Revolution created jobs in some areas, such as railways, and eliminated jobs in others, such as craft work and textiles and which had its greatest impact in the expansion of domestic labour which was the largest employment category in England from 1851 to 1914.

The Myers report seems to suggest that technological change merely augments already existing types of employment. This is false. In fact technological change fractures existing forms of employment and ‘releases’ workers who can be taken up in new forms of work, that is, assuming that new work forms do actually evolve. As to what the likely new work forms will be there is not a hint of a suggestion in the report.

The major factor in job creation historically has been increased population which has grown dramatically in the period 1780-1980. The report gives the impression that technological change is the only major factor in job creation. Technological change, urbanisation, the division of labour, increasing complexity in transactions, and population growth have been inextricably linked in changing society. The population of the United States, for example, grew from three million in 1780 to 222 million in 1980, a factor of 74 to one, coinciding with and contributing to technological change. If CITCA had reported ‘population growth has in the long term created wealth and employment’, this would have been uncontroversial, and obvious - but not obvious enough for the Committee to note. I point out that we no longer have high rates of population growth in technologically advanced countries.

The report is superficial and wrong in its reading of economic history and gives the impression that, since the Industrial Revolution, full employment has been the norm and that current high levels of unemployment are a temporary phase due to reduced levels of demand. Since the Industrial Revolution began in Britain in 1780, unstable employment has been the norm. Over 200 years in Britain there have been 30 years of full employment, 40 years of war and 130 years of unstable employment with sharp alternations between high and low levels. In the period 1919-39, when Britain still had a dominant world economic position, the average unemployment was 1 1 per cent.

Another crucial failure of the Myers report is that it completely ignores the role of multinational corporations as the primary agents of technology transfer. Indeed the term ‘multinational corporation’ is never used in volume 1 and is certainly not obvious in the other three volumes. The questions ‘Who owns new technology?’ and ‘who controls it?’ are completely ignored, although they are fundamental to working out appropriate policies for an era of change. The nearest the report comes to raising the question is in this apparently naive comment - paragraph 4.72 - which states:

Technology is in general an international commodity and the ability of the Government or people of a small country such as Australia to influence the development of new technologies and their use in the world is probably extremely limited.

That is something of an understatement. There is nothing in the report to indicate that multinational corporations dominate the commanding heights of the Australian economy - coal, copper, aluminium, uranium, motor manufacturing, food processing, advertising, computers, drugs, chemicals, plastics, petrol and advertising. Australia’s media oligopoly has done nothing to stimulate debate on the multinational corporation technology transfer linkage.

The report insists that technological change must be introduced, the sooner the better, to maintain an international competitive advantage. Whilst there is some truth in that, CITCA fails to analyse the work force to identify, first, what proportion of workers is directly or indirectly involved in international trade or is directly involved - import substitution- in competition from abroad and, second, which workers are most likely to be affected by the new technology.

As I have only 10 minutes to speak, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard sections 1 1 and 12 of a paper which I wrote entitled ‘On the deficiencies of the Myers report: Technological Change in Australia’.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

  1. 1 . The Report fails to recognize or examine those factors in the current period of economic change which indicate discontinuity with past economic history:

    1. Miniaturisation - The significance of microelectronics is that it permits an exponential rise in output together with an exponential fall in total inputs - energy, labour, capital and time. There is no precedent for this in economic history. The first electronic computer ENIAC (1946), cost $5 million (US) at that time (perhaps $20 million in today’s values) while a modern mini computer costs $2000- reduced by a cost factor of 10,000:1, smaller by a factor of 1500:1, using less power by a factor of 2800:1, lighter by a factor of 1 7,000: 1 , with 400 times the memory capacity and faster by a factor of 40:1. It is difficult to think of an appropriate analogy: It is as if modern aviation began with the Jumbo Jet and evolved towards something lighter, cheaper, faster and safer than the Wright Brothers model at Kittyhawk (1903).
    2. Global Economy and the International Division of Labour - Australia is increasingly viewed overseas only as a source of raw materials, and our exports are increasingly paid for by manufactured goods from overseas,* contributing to the longterm decline of manufacturing employment. 600 Australian firms have moved “off shore”. Products are designed in Country A, raw materials taken from B and C, parts are made in D, E and F, and the whole is assembled in G. Participation in a global economy leads to greater opportunities for some segments of the workforce, but a contraction of the range of employment possibilities. The decline in manufacturing as an overall employer is not confined to Australia - the US and Canada have about the same proportion- 22 percent. (The large size of Britain’s manufacturing workforce - 32 percent - is a source of economic weakness, not of strength).
    3. Breakdown in the Relationship between Demand and Employment- The Report’s assumption that employment will be restored by rising levels of demand alone is false. There are already very high levels of demand for goods and services (not properly distributed, to be sure) and record profitability. Some employment is intensely sensitive to demand, personal services for example (hairdressing, dentistry, dry cleaning)- but in the massive supply of goods and general services (fuel supply, electricity, telecommunications) employment appears to be in inverse relation to demand.
    4. The Information Sector and its Portability- The Information Sector (office work, teaching, research, public service, etc.) has grown rapidly since the 1890’s and now employs more people than manufacturing and agriculture combined. But this sector may be reaching saturation point because of labour displacing computer technology, which leads to the extreme portability of information based work, which can be done in any city or nation, anywhere in the world at low cost.**

Comparison of employment in this sector in 1976 and 1979 indicates a slight fall.

  1. Occasional bursts of candour make CITCA admit to an agnostic position about future work possibilities: Volume 1. Paras 3.1 and 3.2: “Most of the concern expressed about technological change related to its effect on employment . . .

The argument is not whether jobs will disappear, which is generally conceded, but is about how many and what kinds of jobs will disappear, and to what extent they will be replaced by employment generated elsewhere in the economy, and whether those who are displaced by technological change will be able to be re-employed in the newly emerging positions (sic). Considerable effort by research workers around the world has not produced conclusive answers to these questions . . .” Volume 2. Preface: “Much of the information that would be necessary to enable such assessments [of technological unemployment] to be made cannot be collected because it relates to events that have not yet occurred” (sic). Volume 3. Preface: “The committee did not interpret its terms of reference [as] requiring it to undertake a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of all the policies affecting technological change”.

** The Myers Committee put an unnecessarily heavy emphasis on “word processors” and commissioned a special report on this particular technology. It concluded, correctly, that word processors are not major factors in job displacement. The Report chases up a blind alley and fails to examine the prospect of a paperless office with direct “intelligent” contact from machine to machine, thus eliminating any need for word processors (or their operators, manufacturers or distributors).

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I thank the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 1532

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I call the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who, I understand, has a short personal explanation to make. I gather it is short?

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last evening in the House, around midnight there was an altercation involving a number of members, in particular the honourable member or Phillip (Mr Birney). A number of interjections were made at that time, one of which came from me. I suggested to the Deputy Speaker that he should name the honourable member for Phillip because of his behaviour.

The honourable member for Phillip turned around and made remarks to me - these are recorded at page 1444 of Hansard - which imputed that I was involved in–

Mr Bourchier:

– He said:

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

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Right, I see–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think we should leave it to the honourable member for Grayndler to point out where he was misrepresented.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I thank the Government Whip for reading what is in Hansard. I was going to attempt to put it a little more delicately but now the Government Whip wants to make something out of it I will continue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable member for Grayndler that the way he was going was the right way.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to make it quite clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I object to the imputation made by the honourable member for Phillip against me. I hope that he will have the good sense, at some later time today, to withdraw that imputation. I also see that today the honourable member for Phillip has put out a Press release in which he has endeavoured to take some of the heat off himself for his behaviour last evening. As the Government Whip has made this matter a little more partisan than it should be, I think it is necessary also to refer to page 1445 of Hansard where one can obviously see from the remarks of the Deputy Speaker that the honourable member for Phillip could be excused for not knowing to whom he was talking in the House last night, because he was not in command of all his faculties. I say once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I object–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable member for Grayndler that he keeps to the point where he was misrepresented.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I object most strongly to the imputations made by the honourable member for Phillip against me which are recorded on page 1444 of Hansard. I ask the honourable member for Phillip to retract those statements later today.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of information. The honourable member has leave of the Parliament. I will ask him to make sure that he meets whatever requirements are necessary, when he comes back after the next election; but, unfortunately, the honourable member for Grayndler may not be here to appreciate that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House has heard the personal explanation of the honourable member for Grayndler. I now call the Minister for Defence.

page 1533

NEW TACTICAL FIGHTER

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave - It has always been the Government’s intention to endeavour to make a decision on the new tactical fighter by the end of 1980. Indeed I think I said on a number of occasions that this would be done by the end of October 1980. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has announced that an election will be held on the 18 October. The Government acknowledges the convention that significant decisions should not be made after an election date has been announced. Beyond that, the Government does not intend to ask its advisers to determine this matter in a way where all care and scrutiny is not exercised. The tactical fighter force project is a most complex and expensive one. I have said that before. I will continue to say it.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– by leave- The Opposition welcomes this announcement. A couple of weeks ago during an earlier debate in the House on the defence program I indicated that it was my opinion that if there were any doubts or considerations about finalisation of the Tactical Fighter Force programs that a short delay which would enable those doubts and considerations to be removed, was in the best interests of the nation and of the Australian Defence Force. Any decision to meet a timetable, merely because one existed, may or may not have resulted in the correct decision. If an incorrect decision was the result of haste then the cost to the nation and its people would have been extraordinarily high.

I think the whole matter of the Tactical Fighter Force has been and will continue to be for some time one for emotional and irrelevant debate. The competing companies obviously wish to impress those who will be responsible for making the decision on the nature and the capabilities of their products and the lack of capacity of their opponents products. The important thing for Australia is that the decisions that are made are decisions which will result in the best interests of the Australian Defence Force being served over the very extended period this aircraft will be required to serve the Australian Defence Force.

I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I want to raise one or two other matters with the

Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) which are relevant to the choice and distribution of the Tactical Fighter Force when it comes into service. In a statement last week the Minister made one reference to the stationing of the Fighter Force in the north of Australia and another reference to the use of Australian facilities by -B52 aircraft. I understand that studies have been undertaken to look into the use of the Darwin and Tindal airstrips. From the Minister’s announcement it would appear that the use of Darwin is being recommended by the Government. I merely want to make this observation. The location of Darwin Airport is very central and in a highly populated area.

I ask that consideration be given, either while the deferment is taking place or before final decisions are made as to which area is to be used and whether it is advisable to add to the very extensive commercial and military air traffic, given the airport’s location and the problems that may be caused to the local population. I also ask that consideration be given to whether it would not be in the best interests of all concerned if Tindal aerodrome were used, as the problems of extensive aircraft operation, especially those aircraft with high noise levels, could cause inconvenience to a community in a more built up area.

page 1534

HONEY EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendment made by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate to the Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill 1980.

page 1534

HONEY LEVY (No. 1) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendment made by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate to the Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1980.

page 1534

HONEY LEVY (No. 2) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendment made by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate to the Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1980.

page 1534

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Prime Minister relating to the activities of the Australian Science and Technology Council together with that Council’s report on industrial research and developments called ‘Proposals for Additional Incentives’. Pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978 I also present the annual report for 1 979-80 of ASTEC.

page 1534

PREPARATION OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY THE AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- On 19 August 1980 1 informed the House that the Australian Wheat Board had engaged a commercial accounting organisation, Arthur Andersen and Co., to review the Board’s financial and accounting management procedures and systems and to advise of changes that should be made. This action was taken because of the reports tabled in Parliament referring to the accountability and responsibilities to Parliament of the Australian Wheat Board and the deficiencies in the Board’s accounting operations. The reports to which I refer are the third report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth and the report of the Auditor-General on the Board’s financial statements for the year ended 30 November 1977, which I tabled on 21 May 1980.

Honourable members will recall that I indicated to the House on 19 August 1980, that the consultancy engagement was being oversighted by a steering committee. That committee was presided over by the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board and comprised representatives of the Departments of Primary Industry and Finance, and observers from the Public Service Board and the Auditor-General’s Office. The consultants completed their engagement on 8 September and the Australian Wheat Board has considered the report of Arthur Andersen and Co. In coming to a decision in respect of each of the recommendations of the consultants, the Board has taken account of the views of the steering committee. The Australian Wheat Board has advised me of the action being taken, or about to be taken to implement the matters arising from the reports of the consultants and steering committee.

The Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1 974 and the Wheat Marketing Act 1979 require the Australian Wheat Board to report its financial statements in a form approved by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) respectively. A form for the financial statements was approved by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer in November 1976 and that form will be applied to the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 1978 that the Australian Wheat Board still has to furnish. The form of the financial statements that should be approved under the Wheat Marketing Act 1979 has been considered by the consultants, the steering committee and the Australian Wheat Board. The advice of the Attorney-General’s Department has been obtained. These considerations have taken account of the requirement that the statements should be based on accounting principles generally applied in commercial practices. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, has approved the form of the financial statements for the Australian Wheat Board for the year ended 30 November 1979. The form of the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 1980 and subsequent years will be considered further taking account of the development that is achieved in the Board’s financial and accounting management procedures and system.

The feasibility of producing the financial statements for the years ended 30 November 1979 and 1980 from the records and accounts presently maintained by the Australian Wheat Board has been considered. The Wheat Marketing Act 1979 requires the Australian Wheat Board by 30 June in the year 1980 and in each succeeding year to submit its report for the year ended on the preceding 30 November. The Act also enables the responsible Minister to extend to a later date the period in which the report of a year is required to be submitted. I have extended to 31 January 1981 the date by which the Board is to submit its report for the year ended 30 November 1979. The Australian Wheat Board has advised me that the target dates for preparation for audit of the financial statements for the years ended 30 November 1979 and 1980 are 15 November 1980 and 30 April 1981 respectively. The Board has developed appropriate contingency plans to ensure that these target dates are adhered to. It has assured me that I will be informed immediately if there is any variation that could jeopardise the meeting of these target dates.

The Australian Wheat Board has accepted that there is a need for a major program to improve the efficiency of, modernise, rationalise and extend its financial and accounting management procedures and systems. It also has accepted that such a major program would need to be implemented and monitored in accordance with a business systems plan. Such a plan should be developed in accordance with the Board’s goals and strategies.

The Board has committed itself to develop a business system plan within four months of the acceptance of the arrangements to organise and recruit the required staff with appropriate experience and qualifications. The Public Service Board is prepared to review the management structure of the Australian Wheat Board. In order to determine the appropriate staffing and organisational arrangements to carry out the major program for the accounting system, the Australian Wheat Board has accepted that the Public Service Board should undertake this review and advise of the place in the management structure for staff to develop the new program, as well as the other staffing and organisation matters referred to in the consultants’ report. I am advised that the review could be completed in two to three weeks.

An element of the Australian Wheat Board’s financial and accounting management procedures and system is the relationship with the bulk handling authorities. These authorities are separate legal entities that have responsibilities conferred on them by State governments. The Australian Wheat Board also has responsibilities conferred on it by this Parliament, including a liability to growers for wheat received from them and to account for transactions according to principles generally applied in commercial practices. Presently there are procedures for bringing to account the transactions that involve both the Australian Wheat Board and the bulk handling authorities. These procedures were discussed at the August meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. In order to clarify and confirm that there is a proper basis for the transactions that involve both the Australian Wheat Board and the bulk handling authorities, I have sought the concurrence of my colleagues on the Council to the proposition that the Board and the authorities negotiate an arrangement in respect of the procedures and systems that bring to account these transactions.

The Wheat Marketing Act 1979 requires the Australian Wheat Board to submit a report on its operations each year. The Board has accepted that there be only one annual report and that that be the one incorporating the audited financial statements. The Board has agreed to investigate the contents of its annual reports, with the aim of including in the forthcoming report for the year ended 30 November 1978, and subsequent years, progressive reports of the implementation of matters that have been dealt with in this statement. The Board has accepted recommendations relating to the formation of an audit committee and the reporting of the findings of the internal audit.

The Board also has accepted a recommendation of the steering committee that resources should not be diverted at this stage to an analysis of the costs and benefits of a centralised system for the intiation and control of wheat movements.

The Australian Wheat Board has assured me that it recognises the impact of embarking on a major program for its financial and accounting management procedures and systems. The program will impact simultaneously on the staffing and organisation of the Board, as well as on the financial, accounting and operational functions. The Board recognises that the achievement of the program within an acceptable period will require enthusiasm, drive and determination of management. I present the following paper:

Preparation of annual financial statements by the Australian Wheat Board - Ministerial Statement, 18 September 1980.

Motion (by Mr Thomson) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

– The Opposition welcomes the statement of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) and hopes that contained within it is a solution to the problem which the Australian Wheat Board has experienced. It hopes that the problem which the Board has had with its accounting is rectified. The Opposition is not looking for revenge or seeking someone to blame. I think that was made clear enough in the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and the Auditor-General. However, the Opposition does have some misgivings. The Minister has not said whether the action taken by the Board to put its own house in order meets with the approval of the Government. Although the Minister for Primary Industry has not spelled it out, it is clearly implied in his statement that the Government thinks the Board will be in a happy situation with respect to the preparation of its accounts from now on. As there were such trenchantly critical reports from the Auditor-General and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I would have thought the Government would be in the forefront, particularly to protect the wheat growers and the taxpayers, rather than leave it to the Australian Wheat Board to put its own house in order.

If I were ideologically inclined - I would not like to bring politics into this place, of all places - I could say that it all seems a little bit ‘in club’. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation tends to control the policies of the Wheat Board, and the Wheatgrowers Federation and the Wheat Board tend to tell conservative governments what to do. It is a pretty powerful lobby. We all know the power of the wheat growing industry and the Wheatgrowers Federation. It is a very vital industry. But the wheat growers and the taxpayers still need to be considered. These major institutions seem to me to act unilaterally and there is a need for constant scrutiny by the Parliament. Every time the Opposition spokesman, Senator Peter Walsh, makes some criticism of authorities, everyone throws up his hands in horror. Yet the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations - the Rae Committee- has been most trenchant in its criticism. If Senator Walsh had said things with half the vehemence that Senator Rae has said them, the rural industry would be up in arms.

The Minister’s statement says simply that the Auditor-General and the Senate Committee found massive deficiencies in the Australian Wheat Board’s accounting and financial management. The Australian Wheat Board then hired a consultant and set up a committee to preside over the consultant. The chairman of the committee was the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, which is why I say it was an in club situation. The Australian Wheat Board admits that it has not kept the books in the best possible way for a variety of reasons - due mainly to the 1974 wheat agreement - and that it will not happen again. The Australian Wheat Board is prepared to undertake a modernisation of its accounting and management.

The statement does not say much about the years identified by the Auditor-General in the first place. The Minister says he will extend to 31 January 1981 the date by which the Board is to submit its report for the year ended 30 November 1979. So we can see from that that the accounting procedures still pose a few problems. Additionally, the Minister pointed to the interaction between the Australian Wheat Board and the bulk handling authorities, and said that this would be examined. From that I take it that a better stock control system will be introduced. As there is so much wheat loss in the system, for a variety of reasons, I think this is a very important matter. As honourable members know, so much of our agricultural marketing is in the hands of statutory authorities, and the statutory authorities have a duty to the growers and to the Parliament to act as efficiently as possible. With big statutory authorities such as the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Wool Corporation there is enormous potential for errors in commercial judgment. But the errors we are looking at here are of a different nature. They are simply errors of accounting; errors of bookkeeping. I hope that the lesson of the Australian Wheat Board is taken into account by other statutory organisations.

To refresh the memory of honourable members as to the seriousness of this matter, it all started when the interim annual report of the Australian Wheat Board for the year ended 30 November 1978 was tabled in the Senate on 13 September 1979. Because the report did not contain the financial statements required by section 45 of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act, nor an explanation of their absence, the Senate referred the report to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. For a while that committee had been looking at Commonwealth statutory authorities. Its report was printed on 1 7 February this year and Senator Rae has made several statements since that time. The difficulties which the Wheat Board experienced in preparing statements followed the introduction of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act of 1974, which imposed the requirement for the preparation of different financial statements. Up until that time there had been simply a pool system conducted on a cash accounting basis. After 1974 there was a need for an accrual basis in the accounting. That was agreed to in 1976. It was agreed that the form from then on would be realisation - in other words, the old pooling system - with statements of income and expenditure and of assets and liabilities.

In the subsequent inquiry the hearings brought to light the specific details of the Board’s errors, failures and mistakes which has been identified by the Auditor-General’s inspection of the accounts. I shall give examples of the errors - that is the word used in the Auditor-General’s report on the Board. There was a $41m clerical posting error in the Board’s accounts. A $102,000 export market development grant had not been specifically identified. There was a $31m bank adjustment inaccuracy. Also, there was a 12,000 tonne underestimate of wheat in pools, a $500,000 incorrect estimate of average export prices, a $ 12.4m overestimate of wheat handling costs, a $989,000 interest posting mistake and an amount of $2.5m not brought into account in statements. These errors were set out in a schedule prepared by the Auditor-General’s Office covering 1 1 pages which listed 134 errors governing amounts of up to $41m. I mentioned the first one. That is why the Opposition feels that the Government should have been in the forefront of trying to get the Wheat Board’s house in order rather than allowing the Wheat Board to undertake that task. As I said, the Opposition certainly hopes that what the Board has put into train will solve the problem.

But the Committee was very critical of the business of having interim statements without any explanation of why they were only interim. In a series of conclusions, the Committee made the following comments:

First we believe it is important that where a report from a statutory authority is tabled in Parliament and marked ‘interim’ then an explanation should be provided for the absence of the required information. We consider that the 197S interim report from the Wheat Board should have contained an explanation for the absence of the financial statements.

I mention this because I think that that rule should apply to other statutory authorities. The Senate Committee also stated:

Secondly, we deprecate the Board’s action in presenting two different versions of the 1978 report: one, labelled interim’, . . . and the other, implicitly a ‘final’ report, on glossy pages . . .

But there was no financial information. The Committee also pointed to the Board’s inability to adapt to new accountability. It stated that by and large that is understandable. But it did say that it considered the poor accounting by the Board, disclosed at hearings in December 1979, was a matter of most serious concern. It said:

The Australian Wheat Board is a very important Commonwealth statutory authority. It controls massive amounts of wheatgrowers’ money - over $1 billion per year. It has powers of compulsory acquisition over a wheat crop. These powers are delegated to the Board by the Parliament. In return the Board has an obligation to account to the Parliament for its activities. The Board members and staff are well remunerated. The Chairman, for example, has a total annual salary of $46,700. And yet, accounts for the Boards activities have not been produced since the year ended 30 November 1 976.

This report was made in February this year. It makes the point:

How is it possible for the wheatgrowers to judge the efficiency and the economy of the Board in dealing with their money, if no financial statements are presented? What other conclusion can be drawn than that the Board has been inefficient in performing their delegated task?

So I go on. There is recommendation after recommendation in the report. All express extreme concern. As I said, 134 errors were identified, some of up to $41m. However, I am happy to say - I am sure the Minister is happy also - that in conclusion, the Committee stated: we are glad to report that we believe that the steps now taken by the Board, including the appointment of suitably qualified additional staff and the introduction of new accounting systems and practices appear to be likely to ensure that future financial statements and reports will be both timely and accurate.

So the Opposition welcomes this statement. We would have liked to have seen the Government being more aggressive in making sure that the wheatgrowers and the taxpayers were protected. We hope that the lessons of this very sorry episode can be taken on by other statutory authorities and corporations. We hope very much, indeed, that the Wheat Board’s problems are solved or will be solved in the future.

Debate (on motion by Mr Baillieu) adjourned.

page 1538

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

– Yes. I have been handed a Press release which was made by the honourable member for Phillip, Mr Jack Birney. In the statement he says:

My attention has been drawn to scurrilous attacks made on me by the member for Adelaide and the member for Reid behind my back and without notice to me after I left the chamber after Question Time this morning.

I made no scurrilous attack on the honourable member for Phillip. Last evening after the honourable member for Phillip acted in a disorderly way he was escorted from the chamber by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) and the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott). What I said this morning after Question Time only described what appeared to be the case to all members who were in the House last evening. The honourable member for Phillip has had an opportunity to use the forms of this House but has failed to do so. According to the Government Whip (Mr Bourchier), he has left for Sydney.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A comment has just been made by the honourable member for Reid. I heard part of it as I came into the chamber. If I understood it correctly I would like to refute it completely. I think the honourable member for Reid is being totally mischievous as he has always been. He is trying to denigrate another member of this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. No point of order has been advanced.

Mr UREN:

– I take exception to the fact that in no way did the Government Whip explain clearly what he had done. I take exception to that. He is the one who is making a scurrilous attack and it is about time that he acted more responsibly.

page 1538

CHRISTMAS ISLAND AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to introduce new citizenship provisions into the Christmas Island Act 1958 to extend Australian citizenship to any person, not already an Australian citizen, who was ordinarily resident in Christmas Island immediately before its transfer to Australia, who is now ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory and who wishes to take up Australian citizenship. The Bill brings the citizenship provisions of the Christmas Island Act into line with those of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act as amended last year. Under the existing legislation persons who were over 21 years of age at the time Australia accepted responsibility for the Island on 1 October 1958 had a choice of making a declaration to become an Australian citizen in a period of two years from that date. This provision expired on 1 October 1960. Persons who were under 21 years of age at 1 October 1958 were able to make a declaration to become an Australian citizen two years after that person attained or attains the age of 21 years. The value of this provision expires on 1 October 1981. Persons born in Christmas Island on or after 1 October 1958 are automatically Australian citizens.

The report of the commission of inquiry into the viability of the Christmas Island phosphate industry recommended that the citizenship provisions of the Christmas Island Act be repealed. The Government’s decision reflected in this Bill goes against that recommendation which would take away an existing right. Because Australia has a special responsibility towards the people who were resident on the Island at the time Australia assumed responsibility for the Territory, the Government has decided not only to retain the citizenship provisions in question for the benefit of residents still eligible but also to extend them.

The Bill extends the right to Australian citizenship to persons who resided on the Island on 1 October 1958 and either failed to opt within the prescribed time or were ineligible on account of not being British subjects, providing these persons are now still on the Island or reside in another Australian external Territory or on the Australian mainland. The new provisions will become effective on a date to be fixed by proclamation and will have no time limit. It is estimated that in addition to the 80 or so persons still in Christmas Island, a further 200 former Island residents now in

Australia, mostly in Western Australia, will benefit from the effects of this Bill.

This is one of several decisions taken recently by the Government for the benefit of the Christmas Island residents, as announced in June of this year. Other legislation proposed as a result of these decisions will be the extension to the Island of the Migration Act 1958, whereby, among other things, Island residents will be granted permanent resident status in Australia and will as a result be able to apply for Australian citizenship under the Citizenship Act 1948 which already applies in the Territory. A proposed amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 will deal with industrial appeals from Christmas Island.

Dr Klugman:

– Before moving for the adjournment, I ask the Minister for Home Affairs what the point is of introducing the legislation today when obviously it will lapse by tomorow lunch-time?

Mr Ellicott:

– It indicates the Government’s bona fides to the people of Christmas Island and that the Government intends to proceed with this legislation which was announced in June. They will understand that this is the first step in relation to it. It will give them the comfort of knowing that we have moved in relation to it. The other legislation, which is part of the package, is not yet ready; otherwise it would have been introduced and we would have asked the Opposition to pass it as a matter of urgency. But we were not able to do that. I am sure it is a measure the effect of which and the purport of which is agreed by both sides of the House.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– How long have negotiations on this matter been going on?

Mr Ellicott:

– They were going on for some time when Labor was in power between 1972 and 1975. The Labor Government did exactly nothing about it. This Government has done something about it and ensured that Christmas Island will be treated as if it were part of Australia.

Dr Klugman:

– I would have thought that that indicates exactly the opposite of what the Minister was saying. It does not in any way indicate the intention of the Minister by introducing–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! Is it the intention of the honourable member for Prospect to move the adjournment?

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I wish to speak on the second reading.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I understood that the honourable member was to move that the debate be adjourned.

Dr Klugman:

– Surely I am entitled to speak to this motion?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Standing Orders require that the debate must be adjourned on presentation of a Bill.

Dr Klugman:

– I point out the absolute farce of introducing the legislation when the Minister knows very well that there is no chance of debate on the legislation proceeding. This is a joke, and it is quite typical of this Government to introduce maybe two or three pieces of legislation knowing that they will lapse tommorrow. It shows absolute contempt for the House and for the intelligence of the people in this country.

Mr Bourchier:

Mr Deputy Speaker, how long are you going to let him go?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect and the honourable member for Bendigo will come to order.

Debate (on motion by Dr Klugman) adjourned.

page 1539

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

I am pleased to introduce this Bill which makes a number of amendments to the Australian National Airlines Act. It places greater responsibility for the operations of Trans-Australia Airlines with the Australian National Airlines Commission enabling it to act in a manner more akin to a commercial enterprise. These amendments are the first in a series of legislative initiatives which will be required to give effect to domestic air transport policy changes. These changes will incorporate a new airlines agreement and amendments to the Airlines Equipment Act–

Dr Klugman:

– What an utter farce!

Mr HUNT:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, do you think you might restrain the poor man?

Mr Bourchier:

– Ask him to put a spud in his mouth.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The honourable member for Prospect and the honourable member for Bendigo will cease interjecting.

Mr HUNT:

– Thank you.

Dr Klugman:

– What an utter farce!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect will cease interjecting.

Mr HUNT:

– These changes will incorporate a new airlines agreement and amendments to the Airlines Equipment Act, Air Navigation Regulations and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. As this Bill is central to the proposed policy changes, it is therefore appropriate for me to explain the changes to domestic air transport policy. It will be recalled that the Government initiated the first comprehensive review of aviation policy since the introduction of the two airline policy in the early 1950s. Following the release of the review report, discussions with the two airlines which are parties to the airlines agreement were commenced. At the same time comments from the public, those involved in the industry and other interested parties were also invited.

Mr Morris:

– On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask, through you, whether the Minister has agreed to grant the Opposition equal time to discuss this measure immediately following the conclusion of the speech?

Mr HUNT:

– Yes, I have. I can assure honourable members that all these comments were given close consideration. Negotiations were initiated with TAA and Ansett Airlines of Australia as a number of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Committee’s recommendations impinged upon matters included within the airlines agreement. We have now reached a stage where discussions on principles with the airlines have been finalised and drafting of the new agreement is nearly completed. The Government has been able substantially to achieve its objectives. As a result of the domestic air transport policy review recommendations and subsequent consideration of aviation policy, it became apparent that there were a number of changes which should be made notwithstanding the final outcome of negotiations with TAA and Ansett on a new airlines agreement. (Quorum formed).

Mr Bourchier:

Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Bourchier:

– Yes, I am. I just wish to make it quite clear that I was unaware of the arrangements made. I apologise to the Chair and to the shadow Minister for transport, but I can only say that, if I am not told, I cannot carry out the arrangements.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to apologise to the Whip? I am afraid I did not advise him, and so I am guilty.

Mr Morris:

– I accept both apologies.

Mr HUNT:

– Who in the hell is going to apologise to me?

Mr Morris:

– I will apologise to you, too, Mr Deputy Speaker, if he wants that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think the Minister for Transport has a very good point. The Deputy Speaker may be in the same boat because he has had to extend fairly extensive leniency in the last few minutes. I call the Minister.

Mr HUNT:

– Paramount amongst these changes was the need to place TAA on a more commercial basis. Since the Government aims to create a more competitive environment for the two airlines, it is amending the ANA Act to ensure that TAA operates on a similar basis to a privately owned airline. At the same time the Government is anxious to ensure that the ANA commission as a statutory authority is not advantaged over its competitors. This approach is consistent with the Government’s overall policy that publicly owned business undertakings should, as far as possible, be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged as compared with their competitors from the private sector. Consequently the amendments to the Australian National Airlines Act fall within three main areas: Firstly, to allow the Commission to exercise greater responsibility over the operations of TAA; secondly, to require decisions to be taken in a manner consistent with those applying to a commercial organisation; and, thirdly, to reflect a recent High Court decision and current legislative drafting practice.

In a moment I will describe these changes in detail but would first like to explain the broader policy changes. Initially I should reiterate previous statements that the Government has endorsed the general thrust of the review Committee’s recommendations to retain the principle of maintaining two airlines to provide passenger services throughout the trunk route network. The Government has decided however that a number of changes are necessary to foster increased competition within the aviation industry in a rational and orderly manner. The Australian aviation industry is neither sufficiently large nor robust that it can withstand wholesale change leading to a short period of unrestrained competition. Such a situation could result in the industry’s recovery taking years to occur for the few survivors. In the meantime it would be the travelling public that would suffer.

Furthermore, the Government accepted the view that there is a need for a limited number of large operators to provide the necessary nationwide organisation. It also believes that only the larger and more economic aircraft should be operated on the nation’s trunk routes. Such a policy ensures the maintenance of the stability and high level of service and safety that has been provided over the last three decades. The review report pointed out clearly that the size of the Australian market would not support a third carrier on the trunk route as a whole at present. I am aware that many calls have been made for the airline agreement to be terminated. Of course such action could not be completed for at least five years after notice of termination had been passed by both Houses of this Parliament and served on the airlines. This would produce a hiatus situation at a time when the industry is undertaking the most massive investment in its history.

As I stated earlier, the retention of the twoairline policy relates to passenger services only. In accordance with the Review Committee’s recommendations on freight the Government has decided to remove freight from the two-airline policy. Ansett and TAA have agreed that freight should be excluded from the new airlines agreement. Amendments will be made to the Airlines Equipment Act to exclude freight from capacity calculations. Clearly this market has been dominated by the two major airlines. Freight services have been characterised by a heavy dependence on passenger aircraft. These factors have restricted the development of specialised air freight services. It has led to a slower market growth than may have otherwise occurred. Under the new freight policy, existing and potential operators will be able to acquire appropriate aircraft and provide freight services in unrestricted competition. I have no doubt that freight will continue to be carried by the two major operators but they will have to compete with specialist freight operators for a share of the market.

Returning to passenger services, honourable members will be aware that there already has been a gradual increase in the level of competition between the two major domestic airlines and other operators. Under the Government’s policy the orderly development of this competition by regional airlines and commuter operators will be fostered. In this regard, I have already given in principle approval for the acquisition by EastWest Airlines Ltd of one F28 jet aircraft which will be used in conjunction with Northern Airlines and on some trunk route services. To continue the orderly development of regional airlines it is proposed that these airlines be brought within the ambit of the Airlines Equipment Act. 1 ne Act will be amended to provide for a regular determination of aircraft capacity having regard to the role of regional operators. This role of regional operators has been denned by the Government as being: To provide passenger air services between centres within a State; to provide passenger air services between centres within a Territory; to provide passenger air services between a regional centre and another location; and where the Commission and the company have been requested by the Minister to provide a passenger air service and neither the Commission, that is, TAA, nor the company satisfactorily responds, the regional operator may provide that service.

Over recent years we have seen a dramatic growth in commuter operations. In 1978 operators carried 550,000 passengers. Commuters now operate over a number of routes which are serviced by airlines. Under these circumstances the Government has decided that this segment of the industry should be given formal recognition by the introduction of a new licence to be known as a supplementary airline licence’. This action will remove the current practice of authorising these services under an exemption provided under air navigation regulations. The dividing line between an airline licence and a supplementary airline licence will be based upon the certificated passenger carrying capacity and maximum pay load of the aircraft to be operated under the licences. Aircraft with a certificated passenger carrying capacity of more than 30 or a maximum pay load greater than 3,500 kilograms would require the operator to hold an airline licence. Operators using smaller aircraft would be entitled to obtain a supplementary airline licence.

The Air Navigation Regulations will be amended to introduce operating certificates to be issue by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. After amendment of the Air Navigation Regulations, the airline licence or the supplementary airline licence will specify the type of service, the routes to be flown and the aircraft types to be used. The operating certificate will certify that the operator has complied with the requirements of the Department of Transport for the operation of the aircraft for the type of service including the operational and maintenance organisation, control and facilities. The licences would not be effective without an appropriate operating certificate but could be issued in advance of commencing operations to permit preliminary arrangements for the establishment of the air service to proceed on a firm basis. In order to implement these changes the import policy with regard to aircraft has been revised. The previous policy has been to restrict the importation of aircraft over 5,700 kilograms gross weight. As the review committee noted, this power to control the importation of aircraft is the prime legal basis by which the commonwealth has the power to restrict the number of operators on the trunk routes.

In line with the policy changes I have outlined today, the import control policy will be amended to allow, with a reasonable need to demonstrate demand, a greater range of freight aircraft into the country. It will provide a wider choice of aircraft for regional airlines and supplementary airline licence holders - the commuters. The policy that will apply in future is as follows. Import permits will not normally be granted for types of aircraft having a certificated capacity of more than 30 passengers or a maximum payload of more than 3,500 kilograms except: Aircraft purchased by the Commonwealth or by Australian operators holding an airline licence, but not a supplementary airline licence; aircraft in a special aerial work category, such as aerial survey work; certain aircraft to be used exclusively for freight operations; replacement aircraft purchased by charter licence holders of an equivalent type to that currently operated; aircraft to be used in genuine private operations; provided that satisfactory evidence substantiating the use of the aircraft is furnished to the Secretary to the Department of Transport.

Should the holder of an airline licence other than TAA, Ansett or Qantas Airways Ltd apply to import turbo jet aircraft having a capacity in excess of 30 passengers or a maximum payload of more than 3,500 kilograms, a condition of approval will be that the holder undertakes to comply with capacity determinations issued under the revised Airlines Equipment Act. Furthermore, the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations will be amended to require the Secretary to the Department of Transport to have regard to the airlines agreement in exercising his power to issue import permits for aircraft.

The most restrictive part of the current airlines agreement is the rationalisation provisions which require that TAA and Ansett keep under continuous review those matters which relate to the provision of air services. Arbitration procedures which are available in the event of a disagreement between the airlines are complex and time consuming. That is not to say that there were not considerable benefits provided by these provisions. It has only been through their use that the airlines have been able to control route capacity to match demand and achieve high load factors in order to contain excessive cost increases to be reflected in fares and to the disadvantage of the travelling public. Consequently, the Government decided to seek to incorporate new provisions which maintain the benefits of the existing system whilst reducing its disadvantage. The new airlines agreement will accordingly include consultation arrangements which will:

  1. 1 ) Allow but not oblige the airlines to consult except as otherwise provided on all matters affecting air passenger services. There would be no obligation upon either airline to comply with a decision reached by them under such consultation;
  2. Require the airlines to consult and attempt to agree on a few specific areas which are vital to the industry’s economic performance. Provision in the event of disagreement for a limited arbitration process in respect of these items will be included;
  3. Require the airlines to consult in regard to core fares. Consultation on other fares will be possible at the airlines’ discretion. It is a requirement that an officer of the Department of Transport be present at all such consultations. The airlines will be required to make separate tariff applications to the Minister.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr HUNT:

– Certain undertakings will be incorporated in the new airlines agreement as to the way in which consideration is given to tariff applications. These undertakings broadly provide that the Minister will act responsibly in considering airline requests to vary tariffs. There will be a simplified review system for limited cost increases in certain specified areas. The Minister will always take the public interest into account.

In accordance with current policy, provision will be made to define the respective roles of Qantas and the domestic airlines. The Government has agreed that Qantas will not operate domestic services in its own right and that the domestic airlines will not operate international services unless a new definition of these respective roles is agreed. However, these provisions do not prevent Qantas and the domestic airlines operating services on the other’s behalf, if the circumstances so warrant. It also remains open to utilise Qantas’s spare capacity within Australia provided that a number of facilitation and associated problems can be resolved. This matter may well be reopened following the review of single designation policy which will be undertaken next year.

The Government has requested the airlines to negotiate with Australia Post arrangements for the carriage of mail by air outside the new agreement. With regard to cost recovery, undertakings will be included in the new airlines agreement that there will not be more than 100 per cent recovery on the trunk routes and the fuel tax will be hypothecated. I must also mention that substantially increased reporting obligations will be placed on TAA and Ansett under the new agreement. Both airlines will be required to provide regular financial reports on their operations on a comparable basis. An annual report on the operation of the consultation arrangements will be made by the airlines and separate reports by each airline will be made on the operation of the airlines agreement. These will be tabled in Parliament.

Turning now in greater detail to the amendments to the Australian National Airlines Act, I will deal first with those provisions that place greater responsibility upon the Commission. Under Clause 12 the Commission will have responsibility for entering into contracts to acquire any property, right or privilege, including leases, up to the value of $2m. Presently it is $250,000. This greatly increases the level at which ministerial approval must be sought and will enable the Commission to determine all but the most major contractural commitments for TAA. Clause 18 will provide the Commission with the power to invest its surplus funds as it determines, replacing the present requirement that such funds can only be invested in sources that the Treasurer approves. This amendment will enable the Commission to look to use such funds in a similar manner to its competitors. This has considerable significance in a major cash flow business such as the airlines operate.

The present staffing and employment conditions under which the Commission operates are archaic. Clause 9 will revise those arrangements to enable the Commission to exercise its discretion over staffing levels and the terms and conditions of employment of its staff except for those positions which are subject to the Remuneration Tribunal. Amendments contained in clause 7 will place greater onus upon commissioners to notify any conflict of interest. This approach is consistent with the Bowen Committee recommendations and the greater responsibility that the Commission will exercise. Provision is included that after a commissioner has notified a conflict of interest either the balance of the Commission or the Minister can authorise that commissioner to participate in subsequent consideration of that issue. Given the complexities of modern business and the calibre of the people appointed to the Commission these arrangements are a practical necessity. Clause 6 also simplifies the arrangements under which a commissioner may resign.

Under clause 19 insurance provisions will be amended to give the Commission authority to operate its insurance accounts, subject only to a disallowance provision which the Minister must exercise within the specified period of 30 days. Whilst it does not alter the basic function of these insurance accounts nor remove the requirement for TAA to insure against its major risks it places increased responsibility upon the Minister by requiring positive action by him if the proposed action of the Commission is to be altered. Should the Minister not act within the prescribed period the Commission will be able then to implement its proposal.

Turning to those amendments which will require the Commission to act in a commercial manner, I should first explain that the Government recognised that there would be little value in such amendments if the Minister in making the final determination was not similarly constrained to take only commercial considerations into account. Accordingly such constraints have been incorporated in regard to the Minister’s power with respect to profit setting, dividend determination and the application of the balance of profits. The Minister for Finance also will be consulted in regard to the determination of dividends.

Clause 17 sets out the new financial policy under which the Commission will operate. Commencing with the 1981-82 financial year, the Commission will be required before 1 June to determine a return on the net worth of the Commission during the forthcoming year. The net worth is a term which describes the Commission’s equivalent of a company’s shareholders funds and is the sum of capital, reserves and retained profit. Taking into account the need to ensure a reasonable return to the Commonwealth on capital, to maintain net worth in real terms, to increase reserves to meet future expansion and such other commercial considerations as the Commission considers appropriate, the Commission shall advise the Minister of the return on net worth it expects to achieve and either the level of net worth or the expected profit. Within 30 days the Minister may then, only taking into account commercial considerations, approve the Commission proposal or require a higher return. The Commission is then required to manage its affairs in order to meet the return determined by the Minister.

Similarly the Commission will within four months of the end of each financial year make its recommendation, based on commercial criteria, of the dividend it proposes should be paid. Within 30 days the Minister shall approve the recommendation or require a higher dividend to be paid. Again his determination shall be only on the basis of commercial criteria. Dividends may be paid out of the profits of the current and/or preceding years. Should the Commission be set a higher return on net worth or be required to pay a higher dividend than the Commission recommends the Minister shall within 1 5 sitting days, table in Parliament his direction together with a statement or reasons. Under clause 20 the balance of profits, after the payment of the dividend, shall be applied as the Minister determines having regard only to commercial considerations.

Clause 14 provides for the Commission to be empowered to request the Government for such additional equity capital as the Commission based on normal commercial principles judges necessary from time to time. This provision is designed to ensure that the Commission’s financial structure more closely approximates that required of a private enterprise operation. The provision of equity capital by the Government or its repayment may be made only on the recommendation of the Commission. These financial provisions place the Commission in as near a commercial situation as is possible whilst still retaining its statutory status.

Under clause 10 amendments are made to the circumstances under which TAA may operate intrastate services. Once a State has referred aviation powers to the Commonwealth TAA will be able to provide services within that State in accordance with any licencing conditions of the State. This will place TAA in a position which more closely aligns with that of private operators. Clause 13 amends the position with respect to losses incurred on services provided at the Minister’s direction. In future the Commission will be reimbursed for such losses regardless of its overall financial situation. Any direction by the Minister to provide services must be tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days.

Following the high court decision on TAA’s Darwin-Port Hedland-Perth services it is considered desirable to clarify the provision relating to such Territory-State services. Accordingly, clause 1 1 provides such an agreement. (Extension of time granted). I thank the House. Clause 16 makes similar amendments to the Commission’s borrowing powers to bring it into line with changes made earlier this year to other transport business authorities. In summary these powers enable the Commission to deal in securities with the approval of the Treasurer and to give security over its assets for the repayment of borrowings and dealings in securities.

Under clause 5 more specific arrangements governing the appointment of acting chairman, vice chairman and commissioners are introduced. Clause 8 specifies that those acting as chairman, vice chairman or commissioner have the same powers as the regular occupant. Clause 4 makes it clear that in the event of the general manager being appointed to the Commission, no additional remuneration shall be paid to that person. It has been agreed with the Commission that it would be desirable to remove the authorisation for Commission staff or agents to make arrests. Clause 20 so removes that provision from the principal Act. I am sure honourable members will appreciate the extent of changes that are being brought to the aviation industry. Since the release of the domestic air transport policy review report we have seen a greatly expanded range of fares, services and level of competition within the aviation industry. The initiatives I have announced today will enable that evolution to continue and the amendments to the Australian National Airlines Act will facilitate TAA’s participation in the future progress of the industry.

In closing, I would like to remind honourable members that the Government has established an independent inquiry into domestic air fares. This inquiry is under the chairmanship of Mr Warwick Holcroft and is currently undertaking its hearings in Western Australia. The inquiry is to examine air fares on the trunk and regional routes operated by TAA and Ansett Airlines of Australia with special reference to the way in which fares are set on individual routes in the national network by use of an air fare formula. The government took this decision because of continuing concern in Western Australia about the level of air fares on the long haul routes. There has been a deep suspicion that passengers flying on the long distance routes have been subsidising the passengers flying on the shorter routes, for instance, the Canberra-Melbourne route.

The Government is anxious to establish the facts relating to the fare structure so that it can consider what action, if any, should be taken to ensure equity. To carry out this task the inquiry will consider the question of cross subsidisation. Indeed, the inquiry has wide terms of reference into the whole question of air fares. In spite of the concern about air fares and the cost of air travel the introduction of apex and concessional fares have stabilised fares during the great explosion in fuel costs in recent years. The cheapest available return on the Perth-Sydney route is some 2 per cent cheaper than the cheapest fare available four years ago. Given the increase in costs, which the airlines and other parts of industry have faced in the period, this is a remarkable achievement. I commend the Bill to the House.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– We have just witnessed an abuse of the forms of the Parliament by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt). We have seen what amounts to a scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money involved in preparing a Bill which will lapse when the Parliament is dissolved in about four hours time. In reality at this stage it has no status. The Minister has made a statement of this conservative Government’s intentions, if Australia is unfortunate enough to have it returned to office after 18 October. The Minister could have made a statement. Instead he chose to masquerade and to pretend that the paper presented is a Bill that could be processed into law. Whoever becomes the Government after 18 October would have to reintroduce this matter because everything on the Notice Paper lapses with the dissolution of Parliament.

I have checked with the parliamentary officers as far back as 1963 and we can find no instance in that period of a Bill being introduced under similar circumstances a few hours before the dissolution of the Parliament where the Government did not intend to proceed with the legislation. There was a difference in 1974 because at that time there was a sudden and unexpected dissolution of the Parliament. That is not the case on this occasion. The Minister has had ample time to debate domestic aviation policy. He did not, because the Government has not had a policy. What we have seen from that Government over the past four and a half years - almost five years - has been a series of knee-jerk reactions depending on which pressure point was touched.

Let me refer the House to the Notice Paper. On 20 November last year I gave notice of a motion which related to the rubber stamping of air fare increases by the then Minister for Transport, the assessment of air fare applications, the inadequate period allowed for that assessment and the lack of public scrutiny of applications for air fare increases. Four months later to the day, on 20 March 1980, the present Minister for Transport announced that the Government would conduct a public inquiry of a limited nature into air fares in Australia. Seven months later - again almost to the day - the inquiry is about to conduct its first hearing. This inquiry - an inquiry, as the Minister has just said, which was established to look at problems and particularly the problems of Western Australia - is made up of three Sydneysiders. There is nobody on the inquiry from Western Australia or the Northern Territory. Apparently the Government could not find anybody competent from Tasmania. The inquiry is made up of three Sydneysiders and one of them is a political hack of the Liberal Party.

Some seven months after the announcement and some 11 months after I gave notice of a motion the inquiry will conduct its first public hearings. Where will these hearings be held? One will be held in one of the Government’s most sensitive points - in Port Hedland! Where will the next inquiry be held? It will be held in Perth. Where will the next inquiry be held? It will be held in North Queensland. Why? The taxpayer may well ask why. The reason is that the Government is sensitive about the seats in those areas and it is seeking to diffuse and head off public criticism of the shambles that it has as an aviation policy. It is seeking to prevent criticism of its lack of competent administration of aviation matters in this country. On 22 February 1979 - a period of 10 months ago - I gave notice of a motion which related to the inadequacies of the limit of compensation for people who were injured in an aircraft accident in the air or on the ground. This matter does not concern this Government. We have not had a word from the Minister 10 months after notice was given.

We had a long diatribe this evening in a statement that masquerades as a second reading speech. We have a Bill that cannot proceed. There has been a lot of expense to the taxpayer. But we have heard not one word about the other 20 cents per passenger it would cost to raise the limit of compensation to an appropriate figure of at least SI 00,000 for anybody who was injured in an aircraft accident. Not one word did that level of compensation rate in this 45 minute speech from the Minister.

I gave notice on 16 April of a motion which refers to Trans-Australia Airlines, the provision of domestic air services, particularly to Queensland and opposition to the proposal to remove TransAustralia Airlines from public ownership. There was not one word in the Minister’s speech tonight stating that the Government will not sell TAA and that the Government is committed to TAA remaining in public ownership. That aspect does not rate a word. Nor was one opportunity provided in all the days and evenings that this Parliament has sat to discuss that matter.

Motion No. 174, of which notice was given on 21 August, notes the actions of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) to try to block TAA’s purchase of four Airbus aircraft - a purchase that will save this country approximately 12 million litres of fuel a year for each aircraft. It will be a substantial saving in fuel and this Government claims to have a priority interest in conserving the use of fuel in this country. There was no time for debate! We have had plenty of time for the fripperies that have come from the other side, but not for debate on an important issue like this. There was not one word about that factor in the Minister’s speech this evening. It did not rate a mention. It was not of importance to this Government. What the Government has done tonight is to put down, on the parliamentary record, a pledge of faith to its wealthy friends outside who have brought a monster and need more money to service that monster of an investment that they have gained by paying inflated prices for the shares.

The Minister’s statement has two purposes. Firstly, it grovels to friends of the Prime Minister. It is a pledge of faith of what it will do for its friends if this Government is helped to return to office. This Minister had an established record, when Minister for Health, of meekly carrying out the Prime Minister’s orders and requests for his wealthy friends. I refer to the abolition of Medibank. Remember that very firm promise in 1975 - ‘we will maintain Medibank’. The Minister said that on numerous occasions. This is the Minister who brought in four health schemes and we still do not have a health service. We have chaos, confusion and extreme cost in the provision of health services. Sick people are not getting medical care because they cannot afford it under the four schemes introduced by this Minister.

Secondly, we have an attempt to cover up his failure to produce an equitable and responsible domestic aviation policy. Let us look at the record of this Government over the past five years in domestic aviation. There has been a deterioration in air safety standards, facilities and services. His predecessor consistently denied that that was the case. To this Minister’s credit, several weeks ago he admitted that there were failings, that there were problems and that he would personally move to try to remedy those problems. That is the record of this Government in air safety. There is no money available - no funds. That was the limp excuse from his predecessor and from this Government. The Government has unlimited tax revenue to squander on the Prime Minister’s private international airline - the two Boeing flying hotels, the $40m program to cater for a spendthrift government’s luxury travel abroad, but not enough money to ensure that there is adequate air safety for the 1 1 million Australians who travel by air within this country each year.

Let us look at air fares. The Minister concluded on air fares and made a reference to concessional fares being cheaper. He meant APEX fares. The

Minister carefully did not account to the Parliament in his long speech for the profitability or otherwise of those fares. This point should be noted very, very clearly. Not one word has come from the Government or the airlines on the financial viability of the concessional fares now being offered - not a word! The facts will show that they cannot be justified and those air fares are being subsidised by the people who have to travel on short notice. When we look at the movements in those fares - the short notice, standard first class and economy fares - since 1976 we will see this picture. First class fares between Sydney and Melbourne are up 86 per cent. This is from the Minister who said that fares were down. The economy fare Sydney to Melbourne is up 69 per cent.

The first class fare from Sydney to Hobart is up 77 per cent. The first class fare Sydney to Brisbane is up 85 per cent. Melbourne to Hobart first class fares are up 88 per cent and economy fares by 72 per cent. That is a little different from the impression that the Minister sought to give in his concluding words that, after all, fares have come down. That is nonsense for a person who has to travel on short notice, lt is nonsense and an insult to the Australian businessman who regularly uses Australia domestic aviation. Melbourne to Adelaide first class fares are up 88 per cent; Melbourne to Adeliade economy fares are up 71 per cent. So do not let the people of Melbourne, Sydney, Hobart, Brisbane or Adelaide be under any misapprehension as to where this Government’s priorities lie. It has no concern for the people of those cities who have to travel on short notice. Overall, first class and economy fares have risen by 68 per cent since 1976 under the Fraser Government.

The phoney Bill presented by the Minister for Transport purports to improve TAA’s position. It does that in a few minor respects, but its principal purpose, as shown in clause 17, is to provide a substantial benefit to Ansett Airlines of Australia and we all know those who own Ansett Airlines. We all know that they now find that in paying wildly inflated prices for Ansett shares they bought a monster - a hungry monster - that will need millions of dollars in additional fare revenues if the investment is to remain viable. I refer to the editorial in the Australian of 17 May 1979. We all know who owns the Australian. It is headed ‘Real competition in the air’. What a wonderful headline! Let us see what was said then. The editorial reads:

It is a large and profitable organisation with attractive investment potential.

I emphasise that it was then a large and profitable organisation with attractive investment potential. The editorial continues:

It is already as far under the control of a free-enterprise board of directors as the Government’s protectionist policy allows.

And something must be done - and done urgently - to improve our two-airline system, which discourages true competition, and leaves Australian air travellers the stoic victims of parallel scheduling, delays and cancelled Sights.

This cocktail of sameness is served up by two so-called rival airlines whose services are mirror images of each other.

Mr Hunt:

– When was that stated?

Mr MORRIS:

– That was said on 17 May in an editorial of the Australian. Honourable members opposite know who owns the Australian and who owns Ansett Airlines of Australia. Honourable members opposite know to whom they answer. Will somebody in this Parliament, somebody in Australia, explain what difference there is in the services provided by the twins today and when that editorial was written? There is no difference in respect of the items referred to there - parallel scheduling, delays, cancelled nights, the same cocktail of sameness. Why the sudden change by the Australian editorially to the policy now being pursued by the Minister? What happened to change that attitude, the opinion, that the Australian had then? We do not see editorials in the Australian today saying that there should be more competition in the air. We do not see editorials saying that there should be more or better services for passengers.

The Government has claimed increased competition within the airline system this year. What increased competition was there? What has happened this year has been the provision of free booze. By whom? We know who owns Ansett. We know who owns the Australian. There is free booze for those who travel up front. Who pays for it? It is those who can only afford to travel down the back. So the other airline had to respond. When it responded it found to its chagrin that the cost was approximately $6m a year. Who will pay that? It will be paid by the passengers and the compliant Minister at the table? Three airfare increases have been rubberstamped in just under seven months - a record. In total that represents an increase in air fares of almost 20 per cent. Not a word has been said by the Minister or Government backbenchers opposite. They are all happy about that, because that hungry monster, that unviable investment, has to be serviced.

The major difference between the domestic aviation policy of the Australian Labor Party and the policy of the Fraser Government is crystal clear.

The Australian Labor Party stands for air travellers’ interests first. It stands also for cheaper fares and for reasonable return on the public funds invested. That policy applies to the public funds of a public company and to the taxpayers fund invested in the statutory authority, TransAustralia Airlines.

We stand for safe, reliable air travel at minimum cost. We stand for full accountability by both airlines for their financial performance and for reports of their efficiency. They should respond in respect of the quality of the service provided to their customers. There is not one word in the Minister’s speech about those matters. We stand for a procedure whereby when the airlines seek a fare increase, that fare increase application must be subjected to proper public scrutiny so the factors involved can be properly examined within a reasonable time. It will not be the rubber stamp process that we get from the Minister opposite, the Minister who refuses, even though he is required under law personally to assess and approve the increased fares, almost without precedent to acknowledge that he is the Minister who signed the approval and that he is the man who is responsible.

He refuses to acknowledge that it is his Government’s policies which are responsible for this enormous increase in air fares that bears little relation to real increases and costs being borne by the industry. The Fraser Government, on the other hand, stands for putting the airlines’ interest first - I have mentioned something about that already - and the public interest last. The rubber stamping of air fares, which I will come to later, the facilitation of air fare increases and the simplification of procedures for air fare increases all come first under this Government. We know what that means. Those euphemisms stand for automatic fare increases. I am sure that every Australian wage and salary earner, every company executive in this country and every public servant would love to be in the position of getting an automatic increase every six months. There would be no need to have any public examinations or no need to go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or to a tribunal; just get the Minister for Transport to look at it automatically. There is no problem. Australians cannot have that procedure, but this Government has almost given that procedure to the airlines and it proposes to give it to the airlines if we suffer the fate that by some accident this Government is returned to office. The Minister’s muteness on his fare increases and his refusal to accept public responsibility for his actions do him no credit.

The haste with which the Minister’s speech and this phoney Bill have been prepared are shown by the errors in his speech. I suggest that he might have members of his staff in the Department look at it. They will notice that a number of phrases are quite meaningless. I also note his failure to produce the customary explanatory notes that accompany a measure of such importance. The Opposition has had no opportunity to examine the details of this Bill. I listened to the Minister’s speech before the suspension of the sitting and I listened to the concluding section of it now. I have glanced through the provisions of the Bill in the short time that was available to me during the dinner break. Accordingly, I am able to comment on behalf of the Opposition on only a limited number of the provisions contained in the Minister’s speech.

There can be no justification for the procedure followed by the Minister this evening other than the Government’s belittling desire to give a pledge of faith to its friends. If they will act and return the Government to office, it in return will proceed with legislation to allow for steep increases in air fares. I say to everyone of those 11 million air travellers in Australia that that is a fact they should bear well in mind on October 18. We will have not only high taxation under a Fraser Government, but also higher air fares. The record and the Minister’s speech show that as I will point out and as I try to proceed through his speech and deal with some of the matters mentioned.

On the second page he refers to discussions of principles of the airlines having been finalised and the drafting of a new agreement. I think that is about the fifth occasion that a Minister for Transport in the Fraser Government has come into this Parliament and made a similar statement. The Minister refers on the same page to the need to place TAA on a more commercial basis. Not one sentence in his 45 minute speech is devoted to denning ‘commercial’. As I look through the Bill I can find no mention or definition of the word ‘commercial’. I think he mentioned the word but he certainly gave no definition. It is like the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act which contains a provision, I think in Section 8, that the Corporation should act on sound business principles. The officers of the Department of Finance were unable to define that term for us when they came before a parliamentary committee recently. We have the same kind of meaningless jargon in this legislation. The meaning, interpretation and definition of ‘commercial basis’ is in the mind of the Minister. In this case it is more in the mind of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Minister said he is amending the Act. He is not because this is only a piece of paper; it is not a Bill. He says that the Government is amending the Act to ensure that TAA operates on a similar basis to a privately owned airline. I remind the Parliament that on occasion after occasion chairmen and general managers of TAA, and previous conservative Ministers for transport have all said that TAA does operate on a commercial basis. Whom do we believe? Do we believe the Minister tonight, his predecessors or the executive officers and chairmen of the Australian National Airlines Commission? Somebody is not telling the truth.

Mr Hunt:

– Read the Bill.

Mr MORRIS:

– Have you read the Bill?

Mr Hunt:

– Yes, I have read the Bill. If you read the Bill you will find that there is some flexibility on a commercial basis.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! Honourable members will not engage in exchanges across the chamber. The honourable member for Shortland will address the House through the Chair.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall come to the Minister’s comments a little later. The Government has claimed that TAA has no advantage. Why then are we dealing with this matter this evening? Why has there been this expense, this waste of taxpayers’ money, if TAA has not had an advantage, as has been claimed by the Minister’s predecessors?

Let me contrast that statement of the Minister on the second page of his speech with the glaring absence of any reference to there not being a law to require the Ansett board to set a minimum dividend for its shareholders. There is no law under any companies Act in this country that requires a board of directors to set a minimum dividend or a minimum profit objective for the company. So where is the equity in this? That paragraph of the Minister’s speech is aimed at misleading the people of this country. On the third page, the Minister talks about the competition and the inability of the system to withstand wholesale change leading to a short period of unrestrained competition. I referred earlier to the editorials from the Australian and its demand that there be increased competition. I simply ask the question: Why the change in policy by the editor of the Australian?

The Minister refers to the termination of the two-airline agreement on the fourth page. I have said on many occasions on behalf of the Opposition that in government we would give notice of termination, not to disband the agreement but simply to put a Labor government in office in a better negotiating position to carry out the reform of the airline system that is needed so that it serves the Australian people better. I want to remind the House that that five-year notice of termination provision was rushed into this Parliament in a similar way in 1972 by the dying McMahon Government. It inserted a provision in the relevant Act that required, if the agreement was to be terminated, that five years’ notice had to be given and there had to be a resolution by each House of Parliament. That provision gave insurance to the proprietors of Ansett that even if there was a change of government by a determination of the Australian people, the policy of the outgoing government would prevail. There had to be a five-year notice of termination unless the incoming government gained control of both Houses. I find that provision offensive. It is an insult to the Australian people and it is a betrayal of the democratic rights of Australians.

The Minister also refers to the removal of freight from the two-airline policy. On that point the Opposition agrees with the Minister and with the Government’s proposals. On the fifth page the Minister refers to the giving of approval to the purchase by East-West Airlines Ltd of a Fokker F28 jet aircraft. He does not mention that that aircraft will be bought from the European Economic Community. He does not mention his recent statements that we should be banning trade with the EEC. He also does not mention that his Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is presently abroad at the taxpayers’ expense trying to block trade with the EEC. Here we have this aircraft being bought for friends of the Government from the EEC. Why can there not be some consistency with this Government? The fact is that it does not have any loyalty to the people of Australia. Its first loyalty is to those who helped to put it in office. I turn now to page 1 1 of the Minister’s speech.

Mr Hodgman:

– What about a good word for the Hobart service?

Mr MORRIS:

– Don’t interrupt me, my friend.

Mr Hodgman:

– You don’t like Tasmania.

Mr MORRIS:

– I love Tasmanians, but I do not masquerade in this chamber, as does the honourable member. He tells one story in this chamber - he votes in this chamber against Tasmania - and goes back to Tasmania and says the opposite. The honourable member should be honest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member for Shortland will address the House through the Chair.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member who interjected has a schizophrenic mind in politics - one mind for here and another mind for Tasmania. In the middle part of last year - I think in May or July; the record will show when - the honourable member gave notice of a motion on aviation policy and the high cost of air fares, objecting to a 10 per cent increase in domestic air fares and the effect it would have on Tasmania. The same honourable member has sat over there mute since the middle of last year. Now he makes inane interjections.

Mr Hodgman:

– Not true.

Mr MORRIS:

– It is true. Look up the record. The honourable member has sat there mute. He has endorsed all of the fare increases since, despite the detrimental impact they have had on Tasmania. So he should not interrupt me.

Mr Hodgman:

– You are completely hypocritical.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw that remark.

Mr Hodgman:

– That he was completely–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not repeat the remark, but will withdraw it.

Mr Hodgman:

– I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I invite the honourable member to come down to Tasmania. He will win about 5,000 votes for me in my electorate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS:

– On page 1 1 of his speech the Minister refers to certain undertakings being incorporated in the new airlines agreement as to the way in which consideration is given to tariff applications. That means applications for fare increases. He went on to say:

These undertakings broadly provide that the Minister will act responsibly in considering airline requests to vary tariffs.

To me, that seems to be only an admission that he has not acted responsibly in the past. I would assume that that goes without saying. I do not see any point in having in the Minister’s speech an undertaking to act responsibly; unless he has not acted responsibly in the past. The Minister went on to say:

The Minister will always take the public interest into account.

Then came the critical part of the Minister’s statement tonight. He said:

There will be a simplified review system for limited cost increases in certain specified areas.

That is the guise, the cover, for the automatic air fare increases that this Government will be proposing if, by some mischance, it should be returned to office. The Minister had a duty to explain to the House what that means. It rates one little line. There we see again a government that is committed to putting the interests of the airlines first. There is no explanation.

The Minister referred to Ansett and TAA going international. The Australian Financial Review, I think, referred to the Minister having circumvented his own policy in respect of that. I say no more. I hope that that service will bring tremendous opportunities to Tasmania. I am confident that it will expand the tourist potential of Tasmania. I hope, in spite of the statement by Air New Zealand that the service is non-viable, that Air New Zealand is wrong and that Tasmania benefits greatly from the service, which the Opposition has supported from the beginning. The 1,000 empty seats each week on Qantas aircraft travelling across Australia should be utilised. They could be made available to people in Western Australia at half the cost of current fares.

Mr Hunt:

– Why didn’t you do that when you were in government? Ask Charlie Jones. He will teach you a lesson or two.

Mr MORRIS:

– The Government has had 28 years to get this country out of the mess. It has got it into an awful mess. For 28 years since World War II the coalition has been in government, and the Minister wants to blame somebody else. He should just think back a little.

I refer now to the determination of dividends. On page 1 5 of the speech there is a reference to return on the net worth of the Australian National Airlines Commission during the forthcoming year. Let me quote from a reference to dividend objectives and profit objectives by the Coombs Review of Continuing Expenditure Policies of the Previous Government of June 1973. Referring to TAA, the report says:

Under section 32 ( 1 ) of the Act, the Minister, with the concurrence of the Treasurer sets the Commission a dividend target each year. Under section 32 (3), the Commission is obliged to ‘pursue a policy directed towards making in each financial year, profits sufficient to enable the Commission to pay to the Commonwealth, out of those profits, an amount equal to the percentage of its capital determined under subsection ( 1 ) of this section in respect of that financial year’.

There is ample power there for the Minister of Transport, Treasurer or Minister for Finance of the day to set a dividend objective for TransAustralia Airlines that is commensurate with the financial needs of the company, that is commensurate with a return on the capital funds invested, that is commensurate with the profit objective of its competitor. There is no need to change that. But the real reason for changing it comes up in clause 17 of the Bill. I shall read this clause into Hansard because it is of importance. Here is revealed the procedure by which the Government has sold out to its friends and by which, if returned to office, it will be legislating to increase air fares steeply. Clause 17, referring to financial policy and the determination of return on net worth of the Commission, states: . . the Commission will endeavour to achieve for its operations in that financial year, having regard to–

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

Mr Hunt:

Mr Deputy Speaker, despite the political scaremongering, I move:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr MORRIS:

– I thank the House.

Mr Hodgman:

– If you continue to attack Tasmania, you will not be allowed to speak any more.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that the honourable member withdraw. That is completely untrue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is not of the opinion that the words warrant withdrawal, but I warn the honourable member for Denison not to interject again.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the statement carries with it an imputation that I find offensive. It is within my rights to ask for it to be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– As the honourable member for Shortland is of a mind that the words are offensive, I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw.

Mr Hodgman:

– If the truth is offensive to the honourable member for Shortland, I withdraw, but he will have to wear the responsibility for what he has said.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for an unqualified withdrawal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The withdrawal is required on an unqualified basis. I ask the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr Holding:

– Withdraw. Get on with it.

Mr Hodgman:

– Will the honourable member for Melbourne Ports permit me to make my statement? I cannot speak with him yabbering away over there.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will come quickly to his withdrawal.

Mr Hodgman:

– In deference to you, sir, I withdraw.

Mr MORRIS:

– Before the extension of time, I was referring to clause 17 of the Bill, which continues:

  1. the need to ensure the Commonwealth receives a reasonable return on the capital of the Commission from the operations of the Commission, being a return on capital of similar proportions to the return that could be expected to be received by a shareholder in a privately-owned air transport undertaking in Australia having a similar capital structure to that of the Commission;

In that clause lies the nub of the Minister’s statement that the Commission- TAA - should set its profit objective and, as a result of that, the fare levels it needs to show a return that could be expected to be received by a shareholder in a privately-owned air transport company. We know which privately-owned air transport company. But there is no reference in the Minister’s speech to an examination of the appropriateness or otherwise of the share capital structure of TAA’s competitor. Are the values shown in its balance sheet accurate? Are they up to date? Let us look at the capital structure of TAA. If we take the net worth referred to by the Minister in his statement we would be looking at a figure for TAA of something like $57m. TAA’s dividend objective was raised to 15 per cent by a former Minister for Transport in 1976. Fifteen per cent on TAA’s present capital of $15m is much less than the money that would be involved in a 15 per cent profit objective, or dividend objective, on a capital of $57m. That figure is almost four times TAA’s existing capital. That means just one thing, that there will have to be a steep increase in fares to provide the heavy increase in profit outlined in clause 17 of the Bill.

I have to compare the Government’s policy in respect of this legislation and in respect of TAA with its policy in respect of profit objectives for Australian National Railways. In the case of Australian National Railways the Minister told an Estimates committee a few weeks ago that ANR sets its own figure, that the Government discusses it with ANR but it is up to ANR to make the recommendation. In the case of TAA the Government wants to write into legislation a vastly inflated profit objective which would result in a steep increase in air fares. Why? Again, it is to help its friends. There is no similar requirement in respect of the Australian National Line or in respect of Qantas, Australia’s international airline. So the position is very clear. What the Minister is about is changing the legislation, if by mischance his Government is returned after the elections, to provide for a heavy increase in profit that will have to come only from a steep increase. in air fares by both domestic airlines with the blame being placed on TAA.

Clause 7 mentioned in the Minister’s speech, refers to conflict of interest. Here again I raised in this chamber, quite some time ago, the possibility of conflict of interest between a member of the Australian National Airlines Commission and business being carried on at the time by the Australian National Airlines Commission. It was denied by the then Minister for Transport. If honourable members opposite read the Minister’s speech they will find that the words relating to the kind of conflict I referred to at the time, are the words used in the Minister’s speech this evening. I again ask a simple question: Why now is it appropriate to change it when it was not appropriate then? On the last page of the Minister’s speech he refers to the air fare inquiry. As I said earlier, that inquiry was intended to head off public criticism of the Government’s fare increases and of the Government’s aviation policy. The gentlemen appointed to the inquiry by the Minister were appointed in the knowledge of the Minister that they would not be available for some time as they were overseas. The money that was provided was not able to be used. That report was given to the Estimates Committee and is in the Parliamentary record. What I said is in the Parliamentary record. The Minister said on the last page of his speech:

The Government is anxious to establish the facts relating to the fare structure . . .

One would have thought that if the Department of Transport officers were acting responsibly and knew their jobs then that information would be in the hands of the Government. Obviously it is not in the hands of the Government. If there are to be major changes to the profit and limited objectives of TAA with consequential effects - -

Mr Neil:

– This is drivel.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for St George will remain silent.

Mr MORRIS:

– It is a bit difficult for a second rate lawyer to understand, I know. For a small debts lawyer the honourable member will manage. We will take up a salary for him. These major changes, proposed by the Minister, are being made many months in advance of the inquiry having gained the information which the Minister has admitted is essential. That inquiry is now set down to report in mid- 1981, eight months after the election. It will be well out of the way so that the Government will not be criticised during the election campaign, it hopes. But that will not be the case. In the view of the Opposition that inquiry should have been proceeded with expedition when it was announced in March. Its members should have been appointed earlier than that. The inquiry should have brought down its report and had that report, its recommendations, and the information it provided considered by the Parliament before any movement to change the dividend objective, the fare structure, the profit objective and the capital structure of TAA were considered by the Parliament.

I conclude on this point. There is a very simple and clear difference between the policy of the Australian Labor Party in relation to aviation and that of the Government. The Government’s policy, as its record shows, is dedicated to putting the interests of the airlines and their friends in the airlines business first. There has been a 68 per cent increase in fares in just over three years. There have been three fare increases’ amounting to almost 20 per cent in a record period of just under 7 months. There is no public scrutiny and no proper examination of cost factors involved and certainly no examination of non-airline activities by the airlines. The policy of the Australian Labor Party in contrast is that the people who use the air services are entitled to have a say in the determination of policy affecting airlines services. Under a Labor government there will be public participation. An airline passengers committee will be appointed which will have an input into the decision-making procedures in respect of aviation policy. The airlines, both TAA and Ansett Airlines of Australia, will be required to properly account to the Parliament and to the public for their financial operations and for their performances.

Mr Dean:

– What are you going to do for Western Australia?

Mr MORRIS:

– We will halve the fares to Western Australia by using the empty Qantas seats across Australia. I understand that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean) and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) support that proposal, but their colleagues do not. That is what we will do for Western Australia. We will require that all applications for fare increases by the airlines be subjected to public scrutiny by the Prices Justification Tribunal. We will raise the level of air accident compensation to at least $100,000 which is a cost of some 20c per passenger to the airlines. We will index this annually. So if the unthinkable should happen we will not have Australian families poverty-stricken because of the failure of previous conservative governments to ensure a proper and adequate level of compensation for air accident victims. One thing is certain: Under conservative governments there will be no public participation in aviation policy and there will be no public scrutiny of air fare application increases and air travel, like taxes, will be substantially higher.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hodges) adjourned.

page 1552

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES COMMISSION

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · Warringah · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission’s interim annual report for 1979-80.

page 1552

PROPOSALS FOR WORK WITHIN THE PARLIAMENTARY ZONE

Motion (by Mr MacKellar) agreed to:

That, in accordance with section S 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 1552

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

– I present the eighteenth report from the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

Mr GILLARD:

– by leave- The Thirty-first Parliament has been the busiest in the history of the Joint Committee. Since 1978 the Committee has conducted special in-depth inquiries into the publication of Commonwealth Acts, statutory rules and legislation of the Territories which was the fifth special report; into the Australian Government Publishing Service, which was the sixth special report; and into the annual reports of Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities which was the seventh special report. The Government’s response to the fifth special report was particularly encouraging to my Committee as virtually all the substantive recommendations were adopted. The response to the Australian Government Publishing Service sixth special report was more mixed. However, we realise that the issues raised were of fundamental importance and they are still under consideration.

In addition, the Committee has continued its regular series of meetings to examine documents presented to the Parliament and recommend those that should be printed as parliamentary papers. There have been 1 8 printing reports in the Parliament. Two important themes have been evident in both our special inquiries and our regular activities. Firstly, to endeavour to improve the access to and availability of publications for members of parliament and for the wider community and, secondly, to pursue these aims with a view to achieving the maximum possible efficiency and economies. We believe that, in the Thirty-first Parliament, considerable progress has been made in achieving the first of these aims. Members of this Parliament are much better off than their predecessors in terms of the availability of reports.

The second important theme, that of costs, must be kept under continuing review and is likely to be a major feature in future inquiries. As Chairman, I have been greatly assisted by the genuinely bipartisan approach of all members of the Committee regardless of their party affiliations. I thank the members of the Committee for that. I pay particular tribute to my predecessor as Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), and to my deputy, Senator Archer, for their work. I would like to place on record a tribute to the Committee secretariat, Mr Bernie Wright and Mr Tom Mcintosh, for their work on behalf of the Committee during the Thirty-first Parliament. They have both been dedicated and most efficient in their duties. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to make those few comments.

page 1553

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Report

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present a report relating to the following proposed work:

Norfolk Island aerodrome: Upgrading of facilities.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr BUNGEY:

– by leave - There may be some criticism of the late date on which this report of the upgrading of the Norfolk Island airport has been presented to the House. This matter was referred to the Committee on 29 July 1980 by the Governor-General in Council. Normally the Committee allows one month for replies to advertisements. In this case there was a substantial response to the advertisements calling for evidence, and indeed four days were required to take evidence. I report that the twenty-fifth Public Works Committee has worked hard over the last three years. It has reported to this House on 28 proposals in all, involving a total expenditure of over $41 5m. In 1980, the Committee presented 12 reports involving a total expenditure of over $ 1 1 6m.

As Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I wish to thank all members of the twenty-fifth Public Works Committee for the help and support I have received. I can report to the House without any qualification or reservation that the Committee has lived up to the great traditions of past committees which have been built up over many years. All proposed works referred to it have been examined on a bipartisan and non-political basis.

I pay tribute in particular to those members of the Committee who are not contesting the forthcoming election. They include the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) whose lengthy experience on the Committee has been of great assistance to me. Indeed, on a number of occasions he has chaired the Committee in my absence. In fact he chaired the greater part of the inquiry into the upgrading of the Norfolk Island airport, the report on which I have just presented.

The honourable member for Burke has served on the Public Works Committee continuously since March 1973, during which time he was Chairman from July 1974 to July 1975 and Acting Chairman from September 1977 to November 1977. He has also served as Vice-Chairman continuously since May 1975. 1 would like to place on record the great service that the honourable member for Burke has rendered to the Committee with his vast experience, his great commonsense and his earthy humour. Above all, he respected and treasured the great traditions of the Public Works Committee and would never permit party politics to enter its deliberations or inquiries. I personally thank the honourable member for Burke for the great support he has given me as Chairman. I am sure that all members of the twenty-fifth Public Works Committee join me in wishing him a happy and long retirement both from the Committee and from the Parliament.

The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) is another retiring member. The honourable member for Hunter served on the Committee from February 1967 to November 1972 and then from March 1976 to the present day. I have appreciated his straightforward and practical approach. He has made a valuable contribution to the Committee’s work and I wish him all the best for the future.

The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has served on the Committee from March 1978 to the present. Every member of this House who has served on any committee with the honourable member for the Northern Territory will appreciate his sincerity, his dedication and his loyalty. I wish him a very happy, long and fruitful retirement. I must also thank members of the Committee for the support and loyalty they have given me. I feel sure that they will agree that the twenty-fifth Public Works Committee has made a valuable contribution to the deliberations of this Parliament and that we leave the Public Works Committee in good shape and with a good reputation. My thanks also go to the staff of the Committee and particularly to the officers of the Department of Housing and Construction. I also thank all other persons, both within and without the Public Service who helped the Committee over the past three years.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– by leave- I wish to detain the House for few moments. I have not had a chance to see a copy of the report or of the statement just delivered by the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. My colleagues who were associated with the preparation of that report, particularly the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), unfortunately are not able to be here. From the representations that we have received it appears that a relatively large number of residents of Norfolk Island have serious apprehensions about the upgrading proposal that has been recommended by the Committee. They are fearful that the upgrading and the consequential increase in tourist traffic to the island will have detrimental effects upon not only the social environment but also the physical environment.

There has been a great deal of controversy in the Press with claims being made that Dash 7 aircraft could be used and would not require the same level of upgrading as the F28 Fellowship jets proposed to be used by East- West Airlines Ltd. I understand the airport is to be upgraded to satisfy the requirements of those aircraft. We recognise that an exemption from the 90-minute rule has been granted by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) because of the special circumstances involved and that there is an element of continuing risk in that. Related to that is the alternative put forward by a number of people - it appears to have been put forward in good faith - that if Dash 7 aircraft could be used the same level of upgrading would not be needed and the same potential for detrimental impact upon the island community and upon the island’s physical environment would not be involved. However, it appears from questions I raised in the Estimates committee - the Chairman of the Committee confirmed this in a brief conversation I had with him - that the operator who proposed to use the

Dash 7 aircraft will not proceed with his plan to use Dash 7 aircraft or that those aircraft are not available. I make those remarks in the absence of my colleagues who, having been on the Committee and having dealt directly with the residents of Norfolk Island, are better equipped than I to put that on the record. I hope that at some later stage my colleagues will have something to say about it.

page 1554

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The High Court of Australia (Consequential Provisions) Bill seeks to amend certain Acts as a result of the enactment of the High Court of Australia Bill 1979. It is a very short piece of machinery legislation. It seeks to make amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act 1973, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Northern Territory Representation Act 1922 and the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906. With the enactment of the High Court of Australia legislation there is no longer provision for a principal registry of the High Court and for district registries. That Act provides instead for a registry of the High Court in the seat of government, namely, Canberra, and for officers of the registry in each State and in the Northern Territory. Accordingly, there is no longer a need for what is called the principal registrar or district registrars. Instead there is now what is called a registrar of the High Court and provision is made for the appointment of deputy registrars. The Bill will bring into play those descriptions in lieu of the former descriptions. It is a formal matter. The Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I wish quickly to make a number of points in respect of the High Court of Australia (Consequential Provisions) Bill. I believe it is appropriate, in respect of legislation which goes to the structure and organisation of the High Court, that I should express, first of all, the regret felt amongst many members of the community, including prominent members of the legal profession, that the court will not in future sit in Melbourne or Sydney. The High Court, after all, is our supreme appellate court. It is our court of national constitutional interpretation, and the impact of its judgments can affect and in many cases determine the structure and pattern of institutions in our society. In my view, it should not remove itself physically on a permanent basis from those great centres of our commercial, business, industrial and social life. To have it permanently based in Canberra is to take it out of those great areas of activity in Australian life. I believe that that is a retrograde step. The expense that is involved to those people who find themselves as litigants in that court must also be considered. That is my first point.

The second point is the concern that I feel exists within all sections of the legal community and which has been adverted to in this House. Should the Government be returned the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, will be appointed to fill the vacancy of Chief Justice when the imminent retirement of the present Chief Justice takes place. I raise this matter because I believe that it is important that we maintain public confidence in the institution of the High Court. Whilst I do not want to take up the time of this House going through the details of the career of the Minister, let me discuss some aspects very simply and very quickly. In 1972 the Minister, while Solicitor-General, involved himself in the count of the Parramatta by-election. In a partisan political intervention he used the office of Solicitor-General. An action which was brought–

Mr Carlton:

– I raise a point of order. I think the honourable member is casting a reflection on another member. This should be done only by substantive motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The Chair was temporarily distracted. It cannot vouch for the accuracy of the point of order raised by the honourable member for Mackellar. I remind the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that he must not reflect on a member of the House. He must also remain relevant to the Bill.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am not reflecting on the Minister. I am simply stating a matter of historic fact. That action brought the censure of the then Attorney-General and the Cabinet. The Minister gave what was essentially a legal opinion in respect of the Khemlani papers. He produced a legal opinion which indicated that, on his examination, the Prime Minister was not directly implicated. After discussions with his then political leader a revised opinion was given within a matter of hours. I say very simply and without going into all the other details which can be amplified and put on the record, that it is important, whoever is appointed to the very important position of Chief Justice of the High Court of

Australia, that the person enjoys the confidence of every section of the Australian community. By virtue of the depth and nature of the political development of the present Minister one would have to say that he does not and could not enjoy the confidence of the Labor movement if the Government were to make that appointment. Therefore, it is important that this House, before these events occur, should state clearly and without any sense of political malevolence and without in any way casting personal reflections that the Government of the day - I believe it will be a Labor Government; certainly a Labor Government would do so - should make the appointment on the basis of getting the very best legal talent available.

There exists in every court in Australia, both in the State jurisdictions and in the existing High Court, men and women of exemplary legal talent. It would be unfortunate indeed if the word which is out now throughout the legal profession were followed. It is said that if this Government is returned the first job for the boys exercise will go to the Minister. Jobs for the boys is one thing, but the appointment of the Chief Justice is an appointment that concerns public confidence in our most important national legal institution. Therefore, I believe that the criteria which will certainly be the criteria of a Labor Government should be stated firmly prior to the election. The Government ought also to state that it will adopt those very same criteria. The speculation which is rife within the legal profession, within the High Court, and, indeed, which has been raised in this Parliament, ought to be put to an end. I believe that if the Minister has any real concern for the future reputation of the court, its standing and its continuing public confidence–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair cannot permit the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to proceed further. The Chair is of the view that the honourable member is not relevant to the question before the House.

Mr HOLDING:

– I will wind up. I was only making this point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member must not proceed with the line of address that he is adopting.

Mr HOLDING:

– I think that I am entitled, on a Bill which deals with the nature, structure and organisation of the High Court, to deal with the court’s public reputation. I would have thought that that has to be very much a matter of concern in a second reading debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports is correct in that proposition. But he was proceeding beyond that proposition.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am about to end the proposition. I respectfully submit that I am in order when I say that as this is a matter of concern for the future reputation of the court and its continuing public confidence the proper and honourable course that I believe the Minister should follow to end this speculation is to indicate publicly that he would not under any circumstances be a candidate for appointment. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) ought to publicly indicate now, prior to the election, that that appointment will go on the basis of merit, on the basis of talent and on the basis of maintaining and endeavouring to restore the reputation of the High Court thereby ensuring its continuing confidence in the eyes of the Australian public.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1556

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE FAMILY LAW ACT

Report

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

That the House take note of the papers. .

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

– I have had an enormous storm of protests from all over Australia from those who are expecting justice to return to the Family Law Act. I hope that all honourable members realise the essence of the present family law. Contrary to every principle of law as it has evolved over centuries, in family law there is neither guilt nor innocence- neither fault nor no fault. Since I have been a member of the - Parliament I have persistently asked and petitioned various Attorneys-General for an inquiry into family law. Such petitions were made because of the enormous number of people, male and female, who came to me because of injustice in the Family Court of Australia. It would be easy to say - I know some people have said - that I have been petitioned by vexatious litigants who already have had their day in court and who never will be satisfied. I might agree with that proposition if there had been a resolution by the Court of who and what was wrong or right. That is what justice and the law as far as I am concerned, is supposed to be about.

As I said, there is no justice in the Family Court; there is only the distribution of assets regardless of who has done wrong. The House, I think, will now understand why I am the only total dissident to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. My reasons for disagreement are quite simply expressed. I disagreed with the Joint Select Committee about the nature of marriage. In my opinion the Committee was equivocal about the basic permanence of marriage. I am not. I disagreed with the Committee about the essence of the present Family Law Act. The Committee seemed to accept the idea of no fault divorce. I do not. I disagreed with the Committee about the relevance of the Jup analysis to the terms of reference. I do not accept the analysis and my reasons are given in my dissenting report. I also had a strong disagreement with the Committee about the procedure followed by it in regard to taking testimony from, and being involved on the Committee with the judiciary of the Family Court and the Family Law Council. I will have something to say about that a little later.

I must say, in view of those things, that I am appalled at what I think is the Committee’s cavalier treatment of the essential reasons for bringing the Committee together. I think those reasons were very essential and very basic. I remind the House that the Joint Committee was appointed to inquire into and report on a number of matters. The main matters, in my opinion were the grounds for divorce, whether there should be other grounds and its effect on the institution of marriage and the family. There were a couple of other grounds that were quite important but the grounds I have instanced were the most important basic grounds. It is those grounds to which I directed most of my attention. Before I proceed any further I want to say that I am going to be strongly critical of the Committee; I have already been strongly critical of it. I want to make the point that I totally respect the integrity of the other members of the Committee but I just cannot agree with their skating over what I consider were the essential issues.

The Joint Select Committee report and the tabling statement of the Chairman - long and all as it was although it was not necessarily repetitious- were nonetheless repetitions of the same sort of technique used by former Senator Lionel Murphy when he brought the original Family Law Bill into the Senate. He conned the

Senate, and I think afterwards the House of Representatives was conned too, into the original disaster of family law. What the former senator did was to have some nice words drawn up. These words are still contained in section 43 of the Family Law Act. Marriage is defined as a relationship which exists between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others which is voluntarily and publicly entered into and which is intended to last for their joint lives, to afford them mutual health, comfort and support, and to protect and promote the welfare of the children of them. That is contained in section 43 of the Family Law Act. It sounds good. It sounded so marvellous to the original framers of the Family Law Act in the Senate and the House of Representatives that they bought it willingly. The ideals set out in the Act sound good. Who could disagree with them? lt is like disagreeing with motherhood although, as I recall in other debates in this place, there are people who disagree with that too. However, that has been a recent change of attitude in our society. It was not always so. In any case, the institution of marriage is something to which people look. They believe it is important.

Those words sound as though they are sincere and sound as though they are a good basis for any sort of a family law Act. But the truth is that in that Family Law Act, as it stands at the moment, that is the.only section where any dignity is given to marriage. The rest of the Family Law Act is really a divorce Act. It is the whole mechanism for breaking up families and breaking up marriages. I feel that this is totally wrong. It is one of the reasons that I petitioned Attorneys-General. I wanted something done about it. It is the only thing in the Family Law Act that is good; the rest of it is no good at all. That is what I thought we were gathered together in the Joint Select Committee to try to fix up. This is why I am so strongly critical. I feel quite strongly that the basic issues of the grounds of marriage and the grounds of divorce have been affected by the Family Law Act.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I don’t.

Mr MARTYR:

– I am not be bit surprised. If I live as long as the right honourable member for Lowe I might come around to his opinion. I very much doubt it.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I hope you do.

Mr MARTYR:

– So do I. I believe that the words contained in the original Family Law Act made this House and made the Senate accept it. The whole mechanism of the Act is designed to smash marriage; it is not designed to preserve it. I think that much the same sort of thing has happened with respect to the Chairman’s statement and much the same thing has happened in the tabling statement and in the report. There are plenty of nice words about marriage and its place and permanence but in reality the majority report has skated over the essential issues. Certainly, in my opinion there were cosmetic improvements here and there but no improvements were made to essential matters. I respectfully suggest that the essential problems are quite clear. One of the essential problems is that unilateral no fault divorce on a 12 month separation basis- the couple can even be under the same roof- can be granted in secret courts with no publicity for bad decisions and with new domestic lives beginning without previous domestic matters being settled. That is not law at all. That is the whole essence of what I believe is wrong with the present Family Law Act. That is what I thought we had come together to fix up.

That sort of so-called law is not law; it is nonsense. It is plucked out of the air by sociological dreamers. It is not working now and it will never work. The Committee has not even grasped one of those nettles. I feel that it avoided the issue of fault altogether except in custody cases where I believe it logically decided to recognise behaviour and insist that judges do too. How can we have an Act, the whole basis of which is faultlessness - no fault at all - and yet we can consider behaviour, which, is just another word for fault, under one section. It is already in the Act now but the judges refuse to take any notice of it. The Committee at least has had the decency to ask the judges to take some notice of it. I feel that the Committee has continued to disregard the wishes of the innocent party who does not want a divorce at all. The Committee has done nothing about the farce of a separation under one roof.

The Committee has referred to the Commission for Law Reform, the matter of a property regime to be agreed between parties before marriage. I do not know why the Committee could not have grasped this very simple matter and made recommendations itself instead of referring it to another Commission. However, we have dealt with these differences in the Committee so there is no point in my bringing them up here. 1 believe that my dissenting report grasped every single nettle. I am not frightened of a few spikes. I never have been. I am not even frightened of spikes from the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) whom I respect greatly. I recognise that a government cannot legislate for happiness but it certainly can do better than we have done with the present disastrous Family Law Act. I believe that the whole situation will become much worse. It is quite clear that social behaviour has been affected by family law just as social behaviour has been affected by other things. It has been affected certainly by these loose judicial interpretations of what abortion is. No one can tell me that without these loose judicial interpretations of Mr Justice Levine in New South Wales and Mr Justice Menhennitt in Victoria there would be as much abortion as there is at the moment.

Of course the law and the interpretation of the law affects social behaviour. It always has done. I believe quite firmly and the evidence is there that marriage has been very severely damaged by the Family Law Act. I believe that hundreds of thousands of children have been hurt by the present Family Law Act. I believe that innocence in the Family Law Act has been punished very harshly. I think we have to look to see what has been happening and is going to happen in the United Kingdom. The soaring divorce rate in that country and the misery it leaves could cost the United Kingdom about $2,000m a year. The taxpayer is picking up the bill. This is another thing that I wonder about. I wonder about the social dreamers and all the wonderful things that they are able to do and all the wonderful things that they seem to be able to convince lawyers who are trained in the hard science of law. They convince lawyers that no law is necessary in this field. Of course law is necessary in this field. Adherence to law is the basis by which we live. One cannot have a particular thing that one calls a law if there is no law at all, if there is no guilt or innocence. Figures being released in the United Kingdom are absolutely frightening. Divorce leading to a one parent family will cost the United Kingdom something like $800m in supplementary benefits. Divorced parents now represent 1 1 per cent of all families and have over 1 ,250,000 children to support. One could go on and on quoting the costs. I have just given instances of what is happening in the United Kingdom and what will happen here as a result of our doing nothing about family law. In the Australian of 13 August, Justice Mary Murray of the South Australian court had some very strong things to say. She said that there is a tremendous risk of psychiatric damage to the children and parents of broken marriages.

Mr Ruddock:

– Do you take notice of what she says?

Mr MARTYR:

– I take notice of what she says when she speaks to an organisation outside the Parliament. In the few minutes I have left to me I should make the point that the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act made the great mistake of involving the judiciary in its proceedings. If we are to have the judiciary mixed up with the Parliament and vice versa, what sort of situation will we eventually have? The other evening the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) made an interesting speech about the power of Parliament disappearing before our very eyes. The power of Parliament will disappear entirely if this Parliament and its committees get mixed up with the judiciary. The arms have to be completely separate, otherwise we will have a totality and that could lead to all sorts of difficulties that we have never anticipated in this country. I mentioned earlier that I would allude to that. It is another objection which I had. In summarising the whole situation, it has emerged clearly in evidence that the Family Law Act, as it stands today, is a divorce Act only. It has contributed substantially to the breakdown of marriage and family as a permanent commitment. The Family Law Act purports to uphold marriage but, in effect, makes marriage an unenforceable contract, with 12 months’ separation as the only ground for legal ‘no fault’ unilateral breaking of the contract. What sort of law is that? The Family Law Act has no priority for annulment applications. It has abolished innocence and, therefore, its judgments are not based on complete justice. The Family Law Act, in abolishing innocence, has caused all sorts of confusion in the community. Sociology has taken over from the law. This is the sort of thing with which the Committee agreed. I cannot understand why members of the Committee did that. I know that they are sensible people and I respect their integrity, but I wonder about a finding such as that. The Family Law Act allows divorcees to start a new domestic life before all matters are settled. It is little wonder that there is so much trouble in the community. People leave their first marriage partner, obtain a decree nisi and go off and live with other people whom they have to keep as well as keeping their first wives and families. These sorts of things go on without the first affairs being settled. That is not law; that is stupidity. I conclude by saying that the–

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

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I gently rebuke my colleague the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) by simply saying that there is nothing in this life as certain as the certainty of a closed mind. The honourable gentleman has been nothing if not consistent in that view. At the outset he was opposed to the Family Law Act. He is entitled to hold that view. The thrust of his remarks was that the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act - a committee of wide and divergent views - virtually rejected the weight of evidence that came before it. That is just not correct.

Mr Hodgman:

– He is allowed to express that view.

Mr HOLDING:

– I do not object to the honourable gentleman expressing that view. I have said that he has been nothing if not consistent in that view. The other members of the Committee were confronted with the same evidence. Despite all the attempts that were made to prove that increases in the divorce rate flowed from the changes in the law, no one else on that Committee could accept with any degree of certitude that that was the position because the evidence just was not there. The Committee looked at the whole question of fault. Let us be candid, there are people in the community who are not only opposed to the present provisions of the Act but also want to make it more difficult.

The Committee heard evidence in which it was seriously being suggested that somehow or other marriage would be more certain if any petitioner for a divorce had to wait for five years before the case came to court and a further two years after the decree nisi was granted before obtaining a decree absolute. When the Committee asked what sort of sociological or other evidence there was to support that proposition, no evidence was forthcoming. The Committee was a patient and tolerant committee. There was no viewpoint on this whole issue which it did not consider. It looked at all the evidence. There was a wide-ranging body of divergent views and those views are expressed in the report. Having regard to the extent of the divergence of views, I believe that it is some kind of tribute to the Committee that so much unanimity was produced in this report. There are aspects of this report on which I had a minority viewpoint. That is all contained in the report, which is available for all honourable members to read.

I believe the Committee worked well. It was a hard working committee. In the areas of major importance essentially the Committee was unanimous. There were some positions that people were not prepared to change, which is their right. Basically, the Committee looked at all the evidence from a wide variety of sources. No body in the community - some very odd bodies came before the Committee to give evidence- did not have its view listened to and its arguments considered. The report, with all its weaknesses and all its strength, is a tribute to the members of this Parliament. Despite differing political, social and religious beliefs they have been able, when confronted with the evidence, to produce a report which essentially is a good report and which, on the basic issues, is far more in agreement than it is in disagreement. I say that as one who was party to a minority viewpoint. I repeat that the Committee worked well and hard. The report deserves the consideration of every member of the Parliament who is concerned with and involved in this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1559

NORFOLK ISLAND AERODROME

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– by leave - I move:

The proposal is for the upgrading of aerodrome facilities to allow the introduction of medium jet aircraft operations to Norfolk Island. The works proposed will comprise construction of a paved runway to replace the existing grassed one, strengthening an extension of other aircraft pavements, minor improvements to the passenger terminal and associated engineering services.

In reporting favourably on the proposal; the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has made a recommendation that the Australian and Norfolk Island governments should negotiate to ensure that controls of tourism, transit air passengers, airline schedules and types of aircraft using Norfolk Island aerodrome are effective in preserving the environment and economy of Norfolk Island. This recommendation accords with the Government’s views. I am able to advise the House that there has been consultation at ministerial level in regard to the proposal and I expect that consultation to continue.

The Committee has requested that, in the relocation of the small section of Ferny Lane at the end of the proposed runway, care be exercised to ensure that earthworks and clearing of vegetation are carried out in a manner causing least possible damage. This suggestion by the Committee will be kept in mind during the further design and supervision of the works. The Committee has also suggested that my Department should continue to liaise with the Norfolk Island Administration on various other aspects of the works having environmental consequences. I have directed that this be done. The estimated cost of the works examined by the Committee was $6. 2m at May 1980 prices.

The Committee has recommended the construction of the work in the reference. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Works Committee.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– The Opposition has not formally considered this motion. Therefore, I am speaking off the cuff. I want to express one or two misgivings which perhaps the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) can set at rest for me. The Minister referred to environmental aspects and to discussion with the Administration of Norfolk Island. But he did not refer to the sorts of objections, which have been circularised to honourable members particularly in respect of social environmental impact. I would appreciate some words of assurance from the Minister on that aspect. I am reassured by the assurance the Minister has given that the Public Works Committee does approve of the work in general. But that is just one aspect that I feel ought to be placed on record.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1560

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1980-81. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1980-81. States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1980. Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1980.

International Monetary Agreements (Quota Increase) Bill 1980.

page 1560

COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendments made by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1980.

page 1560

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

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

– I move:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

This in fact marks the end of the Thirty-first Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a significant time in the life of any parliament in that not only do we remember those successes and debates that have characterised the last three years but also, of course, we remember the people who are part of the Parliament. The legislative program has been active. In my view we have preserved the opportunity for private members to make a contribution in matters that are significant and sensitive for their States, for the political party they represent and, of course, predominantly for their constituencies.

It has been a busy and productive Parliament which has seen a significant advance in the economic conditions of Australia. As we move into another Federal election I think that all of us, from both sides of the House, can look back and say that Australia has significantly advanced in 1980 from where it was three years ago when the Thirty-first Parliament began. I think perhaps the most notable feature in respect of the functioning of this Parliament has been the improvements to the committee system. Some people would hold that committees are a mixed blessing because in any new experience it is difficult to ensure that those objectives which validly saw their creation are necessarily fulfilled as they function. Amendments in respect of the Legislation and Estimates committees are matters which will be considered by the Thirty-second Parliament. In my view there certainly needs to be an overall examination of some of the facilities available for private members so that when the new Parliament is established members who will then occupy the Hill will be able to fulfil their roles adequately and well.

This is a sad occasion as many of our older, long-serving colleagues are leaving, voluntarily. No doubt some honourable members of this place will not be here, involuntarily, when the House resumes. A number of those honourable members who are leaving voluntarily have made their mark in this place and in the annals of Australian political history. Not the least of these honourable members is that former shearer, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) who over 31 years in this House has shown that same fire that no doubt distinguished his character on the boards in days gone by. The honourable member, who is joint father of the House, has sired many ventures, some of which are acclaimed by all honourable members although many are not necessarily supported by those of the Government side. But through it all he has won our respect and our admiration as a man. Clyde Cameron is to retire as the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I am sure that all honourable members join with me in wishing him a long and happy retirement with his good wife.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The second eldest retiring member in terms of service in the Parliament is the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) who was formerly a deputy speaker and the Chairman of Committees of this place for some 1 5 years. He has been with us for almost 29 years. As the member representing the adjoining electorate to mine - New England - I know the devotion with which he has served his constituents. He is a man who has won his place in the hearts of honourable members of this House. I also wish him and his good wife well in the future.

A number of other honourable members who are not here at the moment will also be leaving this place. They made their valedictories ere they departed. The honourable member for Wills, Gordon Bryant, has been an honourable member since 1955. This was quite a vintage, Mr Speaker. It was the year in which your good self and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) joined this place. One would hope that the successor for the seat of Wills will show the same wit, humanity and devotion to causes which have essentially seen humanity as their base. It will be interesting to see the result. Certainly the present honourable member has set a high standard for the people of Wills. We wish the honourable member and his wife a long and happy retirement.

Another person who has established himself in the hearts of members of the Parliament is the honourable member for North Sydney, Bruce Graham, who is also departing voluntarily hence. He is overseas at the moment of course with leave of the House in order to undertake his official duties. The honourable member was a forty-niner with the honourable member for Hindmarsh. But there was an interregnum in his period of service in this place. He certainly knows the anguish associated with the division of St George, a seat which we certainly will hold at the coming election - a seat so well held by my colleague the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) who is sitting behind me. The honourable member for North Sydney switched from St George to North Sydney in 1966. Bruce Graham is a former distinguished aviator. He is a man who, in spite of a physical infirmity due to war injury, has served the Parliament and Australia with undoubted devotion, loyalty and good humour. His fund of war stories is probably unequalled amongst members of this place.

Some honourable members from the Opposition benches are also retiring voluntarily. The honourable member for Hunter, Bert James, is also currently overseas. We heard his swan song, as he described it, last Thursday evening. He pointed out a tradition which is symptomatic of Australian politics for there are a few names that have been very importantly part of the political annals. His family name has represented the seat of Hunter for some 50 years. Bert James has served this Parliament since 1960. I think perhaps one of Bert’s most notable characteristics, apart from the manner of his delivery on occasions, was that he taught many of us a good deal about the needs of coalminers in the Hunter Valley. One is glad that these needs have changed and that the productivity of the industry is now so different from what it was in some of the harrowing days when Bert’s father no doubt suffered.

Jim Corbett, the honourable member for Maranoa and a former Whip of the National Country Party of Australia, which is my Party, is also leaving this place. He is at the moment leading a parliamentary delegation to Lusaka. He joined the House in 1966 and has been the National Country Party Whip since 1976. Above all, I think Jim will be remembered as the champion of improved telecommunications for country people. He is a man of considerable dignity and he certainly has earned the respect of us all. We wish Jim and his wife a long life and happy retirement.

Sam Calder, the honourable member for the Northern Territory and another distinguished aviator, is also voluntarily leaving this place. He was elected in 1966 to represent Australia’s second largest electorate. He is a man of considerable distinction, a man who served in the outback, worked in the outback, and was a pilot in the pioneering days of aviation in the Northern Territory. He came to this Parliament and has contributed significantly to the advancement of the causes of the people of the Northern Territory, both by way of direct parliamentary representation and through his efforts in the party room. I commend Sam for his tremendous contribution. To Sam and his wife Daphne, on behalf of all honourable members I say how sad we feel for his personal tragedy in the course of the last fortnight and wish them both a long and happy retirement.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The honourable member for Riverina, Mr John Fitzpatrick, is another person who has represented an extensive outback electorate. His entry into politics came through one of those redoubtable trade union organisations, the Barrier Industrial Council of Broken Hill. He represented Darling and Riverina for almost 1 1 years. We wish him and his wife well.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr SINCLAIR:

– In the ministerial benches, there is one who, as the Prime Minister remarked the other day, perhaps has more sense than many of us - leaving while he still has such a future ahead of him- the honourable member for

Chisholm, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Tony Staley. He was elected at a byelection, 10 years ago this Friday. I think his resignation highlights the difficulties that all parliamentarians suffer from the problems of serving their family and at the same time their constituency. He certainly reflects the sacrifices of public life. I on behalf of the National Country Party would certainly commend the contribution that he has made to the portfolios of which he has been a Minister, to the activities of the Government and to this Parliament. He is a man who has made a notable contribution in that decade and we certainly wish him well in what undoubtedly will be a distinguished career ahead.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr SINCLAIR:

– There are, of course, a number of members who, for not necessarily their own purposes, are also leaving this place. The honourable member for Burke, Mr Keith Johnson, was elected in 1969. He is a long serving member of the Joint Committee on Public Works Committee. We regret that circumstances will not see him back with us. We wish him well. Another is the honourable member for Banks, Mr Vince Martin, a man whom we all regard as quite an outstanding representative of the party he serves. He was elected in 1969 and had a long and respected service as Deputy Chairman of Committees - indeed, for eight of his 1 1 years in this House. I think we would all wish him well in his retirement. The Parliament and the people of Australia have a debt of gratitude to all these men, irrespective of the political flavours which saw their entry to this place. We wish them and their families well and hope that they enjoy a long and happy retirement.

On behalf of all retiring colleagues and all members, I also thank those who make this Parliament function- the Clerks at the table, their officers downstairs in the Table Office, the Hansard staff, the Library staff, the dining room staff, the transport officers and attendants. They all provide cheerful and efficient service and without them the Parliament just could not function.

There are others too who serve this place with considerable distinction and whose services are so easy to forget. I refer to Parliamentary Counsel, Bronte Quayle, who was taken ill last autumn sittings. We wish him a speedy recovery and hope that he will be able to return soon to his duties. I thank Geoff Kolts, the acting First Parliamentary Counsel, who has supervised the passage of so much legislation. I pay particular credit to my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Youth

Affairs, Ian Viner, for having cared for the functioning of this House so efficiently during my temporary absence. I certainly thank him for the manner in which he introduced and pioneered the legislation which has been passed in this Budget session and in the autumn session earlier this year.

To the Parliamentary liaison officer, John Fox, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in this place and to those who essentially enable us all to function, to the Whips of both sides of the House, I also extend my thanks. I wish Peter Fisher, the new Country Party Whip, well. I have no doubt that he also will make a distinguished contribution in many ways to this place in the future. Of course behind those Whips are those girls who serve them and to each of them - again on both sides of the House - I think we are particularly grateful for the way in which they keep the Whips up to the mark and for displaying remarkable agility in coping so much better with us than perhaps their bosses. In particular, I pay tribute to the fiery member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) and to Cay McVeigh who for six years has served him and kept us all at bay when the cause was needed.

I thank my Government colleagues who, I have no doubt, will be returned in increased strength after October 18, for the support that they have given me in leading the House. There are occasions when, without them, the task would have been quite impossible. Indeed Mr Speaker, as you know so well, numbers, as the former right honourable member for Melbourne so often said, in politics just happen to help. To my ministerial colleagues and their staff, to the members of the Public Service, so many of whom are unrecognised by the community but are all of high quality and provide objective advice and who generally have complete integrity, we also extend our thanks.

Finally, leaving the good wine to last, Mr Speaker, might I extend to you our appreciation for the way in which you so admirably have presided over the proceedings of this chamber.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr SINCLAIR:

– There is no doubt that you, Mr Speaker, have established a very high standard in the conduct of the affairs of this place. At times, perhaps with difficulty, but nonetheless, you have, I believe, maintained the decorum necessary and certainly desirable in a national chamber. I thank the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Chairmen, all of whom essentially provide the services without which this Parliament cannot function.

Mr Speaker, we are now, as a result of the work of this Parliament, moving towards the establishment of a new Parliament House. On 28 August, this Parliament approved the commencement of work on detailed design and of certain site works. Earlier this day the Prime Minister of Australia turned the first sod. It is a significant phase in the parliamentary history of Australia. There is little doubt that, when it is established, members will more adequately and affectively be able to fill their role than they do now. But, in spite of physical restraints, there is little doubt that the functioning of this Parliament has been the better for the devotion that most members have given to the needs of their electors and to the cause of Australia.

Mr Speaker, this is a significant occasion. I believe that Australians as they go to the polls will have much to ponder on over the course of the next four weeks. I have little doubt that, when the coalition parties return to the Treasury bench, there will be lessons we will learn from this Parliament. But to those who provided those lessons, who have been the contributors in this place I do extend my thanks. In particular, I apologise for the absence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony), neither of whom could be in this place tonight and who I know would share in the sentiments that I have expressed. I know that they also would wish personally to extend to those who are leaving the place their best wishes for the future and their thanks for the contributions that they have made.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I will be very brief because there are a number of members who will be most anxious to say matters of importance to the nation. Might I say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we join in the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair). The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) is indisposed due to a minor illness, and he cannot be here. But the contribution that I will make will echo the sentiments that would be expressed by him.

We recognise the importance of Parliament and the fact that it is changing rapidly. We are now about to have an election. As we are all forcefully reminded this evening, this Parliament is but a stage where we all appear but for a time and then pass on. It is important that we at this appropriate time place on record our appreciation of the service given by fellow members.

Australia is developing into a good nation. Obviously it needs to make much faster progress. But, on nights like this, we think of what was happening some 80 years ago. The issues of 80 years ago are certainly not the issues of today. Then the media really did not exist as we know it today. There was not the same concentration on international affairs as there is today. There is a fair amount of pressure on members of Parliament always to perform in a credible fashion. They are judged each day either in the Parliament or in the media and we are coming up for judgment again. It is of significance, and contributes to good will, that this Parliament has finished a threeyearterm. That is a bit surprising in this decade. The last three year term of parliament was the 1969-72 one. I am pleased to report that the Labor Party was very successful in 1972. 1 am looking forward to a further success in 1980 because of the ability that the Labor Party has to bring stability to parliament. Frequent elections create all sorts of side issues and they certainly create instability. Some of us have weathered the storm and some have perished on the way, but the issues for Australia are an effective democracy and a very effective parliament.

As the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) has said, we need to pay tribute to many people who perhaps are a little more fortunate than us; their positions are somewhat more permanent. I am referring to the Hansard reporters, the Clerks of the House, the staff in the Parliamentary Library, the transport officials and all the others. All of them have a very essential role to play. Again I refer to the Parliamentary Counsel and the support of the Public Service structure. But most importantly we must not forget about the support of our own people in Australia and what they mean to us. Public opinion is the greatest thing. It helps make laws and it helps make a nation. We can express views that we can sense are what the Australian people want us to say. We have a very important role to play in the world. This evening I want to pay tribute to the Australian people for being able to understand our weaknesses and our failures. I also suggest to them that we still have something to offer in a democracy.

Might I say, Mr Speaker, that we also recognise the role you play. We do not always agree with you nor should you expect us to. You are a member of a political party, just as we are. We understand the judgments that you have to make and the environment in which you make them. We appreciate that but you must also understand that we would not agree with you. It is very good that we can have an effective Speaker who is able to judge the situation as he sees it from time to time. You would understand that, as and when we elect a Speaker to the Parliament, you would have the same views as I am expressing now. That view also applies to chairmen of committees and to all the essential work that they do. They are an important part of a parliament. We want to applaud the work that they have done.

I must now direct my remarks to what we are about this evening, that is, to pay tribute to 1 1 of our colleagues who are retiring. I note that Sam Calder is now leaving us. He has played a distinguished role in the Northern Territory. We wish him well in his retirement. He is a very pleasant person; a somewhat vigourous opponent in the House but quite a different personality outside it. I might say that he is much more pleasant outside it than inside. Jim Corbett has always taken a keen interest in rural telephone lines. I am always able to remind him that the matter first arose during the drought in Queensland. It appears that that drought has never broken because we have been subsidising those lines for some time. Jim Corbett was very anxious to indicate the position at length.

Bruce Graham, whom we all know very well, has the distinction of having been a member of parliament for a number of areas - formerly the electorate of St George and later North Sydney. He is a colourful character, very dedicated to the monarchy. He is anxious to mention Her Majesty the Queen on many occasions in his speeches here and he is obviously able to have a clear insight into a number of matters of extreme importance that affect this nation. Those of us who might have travelled overseas with Bruce Graham could well understand his great Australian interest. I think that interest is to be commended. I well remember people in other countries suggesting that we were not performing too well. That might be right in relation to internal politics, but from an external point of view Bruce Graham was always able to set the record straight, and I applaud him for that.

We also mention Mr Lucock, a very distinguished person with a long career. We wish him well and we appreciate his charity. His approach to politics was somewhat gentle and we appreciate that. He had the compassion, we might say, of understanding all the problems of human behaviour. I suggest that that compassion comes from his vocation, which he was able to carry on in this Parliament. I think that it is to his credit that he never altered his approach to problems. He was always anxious to effect a compassionate point of view, and we can well appreciate his sentiments. I know that they will stand him in good stead in the years to come.

I turn now to the young Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, who is retiring. We wish him well. It is an arduous portfolio. It is not easy as telecommunications and matters of that nature are always changing and technology is always changing too. It is very difficult to keep up with the pressures and the lobbyists of what should be done to improve that method of communications, not only in Australia but around the world. We also have the problem of who owns the media and the television stations and whether they are giving impartial judgments to us, as politicians. Mr Staley is very young and I think he might have made a wise choice because he has decided to leave and further his career elsewhere. No doubt the experience that he has achieved in this place would be a little different from what he might have achieved at Monash University.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Melbourne.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I apologise. My apologies to Monash. I now turn my remarks to my own colleagues. None of the Government members mentioned the fact that my colleagues have to undergo the trials and tribulations of Caucus. I can tell honourable members that that is a pretty vigorous arrangement because everybody is judged on his merit of how he sees the situation from the Labor philosophy point of view. We value our membership of the Labor Party. We value the support that we get from people who vote for us in the national sphere. Of course, when people are able to get to the top in the Labor Party to be elected to a national parliament, they have really got something to offer. There they see the situation in regard to Caucus. We have our weekly meetings where we judge the matters affecting the nation. The people make their mark in that arena. It is very significant that we are all equal in that arena where the newest back bencher can make a most progressive suggestion. It is important for an effective democracy that we, in the Labor Party, always retain that sort of arena or forum where that sort of representative can adequately and eloquently express the views of the people they represent. All of my colleagues are aware of how they have been able to participate.

I shall begin with the retiring men of the Labor Party by mentioning Vince Martin, who has had a relatively short career of 1 1 years. We wish him well in his retirement. It should be a long, happy and healthy one. He has made a great contribution to the Labor Party, particularly in relation to matters such as taxation and tax reform.

Keith Johnson was not successful in contesting preselection ballots and that is a disappointment for us, but it is one of the hazards of political life. Keith has taken that result very well indeed. We wish him and his family all the very best and a most successful and long career in whatever occupation he follows.

Bert James is one of the characters of the Parliament; a person who was always able to talk about prison rehabilitation and matters of that nature. I think he had a wealth of experience in human behaviour, particularly in relation to those people who have to come before judges and what sort of evidence should be given to the judge to guarantee that justice was done. He was very successful in that area and he was able to portray those sorts of skills in this Parliament. I think that honourable members will find that the James dynasty has a long line of involvement in parliament and I have no doubt that some of his children may well venture into parliament in the future. Bert was typical of what one would call a man of a mining area; he dealt with things very clearly and precisely as he saw them. I think he made the explanation himself. I think he had only one apology to make and he made it the other night. In respect of .the others, he was undoubtedly right, in his view. The point is that Bert James has that sort of ability that is welcome in a parliament as he is able to indicate clearly his point of view to the people.

John FitzPatrick is a delightful person and a very great friend. He is a real gentleman, yet he represents a pretty tough arena when we talk about the Barrier Industrial Council in Broken Hill. To be Secretary of it means that you have really got to have a lot of talent, ability and understanding.

Mr Hunt:

– Luck.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– No, not much luck. Luck does not count. Performance is the issue in this area and those of us who have been to Broken Hill can vouch for that. Clearly, Broken Hill has shown the nation a fair amount of what should be done for people who work hard. One of the best issues ever decided in Broken Hill was back in the strikes of 1917 where the workers got the benefit of some of the profits, known as the lead bonus. That meant that there was a fair amount of industrial peace. It is a pity other employers in Australia do not have the wisdom to share the wealth with the workers because it helps stability and progress. John Fitzpatrick is an epitome of that. I wish him well in his retirement.

I come now to Gordon Bryant, who is a most loquacious gentleman. He is able to talk at any time. As Fred Daly would say, he could talk under wet cement. The honourable member for Wills is to be admired for what he did, particularly in Aboriginal welfare. He was not given credit for the work he did in Aboriginal welfare. He was deemed to be not able to judge the situation, but he judged it very well indeed. Gordon Bryant tried very hard, from a very low base in terms of economic support, to upgrade the lot of Aborigines in Australia. It is to his credit that he worked hard at that. He did not get recognition for the work he did. I say that without detracting from the work of his successors. It is very difficult to survive when one is up against the Public Service structure in Canberra. Gordon Bryant put up a valiant effort. He is not a person who is brought to tears or emotion; he just careers on. I wish him a happy retirement and an enjoyable life.

The focus of attention in this debate is on the honourable member for Hindmarsh, Mr Clyde Cameron. He has been here since 1949. He is one of the giants of the Australian Labor Party. In any tribute I paid to him in public or private I would say that he is a dedicated Australian, a man who has done more than any other to try to lift the standard of the trade union movement. He was involved in matters of wages, indexation, and guaranteeing that the worker had a role to play in Australia. Certainly he provided the chance for arbitration to be successful and for conciliation to be always used. He had great wisdom and understanding of how the people who work for a living in Australia should be catered for, both in legislation and in a judicial or conciliatory approach to problems. He has been a great supporter of the Australian philosophy. He showed integrity in public life. He had the sheer honesty of purpose to pursue an objective. Clyde did it magnificently in the Parliament.

He also suffered rebuffs and certainly had some problems, but the history books will come down on his side. History will show clearly that Clyde Cameron was right when perhaps others were wrong. That has to be recognised. It is not easy to be involved in government in Australia. Present Ministers would appreciate that. One is always subject to criticism and objections in regard to whether one’s decisions are worthy or otherwise. Clyde Cameron has always been of the view that the standards that apply to the working class in Australia should apply throughout the world. He was anxious to ensure that the International Labour Organisation applied those standards. He was anxious to overcome deprivation and poverty in other regions of the world. He believed that we should set an example in Australia. We do not want extreme wealth and extreme poverty which, I think he has now learned from a recent visit, applies in South America and other places. There is no room for dictatorships; there is ample room for more democracy. (Extension of time granted). Clyde Cameron has always been keen to talk on how Australian democracy should perform. As I have said, there is no room for dictatorships or military control of people by guns. People should not be denied their human rights.

Although the honourable member for Hindmarsh is about to make his last speech in a parliament, I do not think we have seen the last of his written words. I think more of that is to come. It will add to the stature of Australian democracy and it will add to the stature of Australian research. Certainly, it will add to that something special about Australian parliamentarians. From a personal point of view, I would regard him as just about my best friend in terms of his parliamentary knowledge, his ability and his understanding of what we were about when we were Ministers for the all too brief period of three years from 1972 to 1975. 1 want to applaud particularly the work he did for the people of Australia. On that note, I conclude my remarks. I only wish that the Leader of the Opposition were here to add to them because obviously I have made some omissions. I ask honourable members to forgive me as I did not have a great chance to do much research before making those remarks.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– Having reached the end of the Thirty-first Parliament, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Liberal Party of Australia and on my own behalf I want to recognise the contribution of members of the House over the past three years in the effective administration and management of what all of us here surely would say is a great national institution. There is one person in particular to whom I would like to pay tribute at the outset and that, Mr Speaker, is you. As illustrated by what has been said tonight on both sides of the House and notwithstanding particular circumstances which may apply from one Question Time to another, it is common ground in this House and in this country that you have brought to your office what I believe to be an inimitable quality of excellence, impartiality and fair-minded management. I believe that the high standards that you have set have been of service to all Australians. In the course of your speakership you have, in our judgment, enhanced the public reputation of this parliamentary institution. At times that would not have been easy.

The officers assisting you have made a very significant contribution to the operation of the Thirty-first Parliament. The Chairman of Committees, the Clerks and the other officers deserve our appreciation and our thanks. I must mention also the Hansard staff, whose function and task in this Parliament is an unenviable one. I take the opportunity of this occasion to ensure that it is not an entirely thankless task. I recognise the work and services provided by the staff of the Parliamentary Library for the benefit of members on both sides of the Parliament. Appreciation is also due to the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, formerly Roger Webb and more recently John Fox, to the refreshment staff, the attendants, the travel officers, the Australian Federal Police, the typing pools, and the staff who service the Opposition, Ministers and back benchers, as well as the others who have made it possible for this parliamentary institution to operate. Whatever our political views, I think it is fair to say that all honourable members agree that this nation has been and is being well served by the Australian Public Service. I take this occasion to express my appreciation of the quality of its advice and the contribution which it continues to make.

As far as Government Business is concerned, this side of the House has the benefit of the outstanding abilities of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) as Leader of the House. I would like to pay a particular tribute to the right honourable gentleman for the contribution he has made in circumstances not easy in recent times. The Government has also been fortunate to have available the services and skills of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), who also served in the capacity of Leader of the House for a period. They enabled parliamentary business to be conducted in an efficient manner whilst allowing honourable members reasonable opportunity for debate.

As has been said tonight, a number of our colleagues on both sides of the House have indicated that they will not be standing in the forthcoming election. It is a sad moment for those honourable members. I think those of us who remain in the Parliament recognise the contribution which all of those honourable gentlemen have made, in many cases over a long time, in what I believe to be the most arduous and most exacting of all professions. In particular, I refer to my colleague the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), who is a very young person to be leaving the Government ranks and leaving the Ministry.

Mr Uren:

– He is leaving a sinking ship.

Mr LYNCH:

– We will see about that. He has served with distinction and has ably represented the people of Chisholm since 1970. He has held the portfolios of Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in matters concerning the Arts. I want to say specifically that Tony Staley has been an asset to this Government and to this House and I will miss his contributions. I wish him every success in whatever venture and activity in public service he seeks to involve himself in the future.

This Parliament also loses another very valuable contributor, Bruce Graham. I am sorry that he is not in the House but of course he is overseas. The honourable member for North Sydney came into this House in 1949. He has been one of the longest serving members of the House. I understand that the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) beat him by some six minutes and I recognise that. I want to say of Bruce Graham - looking around the House - that I know of few other members of the Parliament who have been more liked, better respected or more honoured by their fellows. Bruce’s colleagues extend to him every best wish for a long and happy retirement.

Three other members of the Government parties will not be contesting this general election. They are the honourable members for Maranoa, Northern Territory and Lyne, Jim Corbett, Sam Calder and Phil Lucock. As a member of the Liberal Party of Australia I pay to those three honourable gentlemen the best wishes for their future. I say to them that they are held in the highest respect by members of the Liberal Party. They have made a very significant contribution to their electorates, to this House and indeed to this country.

If Bruce Graham shares in the longevity test in this House, of course, along with the right honourable member for Lowe, I do come to the honourable member for Hindmarsh, Clyde Cameron, who has been paid a very generous respect tonight by the two colleagues who have, in fact, preceded me. Clyde is standing down in the election. I think he has been the grey eminence of the Parliament for a long time. I can recall, years ago, when I was Minister for Labour and National Service - if I may say so, I hope without embarrassment to the honourable gentleman - Clyde was one of the members of the Parliament with whom, on matters of industrial relations in which I knew he had a lifetime of experience, I could have a very confidential discussion. The advice that he provided on many matters that came before my chair at that time I felt was valuable for the country and valuable for the furtherance of better industrial relations in Australia. I think it was Lionel Bowen who said that Clyde was one of the giants of the Australian Labor Party. I think he has been one of the giants of this Parliament. He has been able to exercise a unique contribution of a type that I know few other people could, in fact, excel or equal. I congratulate Clyde on the service that he has provided, certainly to the country, his electorate and to the Australian Labor Party. We on this side of the House extend to him every best wish for his retirement. I am delighted to see that his wife is in the gallery to hear the expressions of support and appreciation that have been paid to him.

Another Minister in the former Government who is leaving the Parliament and who I think is a friend of all of us, regardless of the positions we play in the politics of this country, is Gordon Bryant, the honourable member for Wills. On behalf of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister I wish Gordon Bryant a long and very successful future in whatever area he seeks to pursue and turn his hand to. He has been credited with the capacity to talk under water or wet cement. I recognise what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lionel Bowen, has said about his particular compassion and his aspirations in the area of Aboriginal affairs. That was never an easy area for any government in the formulation of policy. But Gordon Bryant is one of the men who had compassion. I think he made a contribution to the furtherance of the Aboriginal people.

I recognise the fact that the honourable members for Burke, Hunter, Riverina and Banks are leaving. I have liked and respected Vince Martin. He has had a particular background in the taxation administration of this country. He has brought that experience in useful and productive debate in the House. Keith Johnson has always been a tough debater; I think he has been one of the toughest debaters in this House. That is to his credit. He has asked for no quarter and never given any. I am sorry on behalf of the Labor Party and the House that he will no longer be with us after the next election. I think Lionel Bowen has covered Bert James’s background and his particular skills very well indeed. He has always been a character. We have never known on this side of the House what sort of question Bert James was about to generate at Question Time or what sort of speech he was about to make. Certainly they were unique. John Fitzpatrick, I think, is one of the best respected men in the Parliament. He certainly has our respect here and he has made a very valuable and unique contribution in, I think, a unique part of Australia. I have enjoyed his company when I have visited Broken Hill and the adjacent areas. I wish John our very best for his retirement.

Finally, on behalf of the Prime Minister there is another group I would like to record appreciation to and that is to colleagues from the Ministry and certainly colleagues on the back bench. Those of us who have served there, as we all have, know that the role of the private member is sometimes not easy and, in fact, can be the subject of very considerable frustration. The last three years have seen a number of important initiatives. But more than that, I believe, it has been a period when significant new opportunities have unfolded for Australia. We have had the task of ensuring that this country enters the period of the 1980s well equipped to succeed. The Government believes that all honourable members have reason to take pride in what has been achieved by the Thirtyfirst Parliament. For our part, in terms of the National Country Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, we go to the people with every confidence and in the full expectation of being returned to continue our work in the Thirty-second Parliament. We have had overwhelming majorities in 1 975 and 1977. We expect to improve again in 1980.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (10.26)- I rise to support the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and to thank him for the kind remarks he made about my colleagues and myself on the occasion of our retirement from the Parliament. It is very gratifying to me to hear the remarks and to know that we are so well supported by the rest of our colleagues on this side of the House and to know that we have such a feeling for each other. I think the thing that denotes the true spirit of the Australian Labor Party is our regard for each other and our regard for the people we represent. Also, it is of some satisfaction for me to know that, on this occasion, there was a little bit of overflowing of that feeling. Although we do not wear our hearts on our sleeves we have some regard for the Government members - for our Opposition - who are also leaving this Parliament. I will not go over the names again but I will endorse the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

It was particularly gratifying to hear him mention the contribution made by the Barrier Industrial Council and indeed the citizens of Broken Hill. There is no doubt that on a pro rata basis one would not find a group of people anywhere in the world who have made a greater national contribution than the people of Broken Hill. If honourable members doubt that I ask them to examine the history of the nation. The Barrier Industrial Council was started in 1883. Continuously from that time a million tonnes of ore have been produced from three big mines. They are still producing ore. The highest rate of royalty that the Government of New South Wales has ever collected has been collected from Broken Hill for most of that time and royalties are still being collected. It is only recently that an announcement was made that if the Zinc Corporation could get some reduction in that royalty that mine would carry on for many years. That is a marvellous thing to think about. I hope that members of the Government can do something about that. I ask them to remember that the main lode is starting to peter out but a lot of lower grade ore is left there. The contribution the Government can make, and the consideration it can give, can keep those mines working. I am very proud to think that those miners who work in the bowels of the earth saw fit to send me to this national Parliament. I am very honoured by that. I thank them very much.

I thank also the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch), for their very kind remarks. On many occasions I have appreciated the generosity of people who do not belong to the same political party as I do.

Mr Speaker, I particularly endorse the remarks made about you. I think you will agree that I have not been extremely hard to get on with during my period here. In the spirit of both of our contributions, all I want now is another five minutes to finish off a task that I started 1 1 years ago in an adjournment debate when I first entered this Parliament - as a matter of fact during my maiden speech. I want to explain to the House and to a very good citizen outside this House why I never completed that task on that occasion.

In 1969, the Labor Party was going through the same circumstances that it is going through now - it was on the rise and winning government was in its reach. At that time it was extremely difficult to get on to the speakers’ list. I wanted to make my maiden speech and I was told to wait, but I became over anxious and spoke in an adjournment debate. Unfortunately I did not know the time allotted for an honourable member to speak was so short; in those days an honourable member had 10 minutes in which to speak in an adjournment debated. I had carried some problems with me into the Parliament and I thought I had to speak about those matters because they were matters I was dealing with before I became a member of the Parliament. Unfortunately, in doing so, I forgot to pay a tribute to a man who during the period of the Chifley Government for so long sat in the same seat as you, Mr Speaker.

I speak of Mr J. J. Clark who spent 36 years in this Parliament and who was a Deputy Speaker during the period of the Chifley Government. I regret that I never paid tribute to Mr Clark because I believe he was a man who was respected in the

Darling electorate as much as any member of Parliament has been. I never heard anyone say a bad word about him. During the War, he was the chairman of the committee that was in charge of the supply of meat to the nation.

I am very grateful that Mr Clark made it known that he would like to see me follow him into this Parliament. Of course, I am very pleased that I was successful. Mr Clark did not give me a great deal of advice when I first came to this Parliament. But I think he gave me one piece of advice that has helped me a lot. He said to me: ‘If you want to get something for the people you represent, prepare a case and go and talk to the Minister. But, if you want to get your name in the paper, get up in the House and make a lot of noise’. I think he helped me a lot. I am very gratified to see on the other side of the chamber some of the Ministers who were responsive to cases I prepared and put to them. I am very grateful to Ministers in the Whitlam Government who reacted in the same way.

I will not say that I have made an outstanding contribution here because on all occasions that I have taken up a matter in this House many people and organisations have supported me and it was fairly hard to know who was the successful one. But I know that many benefits have come to my electorate through this method. I am very grateful to Mr Clark for his support and advice.

Although I cannot brag about the things that I have done in this place, on many occasions when I have felt lonely in my big country electorate I have had to count my blessings so as not to feel sorry for myself. I got into the habit of counting my blessings; and tonight I- do so without feeling sorry. I am conscious that I have a good family and a good wife. I am conscious of the gre£ blessing that that is. Children, in-laws, married family and grandchildren, I think, are the greatest blessing that any man can have in any walk of life, but he needs them particularly if he is a member of parliament. Any man who has that blessing has the best support that he could get anywhere.

I think of the other people who have helped me in the electorate - the great supporters of the Australian Labor Party. We find such people in most political parties. Those who work on the polling booths and those who assist an honourable member are good citizens in so many other directions. I think that is true of most political parties, in spite of what people say about us. We see such people on polling day talking to each other and, if it is a long hot day, they will offer each other drinks. We find them in other organisations.

I think all of us should not be ashamed of our contributions. It is unfortunate that the system makes us knock each other so much. It is one of the crimes of political life that we have to attack each other to do things or to represent our parties. But, underneath it all, there is great compassion and a great love for our fellow man. I do not want to go on for too long. I asked for only five minutes. I want to thank particularly some of my colleagues who are very close to me. I do not want to mention their names, but I really appreciate them. I have appreciated my stay here and it is only because I have got into the habit of counting my blessings that I am not a very sad person tonight.

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for mentioning my colleagues who are not here tonight, including my particular mate, Vince Martin, who has played such a good part in our Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. I am sure he would support me tonight if he were here. When I started this speech, I admitted that 1 1 years ago I left many things unsaid and I am leaving many things unsaid tonight, but I can assure honourable members that the sincere feeling is there. I conclude in the spirit of our Parliamentary Christian Fellowship:

The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another: Genesis 31.49.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

page 1569

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Sinclair:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1569

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Debate resumed.

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Hindmarsh speaking without limitation of time.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– First of all, I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) for being generous enough to move the motion he just moved and I thank the House for carrying the motion. I have been moved by the remarks of the speakers who preceded me. It has been worth while waiting for 31 years to find out that the Leader of the House and Mr

Lynch think so highly of me. I did not know it before. It was worth while waiting all that time to learn that.

I have had a very good innings in this Parliament. I have won 13 elections. I think I am the only person in the Parliament who has been reelected twice unopposed. This, however, is my last speech. For me, it is a moment of sad relief: Sad, because I am about to sever my connection with an institution which has claimed three quarters of my adult life, and that is a long time; relief, however, because I can now complete my memoirs without the constant interruptions that a parliamentary career imposes on all who are part of the parliamentary system and without the interruptions that are caused by members over a glass of beer or a cup of tea telling me fresh things that I feel I should put in the memoirs.

My whole life has been steeped in politics. I can remember as vividly as though it were yesterday poring over my father’s weekly copy of the Australian Worker to study the political cartoons of that great cartoonist, Claude Marquet. I can still see his cartoon called ‘The Blood Vote’ as though it were only yesterday. I was then only three years of age. I remember it. Like the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) I am blessed, or was blessed, with a very good memory. As a teenager I used to try to reverse my waking processes to continue the dreams in which I saw myself standing in the Parliament denouncing man’s inhumanity to man. In the Depression years I used to speak from the single tax stump at Adelaide’s botanical park. I then gravitated to the Australian Labor Party stump in the same location. Later still I became an officer of the Australian Workers Union - my father’s union. I became State President of the Labor Party - the youngest then that that State had ever had.

In 1949 I became a member of the Australian national Parliament, and that is when I stopped dreaming and faced the awful realities of politics. For a party bent on maintaining the status quo the art of politics is simple and unexciting, or at least I would find it unexciting. But for a party like mine - a party dedicated to making a better life for that 85 per cent of our people who receive less than they earn, for those who are denied the right to earn anything at all and for the two million people who live below the poverty line - the task of winning reform is quite stupendous. We of the Labor Party have to contend with a media monopoly that is utterly opposed to any form of wealth redistribution for it is just as firmly controlled as the media in the Soviet Union, China or those Latin American countries which are governed by military juntas. I would be so bold as to say that if the kind of election that is conducted in Australia were held in China, the Soviet Union or any of the Latin American countries controlled by the military juntas the present controllers of all of those countries would be re-elected because in those countries one hears nothing but praise for the Government and condemnation for its critics. It is not very much different here; a little better, but not much.

We have to contend with a highly privileged bureaucracy that feeds on its own inertia and is too tired or even too conservative to give enthusiastic support for the policies that are likely to disturb the existing order. We have also to contend with the conservative conventions which we as a government foolishly respected until we found some of them being cast aside when our opponents found them standing in the way of their thrust to power. Finally, we have to contend with human nature, for human beings are animals of habit and tend to resist change, no matter how beneficial that change may be for them. We do not like change; we are indeed creatures of habit and any change tends to be resisted. In spite of this last-mentioned factor, the Parliament has in fact undergone quite significant change which regrettably has been a change for the worse. The change has weakened its prestige, its powers and its relevance in the process of government. The happenings on Remembrance Day 1975 struck the parliamentary system a grievous blow from which it shall never fully recover until there is a change in the Constitution to guarantee that a government elected to govern shall be entitled to run its full term so long as it commands a majority in the House of Representatives.

But the Parliament has been wounded in other ways. In the 31 years I have been a member I have seen the speaking time for second reading debates reduced from one hour to 20 minutes and the adjournment debate cut from 10 minutes without a closure to five minutes with a compulsory closure at 11 p.m. Question Time has been abbreviated and abused by Ministers, debates have been curtailed and the gag has been ruthlessly applied to stifle debate and to reduce the Parliament to a mere rubber stamp of the unelected politicians in the bureaucracy. This has had a debilitating effect upon the Parliament and has discouraged many outstanding Australians from even considering entry into the national Parliament.

During my 31 years in the Parliament I have seen 125 senators and 258 members of the House of Representatives either retire, die in office or be defeated. Counting those who took their place I have in that time seen 569 new members or senators either come or go. Curiously enough, the difference between my 31 years and the 31 years that preceded it is not all that great. The number who came and went during the previous 31 years of this Federation was almost as many - it was 476. Having regard to the fact that the number of the Senate was then only 36 and the number here 72 1 think–

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Seventy-five.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Seventy-five. I thank the honourable member. One can say that nothing has changed very much at all over the last 62 years. If one were to analyse the years preceding that, one could almost say that nothing has changed very much for nearly 80 years of Federation.

I have sat with half of all the Prime Ministers who have ever held office since Federation - Hughes, Page, Menzies, Fadden, Chifley, Holt, McEwen, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam and Fraser. Hughes was the only one able to feel at home in four different parties. Page was the craftiest of them all. Menzies was the only Prime Minister who was both a great parliamentarian and a clever politician. Fadden was the funniest Prime Minister I have ever met. I remember that there was a time when the doors leading from King’s Hall into the dining rooms were in clear glass. That had to be changed because Artie Fadden charged through the clear glass, not seeing it and leaving behind a silhouette of his body. He passed through it almost unimpeded by the impact. Chifley was, I think, the most respected Prime Minister that I knew of. I think that Holt was the nicest Prime Minister I knew. Gorton was undoubtedly the earthiest as, I think, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) had cause once to comment. McEwen and Fraser I think vie for the accolade of being the toughest Prime Minister.

It is very rare that one finds a person who is a good politician as well as being a great parliamentarian. Whitlam was a good parliamentarian but a hopelessly poor politician. Anyone who could see merit in announcing that he would build an airport at Galston while the Parramatta by-election was at its height cannot be called a terribly bright politician. Barwick, however, was a good politician, but he was a poor parliamentarian. I take issue with David Marr who wrote the book Barwick in suggesting that Barwick had no merit as a politician. He has this merit: He always met with, talked with and mixed with the rank and file of his party, the back benchers. His door was always open. Had he been here when Holt was drowned, Barwick would easily have been elected to lead the Liberal Party and he would have become Prime Minister of this country.

In just the same way, if the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) were to fall under a bus - I do not wish that on him - I believe that the present Treasurer (Mr Howard) would just about get up to take away the leadership of the party from Andrew Peacock. The Treasurer is the only one who seems to realise that whilst the Prime Minister can select all the Ministers in a Liberal Administration, when it comes to the position of Prime Minister itself the rank and file are equals and every vote from a rank and file member is equal to any vote from a Minister. I congratulate him on his good sense and I hope he keeps it up. I think that if he can keep Andrew Peacock out of the country as much as he has been out of the country in the past few years and if he can keep Jim Killen ‘s eyes firmly fastened on some ambassadorial appointment, he has a great future so long as he can get rid of Malcolm in some honourable way.

The best parliamentarian in my experience, without a doubt, was Eddie Ward. He was a very great parliamentarian. He was one who has been treated and has been described as the greatest parliamentarian of all time by people like Alex . Downer, by Menzies himself, and I am sure that I have heard Malcolm Fraser say it too. Anyone who was here with Ward would have to agree that he was a really great parliamentarian. He never missed an opportunity to score a point. The only time he would ever talk to a member of the Liberal Party or National Country Party was when he was travelling in an aeroplane. He waited until he got 10,000 feet above the ground and then he would start talking. As soon as he was on the ground again he would stop talking and would not speak to them again until they took the next plane trip. I never could work out the rationale of all this but it occurred nonetheless.

I remember every year when the parliamentary session was winding up for Christmas and when all of us were making speeches wishing each other a very happy Christmas - we probably did not mean a word of it but nevertheless we wished each other a happy Christmas and a happy New Year - Ward would always get up and wish Menzies the same rotten miserable Christmas as the pensioners were going to have. This always threw a spanner in the works. Everybody got terribly upset and haughty about it. They considered it a shocking thing that a man like Ward should be allowed to come into the Parliament and upset the happy relationship that existed when people from both sides could honestly say what they really felt about each other. Ward did not go along with that.

I think the great debaters were Sol Rosevear, Allan Fraser, Kim Beazley and Sir Robert Menzies. I think Daly was easily the wittiest. I think Ward and Cope would have to take the prize for being the best interjectors. I remember when Charlie Adermann walked from his ministerial seat to answer a question about the price of butter, Ward captured the moment beautifully when he said: ‘Come on Daisy’. I think the most eloquent men have been Jim Killen and Jack Mullens. Jack Mullens was a delight to listen to just as Killen is when he is in top form. Both were a delight to listen to. The most whimsical member without any doubt was Leslie Haylen. He used to look towards the Country Party corner and say: The wheel of the wagon is broken. It ain’t gonna rain no more. There they sit with their bovine expressions, wondering what is going to happen next to the price of butter or wondering when the next skeleton weed is going to germinate and cause more distress for the poor farmers in the western districts of Victoria’.

To those people who think that Mick Young, Peter Nixon, Paul Keating, Ian Sinclair and Doug Anthony are masters in the art of insult, I say that they should have heard Larry Anthony. They should have heard Eric Harrison, Artie Fadden, Arthur Calwell, Bill Wentworth, Jack McEwen, Percy Spender, Eddie Ward, Tommy White, Joe Gullett and the honourable member for Hindmarsh when they were in their prime. Honourable members really have not heard a thing unless they have heard those members. Ian Sinclair and Peter Nixon learned all their tricks from the people to whom I have referred. We have to take our hats off to them for being past masters in the art of insult. Both of them can give it and both of them can take it. I do not think I have ever heard them ask for an apology, or at least they should not have asked for one.

George Bowden and Cyril Chambers were the most humourless. Ward once claimed that the only time either of them would smile was when they might have had a touch of the wind. Donald Cameron who represented Oxley, Alan Hulme who later became Postmaster-General and Nigel Drury were easily the most saturnine. Appropriately enough they sat alongside each other when they first came into the Parliament in 1949, causing Eddie Ward to describe their portion of the benches as ‘sunshine alley’. It was a very touching tribute to three men who looked anything but emblems of sunshine. Billy McMahon, Ross McLean and John Hyde who now sit in the same three seats, are a slight improvement but not much of an improvement.

In the 1950s the Parliament was a very different kind of parliament in many other ways. There was more real off the cuff debating than we now hear in the Parliament. As I have already remarked, the adjournment debates were longer and livelier. There was much more colour than there is now in the debates. We had characters in those days like Danny Curtin, Danny Minogue, Jeff Bate, Rowley James. They were not terribly brilliant intellectually, though I did not look into their minds, but they were very bright personalities nonetheless.

I remember how Rowley James, Billy Davies and Harry Bruce used to start drinking Bundaberg rum in the bar about 8 o’clock. By about 11 o’clock they would be romancing or, rather, soliloquising and later they would talk about their experiences overseas. I was puzzled by the description of some of the things they saw. I came out to Les Haylen, who was better read than I, and I said: ‘What are thespians?’ He said: ‘Mrs Bromlow-Brown, the president of my branch, is a thespian. She is president of the thespian society’. I said: ‘Do people know about it?’ He replied: Why, of course they do’. I said: ‘The three black crows’, as we called them, ‘must have the wrong word’. I told them what they were discussing. All three had been to Paris and had paid two francs to look at something through a peephole.

He said: ‘I cannot believe that that is what they are doing. I cannot believe that they are describing these special people as thespians. I must go down and hear it for myself. As he was walking out, Dick Casey and Bob Menzies were walking in front of him and he called out: ‘Hey, Bob, you had better get down to the bar because Rowley James is telling Bill Davies that you are the president of the lesbian society of Melbourne’. Of course, that was typical of the colour of those people. They were very colourful characters and they did not care very much what they called anything as long as everybody understood.

We had such aristocrats in this Parliament as Rupert Ryan, Richard Casey and Alexander Downer. They were aristocratic in every sense of the word. They were more British than the Britishers. We do not have these kinds of people any more, except for Bill Yates, who is almost as aristocratic as Rupert Ryan. Apart from him, nobody has that quality about him.

It suits the public servants to have a parliament that is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the processes of government. I do not blame them for the present parlous position of the people’s parliament. I blame the Executive for the declining importance of parliament. The Whitlam Government was as much to blame as the Liberal governments that preceded it as well as the ones that succeeded it, but to our mitigation it could be said that we were trying, in what we believed would be a short term in office, to pick up 21 years of neglect and to try to push things through while we were here. The fact remains that we did gag debates. We did all the things about which we now spend most of our time complaining. Until some party in opposition remains consistent in government and practises in government what it preached in opposition, I can see no way of breaking the vicious circle, or of there ever being a circuit breaker.

The Executive arm of government finds parliament time-consuming, boring and, above all, farcical. In fact, debates in this place are farcical and will continue to be so long as we cling to the Westminster system which interprets valid criticism of one Minister as an attack on the whole government. Under a presidential system of government, parliament would have greater scope for exposing an incompetent or corrupt Executive, or a corrupt public servant. Such an exposure would not in normal circumstances cause the collapse of the elected president. In point of fact, a de facto presidential system of government is operating in Australia right now, with all of its vices and with none of its virtues. The Prime Minister exercises all of the powers of a constitutional president. He can sack a Minister for any reason, or even without a reason. The present Prime Minister has done it. His predecessor certainly did it - he sacked me. When the Governor-General asked him whether there was any merit in my letter to Whitlam protesting against being dismissed without being given the opportunity of defending any charge - there was none - made against me, in which I claimed that I was entitled to the benefit of natural justice, the then Prime Minister advised the Governor-General that he was not obligated, under the powers that he exercised, to give me natural justice, to give me the right to defend myself or to hear any charge of incompetence; advice which the Governor-General was quick to take on 1 1 November the same year.

The Prime Minister can change the administrative arrangements. He can unilaterally recommend the dissolution of parliament. He can issue unconstitutional directives to officers of departments which he holds no commission to administer in the certain knowledge that those officers will obey those orders and that the commissioned administrators dare not challenge the encroachment he makes upon their constitutional rights. He can run the Government as a one-man dictatorship in the certain knowledge that neither his Cabinet nor the parliament will bring him to book.

What we have in fact in this country is an elected dictator. True, he has to face the people once every three years, but once that is over the power of the Prime Minister is so great that it is equal to the power of a dictator. I emphasise again that it does not matter whether it is a Labor Prime Minister or a Liberal Prime Minister. The Labor Prime Minister who preceded the present Prime Minister also acted as a dictator and did all of the things that I have just enumerated. Something has to be done to stop this kind of abuse of power. That is not how the Westminster system was intended to operate.

If our parliament cannot function any other way than is now the case, we will have one of two choices - change to a presidential system with a Cabinet drawn from outside the parliament or allow parliament to grind down to the point of total collapse. However, I reject both courses. I believe that the Westminster system can be made to work, but if it is to function as a true reflection of the voice of the people of Australia we will have to return to the parliament all the powers and the authority that it once enjoyed. That reform will not come from the Executive and it certainly will be opposed by our paid servants. It can come only from the Parliament itself. The recent report of the Committee of Privileges is the first time since Federation that the Parliament has asserted its authority over the Public Service. It is a significant milestone and, even in respect of that report, the Parliament was not permitted there and then to make a decision to adopt or reject even a portion of the report. I regret that.

Parliament must move now against Executive contempt of its powers. Ministers who direct public servants to refuse to give answers to parliamentary committees must be dealt with for contempt of parliament. Those who give evasive replies to questions on the Notice Paper also must be dealt with. Again, to be objective and fair, the Whitlam Government was just as culpable as its predecessors and just as culpable as its successors in this regard. During our time in government a Minister certainly did direct a public servant not to answer questions put to him by the Senate. That, I believe, was contempt of the Parliament and should have been dealt with as such.

Political parties ought to realise that power feeds on itself but that it is the kind of food supply that will eventually run out. When constitutional power discredits itself completely totalitarian power will always step in and take its place. I do not want to see this country governed by street law. There are too many examples of what happens to individual freedoms when bayonets take the place of ballot papers. If the Parliament is to fulfil its proper role it must insist on having the information needed to make sound judgments. It is not just the Opposition that is being cheated by the present excessive secrecy; the whole Parliament is being cheated. That means that all of the Australian people are being cheated.

In 1972 the then leader of the Labor Party went to the country asking for a clear mandate, among other things, to introduce a freedom of information Bill into the Parliament. This request followed a speech which I delivered in September 1972 and which I had read to the then Leader of the Opposition. Over the phone he authorised me to include words to this effect: ‘This speech has been read by the Leader of the Opposition and he has authorised me to say that he concurs with every word of it and that, upon the election of a Labor government, it will move to introduce a freedom of information Bill’. That was included in the Governor-General’s Speech to the Parliament.

The then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, brought a submission to Cabinet in January 1973 urging the adoption of a Bill along the lines of the United States Freedom of Information Act with only those modifications as were necessary to marry a law of the presidential system to that of the Westminster system. Cabinet approved that recommendation and referred the matter to the legislation committee of the Cabinet to draft legislation there and then. But then the public servants with, I suspect, the Prime Minister’s approval, defied the decision of Cabinet. Instead of referring it to the legislation committee of Cabinet to bring in a Bill forthwith, they referred the matter to an interdepartmental committee of public servants. The interdepartmental committee marked time for months and months and then brought in an interim draft report which did not even see the light of day because the departments of Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Prime Minister and Cabinet objected to the Australian people being given the same rights - no more; just the same rights- as the citizens of the United States now take for granted.

The 1974 election came and went and still nothing was done. Even right up to the coup of 1975 Parliament was denied the right to consider the Bill which the then Prime Minister had a clear mandate to deliver, which his party, his caucus, the Cabinet and the Opposition controlled Senate would have passed and which had the full support of the Press. Oppositions always recommend altogether different behaviours in opposition to that which they espouse when they become governments. Regrettably, on this issue, we were no exception. As it turns out, the Government that now occupies the treasury bench proves to be no exception either. I believe that Mr Whitlam passed up the opportunity of taking Australia into the freedom of information club and of establishing for himself the place in history that he no doubt yearns for. I repeat that this Government is the same - it also has ignored the right of the people to be given information.

I want to say that similarly, when the Executive ignores the Parliament, when the public servants treat the Parliament with disdain and when the media denigrates the Parliament, it is the people of Australia who pay the final penalty. It is true that sometimes the Parliament brings discredit upon itself. Members should behave with greater decorum, but it should be understood that most of the unseemly conduct in Parliament comes from a feeling of frustration that develops from restriction of debate, abuse of Question Time and the fact that the Speaker is seen as a party hack, even when he is not.

Mr Speaker, I want to pay you this tribute: I have been here 31 years, and, apart from a few lapses- I think you had one this morning; you will probably admit to it later - you have been the best Speaker I have sat under. You have been a very good Speaker. I think that Mr Scholes was the best informed Speaker on Standing Orders. He knew more about May than any other Speaker I know. But he was not here long enough to prove himself. You were not quite that bright when you started. But you got better as you went along. I think Mr Scholes would have been better too.

I think that Jack McLeay must take the prize for knowing less about Standing Orders than any other Speaker I know of. He knew so little about Standing Orders that once when I moved dissent from his ruling, Eddie Ward, who was not given to calling for mercy for people who did not vote for the Labor Party, said to me: ‘Look, what are you going to prove if you get this thing carried? Call it off. You are mad. You will not be seen as being clever knocking over poor old Jack.’ That is how we saw it.

We always took the opportunity of knocking Archie Cameron because he was seen as being super-smart. I was almost going to say that we have come very close to doing the same with you, sir, not because you are super-smart, but because you looked a little bit crafty at times and we just wondered whether you were being moved by some loyalty to your party. I am sure you were not, but those were our thoughts. I think there is a lot of merit in your campaign to have the speakership placed above party politics in the same way as they have long since succeeded in doing in the Mother of Parliaments.

I want to say one more thing about Parliament now that I will no longer be a beneficiary, even indirectly, of what I am proposing. I refer to salaries. I emphasise that I will not benefit indirectly from salary rises because I will not be entitled to an indexed pension. I say that salaries of a back bencher should be lifted to at least $50,000 a year. It is absolutely absurd that members of parliament are being paid the kind of salaries they now receive. I believe that if we were to pay this kind of salary we would attract men and women of the highest possible calibre in the country, and that is what we need in this national Parliament. A member of parliament is in reality the director of the biggest corporation in the country. It is a corporation that embraces all other corporations. The decisions of this corporation affect 14 million people and the assets of all the people and all the companies in this country which amount to hundreds of millions of billions of dollars, but its members receive less than a quarter of the amount that normally is paid to a director of a medium sized or, if you like, a fairly large corporation.

This position is absurd. We have nobody to thank but ourselves for the fact that we have demeaned our position by our miserable and weak kneed attitude to the question of parliamentary salaries. We are too afraid of what the Press says about us. It is ironical that there is not a squeak from the Press when State members of parliament increase their salaries but every time any increase is given in salaries in this Parliament the Press see reason to denigrate the Parliament. I believe it is almost criminal to think that First Division public servants, who enjoy the advantages of permanency, at the same time are receiving higher salaries than their respective Ministers, the only exception being, of course, the Prime Minister. It is ludicrous to find that the highest paid Second Division public servant receives a higher salary than that paid to a private member of parliament. Nobody can justify that.

I have to take my share of the blame for the fact that Ministers did slip behind First Division officers. When I became a Minister early in 1 973 1 was a member of a committee of three which looked at Sir John Kerr’s report on parliamentary salaries. I now see in retrospect that I stupidly decided to reject the increase that Kerr recommended for Ministers so that the private members could have a slightly higher amount than he had recommended. It was that decision which put the Ministers, for the first time, behind First Division officers. No one can possibly justify that.

It is little wonder that some public servants see parliament as a joke and its members as beneath their contempt. This attitude was made abundantly clear to me when the servants of the public employed in the Australian embassy at Caracas recently put four members of a visiting parliamentary delegation into a station wagon so that the ambassador and junior members of his staff could head the motorcade in Ford LTDs. Needless to say, I had something to say to the ambassador as soon as the motorcade stopped. He started shrugging his shoulders. I said: ‘It is no use your shrugging your shoulders’. So he tried raising his eyebrows. ‘Or raising your eyebrows’, I said. ‘I shall go back and tell Malcolm Fraser and Peacock about this’, I added. I have not yet, but it is done now. This is the general attitude, especially of some of the Foreign Affairs people overseas. They think that they are as good as we are - no, they do not: They think they are a long way better than we are. If we allow them to go on like this, we deserve to take what they dish out to us. But nobody in Caracas will ever do that to another parliamentary delegation. At least nobody will do so if I am a member, which I will not be; but how long will it take to educate them all? The officers in all foreign posts need teaching.

When we went to Brasilia, the Ambassador had the audacity to cross-examine and to correct one of the members of the delegation who was in the course of asking question of members of the Congress. I had to say: ‘Ambassador, you are not a member of the delegation. Will you please keep quiet. It is nothing to do with you what questions are being asked’. Fortunately he did keep quiet, although sometimes he got a few words out, but stopped in time to prevent another rebuke.

A moment ago I referred to the need to attract the best men and women into the Parliament. That brings me to make the observation that when I first entered the Parliament there was only one woman in this House - Dame Enid Lyons. After her retirement, only two other women were ever elected- Miss Brownbill and Mrs Child. Now there is none here. This is not a good thing for the Parliament and not a good thing for the country. Women are just as intelligent as men and much more sensitive than many men are.

I have known nine of the 13 Federal Labor leaders since Federation, that is, if Frank Forde is counted as an elected leader. I have observed the last five of them at close range and I can say that, next to Ben Chifley, Labor’s present leader is the most competent Federal parliamentary leader whom we have ever had in the all important field of economics. He is also closest to his colleagues. I give this as the honest judgment of a member who has served this Parliament for 31 years.

I am now going into retirement. I am a member who has resolved to spend the rest of his years recording some of the political and industrial history of my country. For the sake of Mr Lionel Bowen and others who will be making ambassadorial appointments after the elections, I want it known that I am not available for ambassadorial appointment. So I have nothing to lose by telling the truth and nothing to gain now by telling lies - not that I ever did engage in that pastime. I simply place it on record that as a matter of fact, I have nothing to lose now by telling the truth and nothing to gain by telling lies.

I am not alone in saying what I have just said about the Leader of the Opposition. I read an extract from China, Communism and Coca Cola, a book published by Hill of Content. In this most extraordinary book, which is due to be launched in Canberra on 7 October by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), the author is able to quote the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). He stated:

The trouble with this country is that we are being ruled by the Brahmins in the Public Service. They are the ones who rule us. Fraser is a Brahmin too, and he likes the advice they give. Whitlam was a Brahmin and that is why you became creatures of the Brahmin class in this country. Hayden would be different. He is closer to the grass roots than either Fraser or Whitlam and he would be more likely to question the advice coming from the Brahmin class.

There are, of course, other touching references in this book to what Senator Reg Withers once described as the ‘modern Mandarins’. However, in spite of Senator Withers’ slighting remarks I must say that there have been some giants among the First Division officers in our Public Service. For the sake of the record and for historians, who might, as I am sure they will, read this speech with great interest, I mention some of the following great names: Nugget Coombs, John Crawford, Roland Wilson, Alan Westerman, Arthur Tange, Ian Sharp, Harry Bland, Fred Wheeler, Peter Heydon, Lenox Hewitt, James Plimsoll, Alan Carmody, Professor Bailey and Tas Heyes. These men are known to the Leader of the House, who I am certain would not disagree with my assessment of them. Today’s giants, I believe, are people like John Menadue, Geoff Yeend, Peter Lawler,

Maurice Byers Q.C., Solicitor-General, and John Stone. My colleagues may be surprised that 1 include John Stone. I do so because John Stone is a very courageous man, a man with great intellect, though terribly conservative. I disagree completely with his conservative views, but he is a very great public servant. He will be as much surprised to hear me say this for the first time to his knowledge as anyone else listening to me will be.

I remember the day when John Stone and Wheeler came into Cabinet and I asked Wheeler to explain the advantages of high interest rates. He said: ‘Well, it is to the ordinary man, a working man who has not much of an income, simple. High interest rates are compensated for by the fact that inflation means that there is a capital accretion to the house he is buying and high interest rates do not mean very much’. So I said: ‘Does this mean that when the wife runs out of money and says: “Look, I am sorry, dear, but we have not any money left to buy food because the rate of interest has taken up all this week’s earnings”, the husband says: “That is all right, sweetheart, give us a plate of capital accretion”.’ That is how unreal some of these people are when we press them on everyday questions that affect the ordinary little man.

There are some very great figures among the Second Division, far too many to mention. But I want to name Miss Pat Lance, who services the administrative services division with respect to members of Parliament. She is a very fine and wonderful lady. I pay tribute to her, to Derek Volker of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and to Adrian Fogarty of the former Department of Labour and Immigration.

Frank Green, I believe, was the greatest Clerk of the House of Representatives whom we ever had. One day I came into the House with a cup of tea with Eddie Ward as a division was called. Every time we sat down for a cup of tea, the division bells rang. So 1 decided to bring the cup of tea and biscuits into the House and finish them off here. Charlie Adermann was in the chair. He looked rather disturbed. He said to Green: ‘What will I do with this man?’ Green replied: ‘Just ignore him. He is trying to trap you. He is just trying to turn the place into a joke’. That was quite true. That is what I tried to do. It did not work because he ignored me and the joke was on me because I had to carry the cup back to the dining room and, as I walked across King’s Hall, people laughed at me and asked: ‘What is wrong with this man? Is he all right? Why is he walking around with a cup and saucer in his hand?’ He was a very wise and great man.

I will be sorry to leave my friends. I will be even sadder if my absence and separation should cause me to lose those very good friends. I do not think I will. I have very close bonds with Lionel Bowen. I cannot elaborate on them because I am reaching the point where, if I tried to do so, I would become emotionally affected. But I have a very high regard and deep affection for him.

Not all of my friends in this place have come from one side of the House. There are many members and senators on the Government side for whom I have developed a genuine respect and very deep affection. I really mean that and I am sure most honourable members feel that. With an election only four weeks away, I shall not name them because they might include my remarks in their election pamphlets as the honourable member for St George did. I had foolishly tried to cause a rift in the Liberal Party by chastising the Prime Minister for not having the honourable member in the Cabinet. I had said that he was the brightest man in the Government back benches. The honourable member for St George decided that it would be good enough to print what I said in a pamphlet as a reason why people should keep voting for him. Therefore I am not going to mention by name any of those men whom I regard as men of great integrity and ability, except to say that they are there and I think they know to whom I refer. I have always admired toughness in politics and I have always respected honestly held opposing views. I believe that the Labor Party has an outside chance of winning this election. I believe that it could be a cliff hanger. It could be another 1961 election; no one can tell. It is only mere conjecture, but that is a feeling I have in my bones at a time when I am not personally affected by it because I repeat that I cannot benefit directly from a Labor victory. I repeat that I do not intend to accept any ambassadorial appointment from either side.

As I told the. Prime Minister a couple of days ago, I would not mind being Governor-General. I told him that if I am appointed Governor-General and he should be lucky enough to win the next election, I would do the same to him as he persuaded Kerr to do to us. He did not seem to see the joke. Perhaps he was tired. However he was able to conceal his amusement at what I said - that is if he was amused at all- remarkably well.

I am not wishing for the defeat of any particular member of this Parliament. I simply hope that enough Government members are beaten to enable Labor to govern once again. It is a very cruel blow to be defeated in an election. It is hard enough to go voluntarily. I have psyched myself into acceptance of the inevitability of retirement.

Even though I have phased myself out of active parliamentary involvement it is still a great wrench for me to leave this place which has claimed so many years of my life. It is a place that I deeply respect and love and it is an institution that I hope will go on to greater and greater things. I shall retire with my pen and papers. I will not be returning except to collect material for my memoirs, some of which will not be read until after my death. Much of my writing will be published while I am still here to watch the ripples. I am immodest enough to believe that more people are likely to read what I write in the books that I intend to publish than would bother to read the Hansard record of what I might say in this place, even if I stayed here for another decade. I wish all other retiring members good health and happiness in the years ahead. I commiserate with those who will retire involuntarily. I wish those who are elected to the Thirty-second Parliament more satisfaction in their work than most of us were able to derive from the Thirtieth and Thirty-first parliaments. I thank the House again for its indulgence; and that, sir, concludes the last speech I shall ever make in Parliament.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would like to express a tribute to those people who have helped the House to function - the staff of Hansard, the Joint House Department, the Parliamentary Library and the staff of all Ministers and members. I thank them very much. To those who are retiring, 1 wish you well on behalf of all members of the House. For those who have made my life comfortable, I thank you. For those who have made it uncomfortable, I want you to know that I love you still.

John Dawkins has my dear affection. Paul Keating I admire greatly. Bob Katter, whom I have had the distinction of having to suspend from the service of the House, I love dearly too; and all of you who are prepared to support the principle of the reform of parliament, I like you even more. I have discovered the conservatism in this place that the honourable member for Hindmarsh spoke about. That conservatism is not confined to any one party or any one side of the House. But there are certain things which are inevitable. The inevitability is that this nation is growing greater day by day. The greatness of this nation will be measured by the strength of its parliament and the commitment of the members of it. If the commitment of the members of this Parliament is to be achieved to the full extent of the capacity of the members, then it will require reform.

At the heart of that reform is to make parliament responsive to the people so that the people can see it through television cameras. It will take this Parliament into the home of every person. It is necessary that every member in this House has total and absolute confidence that the Speaker will be impartial. Speakers may wish to be impartial and apply themselves totally and absolutely to be impartial, but while they are members of political parties it will be feared that they are not being impartial. Also I think it is absolutely important that we do not have roughly half the members of parliament devoting their energies to tactical manoeuvres which will advantage them over the other half of the Parliament. There is assembled here- much more so than in the past - a tremendous amount of experience, education, wisdom and commitment. There must be a way in which the policies can be played out here with people walking their stages and then in the committee system, the total intellect, wisdom and experience can be put to the benefit of the Australian people. Here in the Parliament we pass legislation. Legislation has one of two purposes; to impose an obligation or to confer a benefit. When an obligation is imposed on some but not others it is a discrimination. When a benefit is conferred on some and not others it is a discrimination. Our task must be to make sure that any benefit or obligation is fair and reasonable and in the interest of the country. While that is our purpose, we will reform the Parliament. We go now to an election. I hope that I am returned and I wish the best of goodwill to everybody else.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1578

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

House adjourned at 11.39 p.m. until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by him to each member of the House by telegram or letter.

page 1578

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

That this House-

is of the opinion that much of the information contained in the booklet entitled Fuel Economy Guide, especially that relating to the 4 litre lean burn 6 cylinder, the 4.3 litre 6 cylinder and the 5.2 litre V8 engines fitting to Chrysler Valiant station wagons, is inaccurate and misleading, and

calls on the Minister, for Transport, Business and Consumer Affairs and National Development and Energy to withdraw the booklet.

page 1578

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 September 1980, pursuant to statute:

Automatic Data Processing Equipment Act - Return - Period- 29 March 1 977 to 28 March 1 980.

Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act - Return - Year- 1979-80.

Bounty (Books) Act- Return- Year- 1979-80

Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) ActReturn Year- 1 979-80.

Bounty (Injection Moulding Equipment) Act - ReturnPeriod 23 May 1979 to 22 May 1980.

Bounty (Metal Working Machine Tools) Act - ReturnYear 1979-80.

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act- Return - Year- 1979-80.

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act - Return - Year- 1979-80.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Public Service Arbitrator- Determinations accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law - 1 980-

No. 310 - Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association and others.

No. 311 - Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

No. 312 - Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 313 - Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia.

No. 314 - Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 3 15 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 316 - Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.*

No. 318 - Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.*

No. 319 - Association of Professional Engineers, Australia.

No. 320 and 321 - Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 322 - Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

Nos. 323 and 324- Australian Public Service Association, (Fourth Division Officers).

No. 325- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

page 1579

REPLIES TO REQUESTS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

Parliamentary Library

  1. What new positions have been created within the Department of the Parliamentary Library in (a) the 3rd Division (1 additional position) and (b) casual and part-time staff (3 additional positions) for 1980-81, as shown in Division 104, Sub Division 1, Item 01, page53, of the Budget document Estimates of Receipt and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the Year ending 30 June 1 98 1 .
  2. What new positions have been created within the Parliamentary Library in the (a) Library and Legislative Information Service (2 additional positions) and (b) the Legislative Research Service (2 additional positions), as shown in the item Average Employment Analysis, page53, of Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the Year ending 30 June 1981.

The figures quoted do not refer to new positions within the Department of the Parliamentary Library. The increases shown in the item Average Employment Analysis on page53 of Estimates of Receipts and summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1 98 1 were estimated increases in average employment during the current year through the use of temporary and casual assistance to meet peak work loads and to offset the lag in filling vacant permanent positions.

Parliamentary Library

Will he provide details of how the increase for administrative expenses for the Parliamentary Library from $353,997 in 1979-80 to an estimated $648,000 in 1980-81 contained in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1980-81, page 10, Division 104.2 line 02, will be spent.

Division 104 Parliamentary Library -

The increase in other Administrative Expenses contained in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1980-81, page 10, Division 104/2/02 is explained as follows:

Parliamentary Libary

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether Mr J. S. Dunn, an officer of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, initiated a legal action against the Parliamentary Librarian alleging libel and defamation.
  2. If legal action has been initiated, will the costs of the Parliamentary Librarian’s defence be met from public moneys; if so, what amount will be appropriated in 1980-81 for this purpose.
  3. If defence costs for the Parliamentary Librarian will be met from public moneys are Mr Dunn’s costs similarly to be met from public moneys; if so, what amount will be appropriated in 1980-81 for this purpose.
  1. Mr President and I have been advised that a Supreme Court Writ for damages for defamation has been issued out of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in which an officer of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, Mr J. S. Dunn is the plaintiff and the Parliamentary Librarian, Mr H. G. Weir is the defendant.
  2. Yes. There has been no specific 1980-81 appropriation for the purpose.
  3. No.

Parliamentary Library

  1. What discussions of (a) casual, (b) temporary or (c) contract employment for positions within the Department of the Parliamentary Library have been held with (i) Members and Senators on the Library Committee, (ii) unions representing staff within the Library and (iii) Library staff during the last year.
  2. Have proposals been made in the Parliamentary Library for the employment of special consultants (for example Dr T. B. Millar and Professor H. W. Arndt); if so, (a) who initiated the proposals, (b) were these positions advertised, (c) how many positions of this kind have been proposed in the last 12 months and (d) were any of these positions intended to be filled on a (i) casual, (ii) temporary, (iii) contract or (iv) part-time basis and if so, which ones and what salary was paid or proposed in each case.
  3. What recommendations did Dr T. B. Millar make following the period he spent here as a consultant.
  4. How many special consultant positions have already been filled or are being considered for any section of the Parliamentary Library in 1980-81, in which sections are these positions located and how are salaries and conditions of employment determined in each case.
  1. Responsibility for (a) casual, (b) temporary or (c) contract employment. for positions within the Parliamentary Library is vested in the Parliamentary Librarian who has had some discussions with union representatives. Senior officers are invariably consulted on staff matters.
  2. Yes See below for information about Dr T. B. Millar’s consultancy. Professor H. W. Arndt has never been a consultant in the Library. The use of subject specialist consultants who can provide additional resources to supplement the work of the full-time Legislative Research specialists was reported to Parliament in the 1979 Annual Report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, page 26.

    1. The Parliamentary Librarian as Permanent Head of the Department.
    2. No.
    3. A number of proposals were considered but only a few reached negotiation stage.
    4. Three consultants were engaged. The fees paid were $2,000 each for two of them and $1,000 for the third. They were engaged on a contract basis with a negotiated full-time or part-time arrangement.
  3. Dr T. B. Millar was engaged as a subject specialist consultant in defence and foreign affairs. Reports to the Permanent Head on completion of consultancy contracts are routine. Recommendations are not required in his report.
  4. Four subject specialist positions have already been filled or are being considered for (i) Education and Welfare Research; one consultant, (ii) Special Library matters; one consultant, (iii) generalists; two consultants. Salaries and conditions depend on the number of hours offered, the qualifications and experience of the consultant, the amount of support services provided and the availability of funds. Note is taken of the guidelines for consultancy fees set by Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and the Public Service Board.

page 1581

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Industrial Relations: Galbally Report (Question No. 5631)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. At what stage of (a) development and (b) implementation is the following recommendation made by the Galbally report: 20 for which his Department is responsible.
  2. What sum has been spent specifically on the recommendation in part (1 ) in (a) each financial year since acceptance of the report and (b) in the period I July to 31 December 1979.
  3. How much of the funds recommended in the report for expenditure on the recommendation within his portfolio has been spent on (a) refugee settlement, (b) refugee programs, (c) refugee organizations, (d) other organizations supporting refugees and (e) employment of staff to help with refugee settlement in (i) each financial year since the report was accepted and (ii) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.
  4. What happens to funds allocated for the implementation of the recommendation, but not spent, in a specific financial year.
  5. What (a) specific skills and (b) experiences are required of the persons employed on the implementation of the report in dealing with the specific needs of the ethnic communities.
  6. What percentage of those employees are from the (a) Italian, (b) Greek, (c) Yugoslav and (d) Arabic ethnic groups and at what level are they employed.
  7. What mechanisms of (a) consultation and (b) coordination exist between his Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
  8. What (a) funds have been provided over and above the recommendation in the report and (b) new programs have been initiated by his Department in order to implement the spirit of the report.
Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the response given by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to Question No. 5637 in Hansard of 20 August 1980, page 559.

Trade Unions: Secret Ballots (Question No. 5655)

Mr Short:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. How many elections for union officials which are required to be conducted under the secret ballot provisions introduced in 1976 were held in (a) 1977, (b) 1978 and (c) 1979.
  2. In the elections held what proportion of members actually voted in respect of each of the 10 largest unions in terms of membership.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1 904 gives organisations the choice whether to have an election conducted by a

Returning Officer appointed under the rules of the organisation or officially conducted by either the Industrial Registrar’s Office of he Australian Electoral Office under section 170 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. No figures are available for elections by secret ballots conducted by Returning Officers appointed under the rules of registered organisations themselves. Available figures relate only to elections which have been officially conducted under the relevant provisions of the Conciliation Office and the Australian Electral Office. The figures are:

  1. The following table shows the percentage of members who voted in each election conducted under the secret ballot provisions in respect of the 10 largest unions whose elections were conducted under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by the Australian Electoral Office from 1977 to 1979 inclusive.

Department of Industrial Relations: Employees Born Overseas (Question No. 6018)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

  1. How many persons born overseas (indicating country of birth) are employed by this Department.
  2. How many of these persons are employed on a (a) temporary and (b) permanent basis and in what classifications are they employed.
  3. How many bi-lingual and multi-lingual staff members are employed by this Department in counter situations and/or close contact with members of the public.
  4. Does his Department have translating facilities; if so, (a) what languages are involved and (b) how many persons are working in the area and what are their classifications.
  5. If his Department does not have interpreting and translating facilities, what arrangements are made for performing these tasks.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Collective statistics on employees’ countries of birth are not maintained and I am not prepared to authorise the use of the extensive resources which would be involved in manually extracting the information required from appointment records.
  2. Seven bi-lingual and multi-lingual officers are employed in counter situations or have close contact with members of the public within the Department of Industrial Relations.
  3. and (5) My Department does not have staff engaged full-time on translating duties. When complex interpreting and translating requirements arise, the services of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are utilised.

Tradesmen’s Wages and Allowances (Question No. 6091)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 3 May 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that tradesmen employees were awarded (a) increases in their industrial allowance, tool allowance and fare allowance and (b) a wage increase, amounting in all to$1 8 per week, payable from 1 September 1979; if so, have the increases been paid.
  2. If these increases have not been paid (a) why has there been a delay, (b) when will the full increases be paid and (c) have any interim increases been paid.
  3. If some interim increases have been paid, (a) what sums have been paid and (b) from what dates have they been paid.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. The increases in allowances that the honourable member refers to, payable from 1 . 9.79, occurred in the two major Federal Awards that operate in the private sector of the building industry. Wages rates in these two awards were not increased. I am advised however that the question is in fact directed at the terms and conditions of employment of employees of the Department of Housing and Construction employed at the Ingleburn Army Base, NSW. These employees are not employed under the two abovementioned Federal Awards, rather their terms and conditions of employment are prescribed by Determination No. 212 of 1965 of the Public Service Arbitrator.
  2. Tradesmen employed under Determination 2 1 2 of 1 965 were awarded increases in their industry allowance of$1. 10 per week, tool allowance of 70 cents per week and fares allowance of $2 per week by the Acting Public Service Arbitrator on 18 February 1980 with effect from the first pay period which commenced on or after 1 September 1979. Following the adjustment of allowances, rates of pay under the Determination have also been reviewed. Draft orders were recently prepared by the parties which will increase rates of pay for tradesmen by$9.70 per week and for lower classifications by $7.60 per week because of changes in work value. The wage rate increases of $9.70/$7.60 per week will take effect, when ratified, from 18 January 1980. These wage rate increases when added to the allowance adjustments will amount to an increase of $13.50 per week for tradesmen and $10.70 per week for non-tradesmen.
  3. The only increases not already paid, are the wage rate increases. It is expected that the draft orders will be handed to Deputy Public Service Arbitrator Watson by the parties for consideration in the near future. No interim wage rate increases have been granted.

Elections under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (Question No. 6180)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 May 1980:

  1. From which (a) organisations and (b) branches of organisations did the Industrial Registrar receive requests that elections be conducted under section 170 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act between 17 June 1977 and 31 December 1979.
  2. Which of the requests were made by (a) an organisation or a branch of an organisation and (b) a number of members of an organisation or branch.
  3. On what date was each of these requests made.
  4. Were any of the requests received by the Industrial Registrar (a) rejected or (b) otherwise not acted upon; if so, what were the reasons in each case.
  5. In each of the elections conducted pursuant to requests how many ballot papers were (a) posted or otherwise provided to members of the organisation, (b) returned unclaimed and (c) returned as valid votes.
Mr Street:
LP

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

As I have already conveyed by correspondence to the honourable member, the information requested could not for practical reasons be incorporated in its entirety within Hansard. I am, however, able to incorporate within Hansard the following answers to questions (1), (2) and (4). The details are as follows:

Of these requests received within the period specified, 850 were made by an organisation or a branch of an organisation. The remaining 8 were made by a number of members of an organisation or branch.

Of the 858 requests received, 56 were rejected or otherwise not acted upon.

The 56 requests rejected fell into the following categories:

The complete text of my written answer to the honourable member is available to honourable members on request from my office.

Department of Industrial Relations: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 6199)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 May 1980:

Have any positions in his Department remained unfilled due to the imposition of the Government’s staff ceilings policy in each of the last 3 years; if so, how many have remained unfilled in each year.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question on Notice No. 6194 (see Hansard, 22 May 1980, page 3263).

Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay (Question No. 6226)

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) Did the March 1 978 report of the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay make recommendations concerning non-reduction pay allowances for all; if so, have the recommendations been implemented.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to reported claims that some trades affected by this report, in particular some 30 other rank printer-technicians in the Survey Corps, regard the recommended changes in their salaries and pay as an injustice; if so, can he indicate (a) the importance of these personnel to the mapping of the nation and (b) whether any actions have been taken on their complaints.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Such a recommendation was made in respect of personnel in all trades which are to be reduced in pay level. Some 3,300 personnel in 46 different employments are involved. Due to the complexities associated with the provision of enabling legislation and administrative difficulties, it is expected that application of the non-reduction provisions will be not possible until towards the end of this year.
  2. Yes.

    1. The duties performed by these Defence Force personnel are no less important in the National sense than the duties of other personnel similarly affected by nonreduction provisions.
    2. The Chairman of the Committee of Reference is a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and its two members are a Commissioner of that Commission and a retired senior Service officer respectively.

Clearly membership of the Committee of Reference provided for an authoritative and expert examination of pay levels for all other rank employment categories.

I believe it would be inappropriate for me to ask the Committee of Reference to re-examine the Army printing employments.

Uranium Advisory Council (Question No. 6273)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

  1. On what dates since 10 August 1979 has the Uranium Advisory Council met.
  2. What matters were discussed by the Council at each of these meetings.
  3. Has the Council commissioned studies by outside persons; if so, (a) which persons, (b) what studies are involved and (c) at what cost.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 14 and 15 October 1979; 15 and 16 November 1979; 31 January and 1 February 1980; 20 and 21 March 1980; 17 April 1980; 16 May 1980; 17 and 18 July 1980; 12 August 1980.
  2. The Uranium Advisory Council has broad terms of reference and accordingly discusses a wide range of issues at its meetings. Since 10 August 1979,I have received reports and advice from the Council on such matters as:

The Ranger Project

Uranium enrichment

Sequential development of uranium mining

The Jabiluka Project

The Kakadu National Park

Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd

Northern Territory visits by Council members

The Harrisburg (TMI) nuclear reactor accident

The future of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission

These reports have either been made public or will be made public in due course.

  1. No.

Oil Committees (Question No. 6281)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

  1. Who are the members of the (a) National Petroleum Advisory Committee, (b) Oil Supplies Advisory Committee and (c) Oil Supplies Liaison Committee.
  2. What are the terms of reference of each of these committees.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) The members of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee are:

Sir Frank Espie, O.B.E.; Chairman.

Dr E. K. Campbell; Director of Energy, Department of Mines and Energy, Northern Territory.

Mr F. A. Connell, A. M. ; President, Australian Fishing Industry Council.

Mr J. A. Dembecki ; General Manager, Energy Authority ofN.S.W.

Sir Max Dillon ; Federal President, Confederation of Australian Industry.

Mr D. P. Eckersley, O.B.E.; President, National Farmers’ Federation.

Mr N. C. K. Evers; Director of Energy, Directorate of Energy, Tasmania.

Mr L. J. Froggatt; Immediate Past Chairman, Australian Institute of Petroleum.

Mr L. L. Gillespie; City Manager, Department of Capital Territory, A.C.T.

Mr A. V. Cray; President, Metal Trades Industry Association.

Mr D. G. Howe - President, General Aviation Association.

Mr W. J. Kelty ; Assistant Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Mr J. B. Kirkwood; Commissioner, State Energy Commission of W. A.

Mr R. G. McLennan; President, Australian Chamber of Shipping.

Mr R. M. Evans ; President, Australian Automobile Association.

Mr S. M. F. Martin - Chairman, Transport Industry Advisory Council.

Dr M. J. Messenger; Director, Energy, Department of Mines and Energy, SA.

Mr B. V. Millane; Director of Energy, Department of Minerals and Energy, Vic.

Mr P. H. Sleigh ; Chairman, Australian Institute of Petroleum.

Mr J. T. Woods; Under Secretary, Mines Department, Qld.

Mr D. J. Ives ; Deputy Director, National Energy Office, Department of National Development and Energy, ACT.

  1. (b) The Oil Supplies Advisory Committee is an informal Commonwealth oil industry committee. The Commonwealth is represented by officers of the Department of National Development and Energy which chairs the Committee. Oil company representatives, from each of the major oil refining and marketing companies, are normally executives in charge of Supply.
  2. (c) The Commonwealth/States Oil Supplies Liaison Committee comprises representatives of Commonwealth, State and Territory energy authorities.
  3. (a) The terms of reference of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee are:

Through the Minister for National Development and Energy the Committee advises Governments on: appropriate arrangements for the equitable allocation of liquid fuels during any period of supply shortage; priorities for the allocation of liquid fuels during periods of shortage which accord most closely with Australia’s overall national interests, having regard to the overall supply situation with respect to liquid fuels in Australia and the actual or anticipated position with respect to any particular petroleum product shortages.

  1. (b) and (c) The Oil Supplies Advisory Committee and Commonwealth/States Oil Supplies Liaison Committee commonly meet jointly to discuss all aspects of petroleum supply. Matters regularly considered include the following: crude oil supplies, including import programs and forward production schedules of Australian oilfields; trends in demand and petroleum stock levels; refining matters as appropriate, e.g. scheduled maintenance shutdowns, unscheduled interruptions; oil industry shipping programs.

National Advisory Committee on Chemicals (Question No. 6290)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Who are the members of the National Advisory Committee on Chemicals (NACC) and what are their (a) qualifications, (b) employers, and, (c) other institutional affiliations.
  2. What are the terms of reference of the committee.
  3. Who are the professional and technical staff of the NACC technical secretariat and what are their qualifications.
  4. Which members of the NACC and its technical secretariat have been employed in private enterprise, when were they employed and by whom.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The members of NACC are State, Territory and Commonwealth Government public servants nominated by members of the Standing Committee of the Australian Environment Council, together with public service representatives of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) and the Australian Agricultural Council. The Commonwealth public servants involved are two officers of the Department of Science and the Environment, an officer of the Department of Health (representing NH&MRC) and an officer of the Department of Primary Industry (representing the Australian Agricultural Council). Information on the affiliations of other members may be obtained through the secretariat of the Australian Environment Council.
  2. The terms of reference of NACC are:

    1. . To assess information on the potential environmental effects of chemicals and to report to the Standing Committee of the Australian Environment Council on appropriate control measures.
    2. To develop guidelines for industry on notification of information.
    3. To consider the need for independent confirmatory testing of specific chemicals.
    4. As requested, to assess information on the potential environmental effects of chemical manufacturing processes.
    5. To consult, when necessary, any appropriate person, body, organisation or industry representative on matters relevant to the functions of this Advisory Committee and to recommend procedures for the establishment of appropriate working arrangements.
    6. To recommend investigations or research projects to provide information required for the functions of the Advisory Committee.
    7. To recommend the formation of working groups, when necessary, to assist in specific functions of the Advisory Committee.
    8. To foster the exchange and dissemination of information on the environmental effects of chemicals.
  3. The professional and technical staff of the NACC secretariat are Commonwealth public servants employed in the Environment Division of the Department of Science and the Environment.

There are five officers directly concerned with the work of NACC. Four of these staff have tertiary qualifications in chemistry, and one has tertiary qualifications in zoology.

  1. One of the staff of the technical secretariat has been employed in private enterprise for a period of three years, as a research chemist.

Industrial Accidents (Question No. 6304)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 August 1980.

How many man hours were lost through industrial accidents in Australia in 1979.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Information on man hours lost through industrial accidents in 1979 in all States in Australia is not available.
  2. The latest information available to the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee estimates that some 1 million man weeks were lost through industrial accidents in Australia in 1977-78.

Mining (Question No. 6313)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

  1. Did the Industries Assistance Commission’s inquiry into the mining industry find that in the 6 year period to 1973-74, concessions exempting all or part of mining income from tax appeared to have done little to promote the development of the mining sector and that the major effect had been a redistribution of income from the community generally to some mining enterprises and their shareholders.
  2. Is any increase expected in foreign investment in the Australian mining industry in order to take advantage of relatively cheap energy costs in Australia; if so, what action will the Government take to ensure that this mining development does not take place at the expense of the community.
  3. Will the Government establish an inquiry to re-examine such matters as the (a) levels of taxation to be paid by new mining projects, (b) costs of infrastructure for these projects and (c) prices paid for energy inputs to the industry.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Those comments were made in the IAC’s Report on the Mining and Petroleum Industry. Since 1973-74 there have, however, been developments which call into question whether they are still relevant. In particular, Section 23A of the Income Tax Assessment Act exempting 20 per cent of the net income from the mining of various prescribed minerals was repealed in 1974 and there have been other changes to the mining tax provisions.
  2. The Minister for Industry and Commerce recently stated that mining projects ‘committed’ or in the ‘final feasibility’ stages totalled over 19 billion dollars. These investments have taken place because Australia is extraordinarily well endowed with natural resources including energy resources. Resource availability and competitively priced electricity, for example, have encouraged bauxite/alumina aluminium projects to the extent of almost5 billion dollars either committed or at the final feasibility stage. Information supplied by the companies indicates that these and similar investments will directly generate tens of thousands of new jobs, with further investment opportunities arising as the expansionary effects of these developments flow through the economy.
  3. No.

Payment of Debts Program (Question No. 6337)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. What outstanding matters prevent the immediate introduction of legislation to establish a regular payment of debts program, as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission.
  2. Has the Government accepted the recommendations of the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council, relating to the need for strong Commonwealth consumer protection legislation; if so, (a) can this be best achieved by strengthening the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act, (b) what changes are proposed to the Trade Practices Act, and (c) what other legislative action is proposed.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. The Government is currently examining the scheme recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission for a regular payment of debts program.
  2. The Government is committed to the maintenance of effective Commonwealth legislation and other action providing protection for all Australian consumers.

As an illustration of the Government’s commitment, the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council was set up in 1976 to advise the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on the Commonwealth’s responsibilities in the consumer affairs area. As mentioned in a recent report on its activities, it has made a number of recommendations including ones for amendment to the Trade Practices Act, and the development of new legislation.

The Government greatly appreciates the practical and thorough consideration which the Council brings to its recommendations.

Legislation is not necessarily the only way of improving the position of consumers however, and the Council has recognised this in its recommendations relating to consumer education, and for increased consumer representation on Government advisory and administrative bodies.

2,4,5-T

(Question No. 6381)

Dr Klugman:

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

Has he received a request from Mr J. Hallam, MLC, Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales, requesting the assistance of CSIRO staff in the conduct of an inquiry to be initiated by the N.S.W. Government into the safety of all uses of 2,4,5-T, if so, what has been his reponse to this request for Federal/State cooperation to date.

Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

Yes. The request from the N.S.W. Minister for Agriculture is being considered.

Aluminium Smelters (Question No. 6389)

Mr Howe:

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

  1. With reference to the proposed construction by Alcoa of an aluminium smelter at Portland, Vic; has he requested his Department to prepare an assessment of the company’s environmental effect statement which was submitted to the Victorian Government in January 1980.
  2. If so (a) what have been the results of that assessment, (b) will any assessment made by his Department be made public as has been the assessment of the statement by the Victorian Ministry for Conservation and, if so, when will the Commonwealth’s assessment be made public?
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Alcoa submitted a final environmental impact statement on 5 September 1980 to my Department in relation to the proposed Alcoa smelter at Portland. This document will be examined and a report submitted for my consideration in accordance with the requirement of the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures.
  2. (a) Seel.
  3. (b) In accordance with the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures Departmental assessments are prepared by my Department following the examination of final environmental impact statements. Copies of such reports are normally made available only to the Commonwealth Action Minister, the State Environment Minister and to the proponents.

Aluminium Smelters (Question No. 6390)

Mr Howe:

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

  1. To what extent will he study Alcoa’s environmental effect statement with a view to the national environmental implications of rapid expansion of the aluminium industry.
  2. In view of the large number of proposals for refineries and smelters, what resources is he devoting to consideration of the various proposals for smelters.
  3. To what extent will national energy conservation policies be taken into account in the analysis of the various smelter proposals.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Alcoa has recently submitted a final environmental impact statement on its Portland smelter. I will continue to consider the environmental consequences of aluminium smelter proposals as they are brought to my attention, under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act.
  2. The environmental assessment of projects associated with the expansion of the aluminium industry in Australia rests primarily with the Industrial Proposals Section of my Department which consults with other bodies as appropriate.
  3. The national energy policy will be taken into account together with other major environmental factors having regard to technical, economic and social implications.

Aluminium Smelters (Question No. 6391)

Mr Howe:

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

  1. Is the current environmental assessment being made of the proposed aluminium smelter at Portland, Vic, an assessment of the environmental impact of (a) a proposed first stage of the smelter, that is, a smelter producing 132 000 tonnes a year or (b) a smelter of 528 000 tonnes a year.
  2. If the proposed smelter is expanded to produce more than 1 32 000 tonnes in the first stage, will there be a new environmental effect statement and a revised Commonwealth assessment.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The proposal to establish and operate an aluminium smelter at Portland is being undertaken in accordance with the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures and on the basis of a first stage of 1 32 000 tonnes and a final stage of 528 000 tonnes capacities.
  2. No.

Aluminium Smelters (Question No. 6392)

Mr Howe:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports that the Victorian Ministry for Conservation’s assessment of Alcoa’s environmental impact statement of the proposed construction of an aluminium smelter at Portland, Victoria, excludes the question of what proportion of Victorian brown coal energy reserves should be devoted to aluminium smelting.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to reports of the Victorian Ministry’s assessment that the Alcoa smelter will ultimately take 1 1 per cent of the State’s production of coal and 10 per cent of the States electricity production by 1990.
  3. Is he able to say what (a) proportion of Victoria’s coal reserves and electricity should be devoted to aluminium smelting and (b) percentage of the States coal reserves will ultimately be used by Alcoa after it has completed its current expansion at Port Henry, Victoria, and moves to the final stage of its Portland smelter.
  4. Will the Federal Government’s assessment of the environmental impact of aluminium projects take the considerations referred to in part (3) into account.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 understand that the Victorian Ministry for Conservation assessment report of Alcoa’s Environmental Effects Statement takes up the environmental consequences of the use of known coal energy reserves having regard to their possible alternatives.
  2. Yes.
  3. (a) No. (b) The Commonwealth is not involved in the environmental assessment of the expansion of Alcoa’s Port Henry smelter and I have no information on future coal requirements. Regarding projected coal requirements for Alcoa’s Portland smelter see (2) above.
  4. The environmental assessment of the Portland smelter will take into account the overall energy commitment together with technical, economic and social impacts associated with this project.

Aluminium Smelters (Question No. 6393)

Mr Howe:

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

  1. What is the expected level of fluoride emissions from the first stage aluminium smelter at Portland, Victoria.
  2. What will be the levels of emission from a smelter of (a) 528,000 tonnes per year and (b) 1 32,000 tonnes.
  3. What are acceptable levels of fluoride emissions.
  4. Are standards adopted by the Australian Government based on (a) local research or (b) research conducted overseas.
  5. If standards are based on local research, what studies have been carried out.
  6. Can he say what the comparative standards limiting fluoride emission are in (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) Jamaica, (d) the United States of America, (e) France, (f) Spain, (g) Yugoslavia, (h) the USSR.
  7. Can he also say what studies are currently taking place in Australia on the impact of fluoride emissions on people and agriculture.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The final environmental impact statement proposed that the expected levels of fluoride from the first stage of the aluminium smelter at Portland will be 1 58.4 tonnes/year.
  2. Emission levels from a smelter of (a) 528,000 tonnes/year aluminium will be 633.6 tonnes/year fluoride, (b) see 1 above.
  3. The acceptable level of fluoride emission is dependent on the environmental consequences of emissions and this matter will be considered as part of the enviromental assessment of aluminium smelter proposals undertaken under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act.
  4. There are no Commonwealth Government fluoride emission standards.
  5. See 4 above.
  6. 24 hour standards limiting fluoride emission are 0.06 mg/m3 for the United States of America, 0.01 mg/m3 for Spain, for Yugoslavia, and for the U.S.S.R. I am not aware of standards for Canada, Jamaica and France. For Australia see (4) above.
  7. Yes. I have sought the preparation of environmental impact statements for the proposed establishment of aluminium smelters by Alcan in Queensland, and Pechiney and Alumax in the Hunter Valley. These statements will study the question of fluoride emissions on both people and agriculture. I also understand that research is being undertaken by individual aluminium producers in Australia and the Universities of Sydney, NSW, Newcastle and Queensland

Pensioners (Question No. 6411)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

Can benefit recipients and pensioners refuse to answer questions from Social Security field officers without a 3rd party, consented to by the pensioner or benefit recipient, being present.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

There is no provision under the Social Services Act which requires a recipient of a pension or benefit to answer a question from a departmental field officer. Failure to answer a question, however, could cause delay in the determination of the claim or cause an existing payment to be suspended.

There would be no objection to a recipient of a pension or benefit being accompanied by a person of his or her choice during an interview.

Visual Arts Board (Question No. 6423)

Mr Humphreys:

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

  1. Is the newly appointed chairperson of the Visual Arts Board also a member of other boards of the Australia Council.
  2. Does the Council condone membership of more than one board by its members.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am advised by the Australia Council as follows:

No.

No. It has never been the practice to appoint people to more than one Board.

British Nuclear Weapons Tests (Question No. 6431)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 26 August 1980:

What were the diagnostic purposes referred to in his answer to question No. 6003 (Hansard, 19 August 1980, pages 429-30) for which Cobalt 60 was incorporated in the Tadje Test explosion at Maralinga, SA, on 14 September 1957.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I am advised that Cobalt 60 was used as a tracer to monitor the energy yield from the fission process.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 6433)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 August 1980:

  1. What criteria are used to gauge the amount of unemployment benefit paid to a single person, over 1 8 years of age, with no dependants.
  2. Does the recipient of unemployment benefit in the category referred to in part ( 1 ) receive less per week than any other person in this category who is in receipt of any other social security benefit or pension while bearing the same living cost; if so why.
  3. Will the Minister consider increasing the rate of unemployment benefit paid to recipients in this category to the standard weekly rate of $64.10 paid to all other single social security recipients.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The current rate of unemployment benefit for persons over 18 years of age without dependants is $51.45 a week compared with the indexed standard rate of pension and benefit of $61 .05 a week ($64.10 from November 1980). The Government announced in the 1980-81 Budget an increase in the maximum rate of unemployment benefit for beneficiaries aged 18 years and over without dependants to $53.45 a week from November 1980.

It is relevant to note that it was also announced in the 1980-81 Budget that the Government has decided to relax the income test on eligibility for unemployment and sickness benefits. At present the maximun rate of benefit is reduced by a dollar for each dollar of private income above $6 a week in most cases. From November benefit will be withdrawn by only 50 cents in the dollar between $6 and $50 a week for all beneficiaries aged 18 years and over. As a result, unemployment beneficiaries will have significantly greater opportunity to increase their incomes through their own efforts.

  1. The Government reviews the non-indexed benefit rates in the context of the annual Budget and, in considering this matter, regard is given to the needs of such beneficiaries as well as to continuing need for restraint in government expenditure and the impact of any change on incentives to obtain full-time employment.

Independent Commission on International Development Issues (Question No. 6442)

Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

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

Will he make a statement to the House outlining the Government’s response to the Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues under the Chairmanship of Willy Brandt entitled North-South: A Program for Survival.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

I welcome this question, which draws the attention of the House to the Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues, chaired by Willy Brandt.

The Report of the Brandt Commission, an independent group of public figures from both developed and developing countries, is intended to give impetus to the international debate on economic questions- the North-South dialogue- by presenting a non-governmental view. The members of the commission, particularly its chairman, are to be commended for their efforts to identify areas in which the North-South dialogue might be constructively pursued and for the stress laid on the interdependence and commonality of interests of North and South. The Brandt Report has aroused widespread interst among governments and international organisatimns and has already made a significant contribution to the discussion of global economic problems.

Australia is able to support a number of the Report’s recommendations, although others are inconsistent with established Government policy. Some will require further consideration.

The Government endorses the Commission’s finding that a greater flow of ODA is required, and looks for this burden to be shared equitably among those in a position to assist. The Report has a balanced and helpful approach to critical issues such as energy and food security. The Government shares the Commission’s view that the international trading system should be improved by the establishment of appropriate commodity agreements, the reduction of protectionism, including in agricultural products, and the restructuring of domestic economies in accordance with international comparative advantage.

As you will be aware, Australia has been closely involved in the search for solutions to such world economic problems. In 1978, the Government took an important initiative by commissioning a report on Australia’s Relations with the Third World which was received favourably by other governments on its release in April 1979. It was also as a result of an Australian initiative that Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting in Lusaka in August 1979, decided to establish an expert group to investigate and report on the factors inhibiting structural change and a sustained improvement in economic growth, and to identify measures to reduce such constraints. Central parts of this work, which was carried out under the chairmanship of Profesor H. Arndt of the Australian National University, are to be put before the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly.

The issues raised in the Brandt Report and the other studies which I have mentioned are likely to be taken up by the international community in the round of Global Negotiations proposed to commence in New York early next year. This forum will require the formulation and expression of Australian policy in an evolving context and in a flexible way. Under these circumstances, and given the Government’s recent consideration of the report on Australia’s Relations with the Third World, this is not the appropriate time for a final and definitive statement on the Brandt Report. I have indicated the Government’s reaction at this stage to a document which is continuing to provide a useful contribution to international discussions. We shall, of course, seek to play an active and constructive part in approaching the likely next major event in these discussions, the Global Negotiations.

High Level Nuclear Waste (Question No. 6447)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 27 August 1980:

  1. Has the Minister taken any steps to obtain the Report of Dr Jackson Davis, Professor of Biology and Environment Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, on the dumping of high level nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean between 1946 and the mid-1960s, less than 60 kilometres from the California coast.
  2. If so, has the Department of National Development and Energy or any other Commonwealth Department or agency made any evaluation of Dr Davis’ claims that high level nuclear waste was dumped in the Pacific Ocean over a much bigger area than previously believed.
  3. Is the Minister able to say what steps the United States of America Government is taking to determine the source of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation which has been detected in seafood sold in San Francisco, USA.
  4. Is the Minister also able to state what is the extent of radiation leakage from the approximately 55,000 drums of nuclear waste dumped by the United States of America in the Pacific Ocean in the period referred to by Dr Davis; if so, can he state (a) which United States federal department or agency supplied the information and (b) when that department or agency obtained that information.
  5. Is the Minister further able to state whether there were 43 separate nuclear waste dump sites used by the United States Government in the period referred to in part (1) and whether any of these sites are in Canadian or Mexican territorial waters; if so, has the Minister taken any steps to contact the Canadian and Mexican Governments to obtain their assessment of the nature and extent of the problems in their territorial waters.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) A copy of the report, which I understand has not been published, is expected to be received shortly and will be examined by my Department when available.
  2. The United States Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) has co-operated with the State of California in the collection and interpretation of data on fish from the vicinity of the Farallon Islands waste disposal site off the coast of San Francisco. Concentration of radionuclides in these fish were found to be within the ranges of radioactivity occurring from atmospheric fallout. The USEPA has also conducted a series of investigations to assess conditions at the Farallon Islands and other waste disposal sites.
  3. No.
  4. I understand that the United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC) approved at least 35 ocean sites for radioactive waste disposal between 1946 and 1970; of these, four sites received approximately 90 per cent of the low level waste containers. In addition, some individual disposals of low-level wastes were made by USAEC contractors at locations satisfying the general criteria of (i) depth greater than 1000 fathoms and (ii) distance from shore greater than 100 miles.

A number of disposals were made several hundred kilometres off the Canadian coast in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and off the United States coast in the Gulf of Mexico. The Government has not contacted the Canadian or Mexican Governments regarding the effects of sea disposal operations by the United States.

Australian National Plan of Action for Women (Question No. 6454)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. When will the Australian National Plan of Action for Women be announced and will it be distributed to women throughout Australia.
  2. When will specific programs and projects based on that plan be announced.
  3. What is the status of the National Women’s Advisory Council’s Plan of Action of March 1980, and what steps will the Government take to initiate its recommendations.
  4. In view of his joint statement with the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 31 July 1980, (a) can he now say how Australia will continue to play a full part in regional and international efforts to improve the status of women and (b) will this include Australian support for resolutions in the United Nations based on the positive and constructive aspects of the World Program of Action for Women adopted in Copenhagen.
  5. Will Australia support a further United Nations World Conference for Women in 1985.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. The Office of Women’s Affairs within my Department is working on the formulation of a National Plan of Action for consideration by the Government. It will be a practical program of priorities for the Federal Government in the next five years and will be based in large part on the positive and constructive aspects of the World Programme adopted in Copenhagen, taking into account the resolutions put to the Government by the National Women’s Advisory Council as a result of its consultations with Australian women.

I would expect the Plan of Action to be made available to women’s organisations throughout Australia.

  1. It is not yet possible to say when specific programs and projects based on that Plan will be announced.
  2. The resolutions adopted at the National Women’s Advisory Council Conference, held in Canberra in March 1980, have been presented to the Government. While the Government is not bound by these resolutions, it is certainly according them serious consideration as the views of a distinguished and representative group of women. Where it is appropriate, the Plan of Action will take account of the resolutions.
  3. (a) The Australian Government believes that it has an important and worthwhile role to play in regional and international efforts to improve the status of women. We will continue to send appropriately qualified delegations to important conferences and seminars at both regional and international levels. As I announced in my speech to the World Conference, Australia has for the remainder of the decade increased its contribution to the Voluntary Fund for the United Nations Decade for Women to $50,000 per annum. The Australian Development Assistance Bureau is committed to increasing the number of women involved in its overseas aid programs, both as recipients and as active participators.

    1. The Australian Government has in the past supported positive resolutions on women in the United Nations General Assembly and will certainly support resolutions based on the positive and constructive aspects of the World Programme adopted in Copenhagen.
  4. The Australian Government has no objection in principle to supporting a United Nations World Conference for Women in 1985 but will determine its attitude in the light of events.

Fluorocarbon Sprays (Question No. 6457)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 27 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the latest state of research in the United States of America into alleged damage to the ozone layer by fluorocarbon propellants from aerosol sprays.
  2. Can he say whether fluorocarbon sprays have been barred from sale in the United States of America.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Extensive research into the question of atmospheric ozone depletion resulting from the release of chlorofluorocarbons is being undertaken in the USA and in other countries. Research on this problem is being coordinated internationally through the Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer which forms part of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). As yet there is considerable uncertainty as to the implications of research findings. The most recent comprehensive reports on research findings have been presented by: the United States National Academy of Sciences, ‘Stratospheric Ozone Depletion by Halocarbons: Chemistry and Transport’, 1979 the United States National Academy of Sciences, ‘Protection Against Stratospheric Ozone Depletion by Chlorofiuorocarbons’, 1980 the United Kingdom, Department of the Environment, Chlorofiuorocarbons and Their Effect on Stratospheric Ozone’, 2nd report, 1979

These reports together with additional data provided by other nations and by international agencies such as the World Health Organisation and the World Meteorological Organisation were reviewed at the third meeting (November 1979) of the UNEP Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer. The Committee concluded that, on the basis of available scientific data, the most probable extent of ultimate ozone depletion would be 15 per cent if world wide fluorocarbon release continues at current levels. Research and investigation on this subject is continuing and it is expected that a further review will be undertaken at the fourth meeting of CCOL, scheduled for November 1980.

  1. The use of fluorocarbons as propellants in aerosol sprays has been banned in the USA, Norway and Sweden. As specified in regulations issued under the US Toxic Substances Control Act, the manufacture and import of aerosols using fully halogenated chlorofiuorocarbons as propellants has been prohibited since December 1978. The introduction of such aerosols into interstate commerce has been prohibited since April 1979. A limited number of exemptions from the ban are specified.

Similar regulations have been applied in Sweden since June 1979 and will apply in Norway from July 1981. A ban on the use of fluorocarbon-based propellants in non-essential aerosol products, specifically hairsprays, deodorants and perfumes, has applied in Canada since May 1980.

The EEC has recommended that there be a 30 per cent reduction in use of chlorofiuorocarbons in aerosols by December 1981 and that member states should take measures to ensure that overall chlorofluorocarbon production capacity is not increased.

Film ‘Death of a Princess’ (Question No. 6466)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 28 August 1980:

Were his attempts to prevent the Channel 7 network showing the ITV film Death of a Princess on the grounds that it would damage Australian trade with Arab states unsuccessful; if so, is he able to state (a) what contracts with the Arab states have been cancelled or withdrawn, (b) what economic loss has been suffered by Australia and (c) what anticipated contracts have been aborted since the film was shown on Australian television.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

As the honourable member will be aware the film Death of a Princess was shown throughout Australia by the Channel 7 network in early June.

In view of the importance of Saudi Arabia to Australia in a trade sense and of the importance of Australia’s relations with the Islamic countries in general, clearly no Government could stand by and allow the screening of a film that had the potential to damage these relations to proceed without expressing its strong concern. It was against this background that I had earlier made representations to Channel 7 expressing the view, that on balance, the film should not be shown. In this regard I believe that the Australian Government’s position on this matter was well understood by the Saudi Arabian Government.

With regard to the honourable member’s questions concerning contractual arrangements, such arrangements fall, in the main, within the province of private enterprises in Australia and Saudi Arabia and the Government is not in a position to determine if any contracts, existing or potential, have been affected by the screening of the film or to give an estimation of any economic loss suffered by Australia.

Use of Hydrogen as Chemical and Thermonuclear Engine Fuel (Question No. 6478)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 9 September 1980:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to claims by a S. Horvath, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 February 1979, to have invented an engine using hydrogen as both chemical and thermonuclear fuel and to have invited Federal authorities to evaluate his invention.
  2. Is the Minister able to say whether Mr Horvath offered to Water Fuel Holdings Pty Ltd of Auburn N.S.W., a practical demonstration and full technical demonstration to determine the value of the project, in a letter dated 17 January 1 973, without ever subsequently carrying out this offer.
  3. Did the Department of National Development and Energy ask for details and specifications of the engine in November 1979; if so, what was Mr Horvath’s response.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. On 5 March 1979 Mr Horvath through his public relations agent, invited the Department of National Development to evaluate his invention but Mr Horvath has not, to this time, been prepared to actually make his invention available.

A letter from the Department was sent to Mr Horvath on 3 April 1979 requesting specific technical details of the engine, the fuel, test procedures and results. This request has been repeated on a number of occasions since then most recently in July this year but no information has been forthcoming.

Stored Hazardous Wastes (Question No. 6490)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 9 September 1980:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government have any plans to assist in reducing the quantities of intractable hazardous wastes stored around Australia.
  2. Can he say whether industry has been encouraged to bring an incinerator ship such as the Vulcanus to Australia.
  3. Have approaches been made by, or discussions held with, State Governments on the subject of stored hazardous wastes; if so, what has been the outcome.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth has only limited responsibility for the disposal of hazardous wastes, as this is primarily a matter for State authorities. However, the Commonwealth is a member of the Australian Environment Council which is currently carrying out a joint study with the Confederation of Australian Industry on hazardous waste disposal with a view to identifying possible disposal options on a national basis.
  2. A proposal to charter the incinerator ship Vulcanus was submitted by ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd in 1979. After examining the proposal to ensure that it met guidelines on ocean incineration set down by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, approval was granted. The viability of the project was dependent on the Vulcanus also visiting Japan. Following deferral of the Japanese operation, the proposal for the Vulcanus to visit Australia has lapsed.
  3. Regular consultations between the Commonwealth and the States on hazardous wastes, including their storage, take place through the Australian Environmental Council’s National Advisory Committee on Chemicals. At this time the nature of the problem and of possible solutions is being investigated through studies such as the joint AEC/Confederation of Australian Industry study mentioned above.

Electricity: King Island, Tasmania (Question No. 6504)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 10 September 1980:

  1. Are residents of King Island, Tasmania, required to produce their own electricity from fuel-burning generators.
  2. What was the average price per litre for fuel used in electricity generation in (a) 1978-79, (b) 1979-80 and (c) the period 1 July 1980 to 10 September 1980.
  3. Will the Minister take action to relieve the cost of fuel on King Island; if so, what action.
  4. Have representations been received about reducing fuel prices on King Island; if so, what is the nature of these representations.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Hydro-electric Commission of Tasmania operates a diesel power station at Currie on King Island, serving residents in that locality. King Island residents, to whom this service is not available, are understood to provide for their own electricity needs by means of small private generating sets.
  2. Fuel used for electricity generation is either diesel or petrol, depending on the type of sets in use. Average retail prices for these fuels on King Island for the periods specified are not readily available.
  3. The Petroleum Freight Subsidy Scheme operates to reduce the cost of transport of fuels retailed to the residents of King Island. I understand that the Tasmanian Government pays a substantial subsidy towards the cost of power produced at the Hydro-electric Commission Power Station at Currie, and is currently considering the payment of a direct subsidy to residents who generate their own power. Control of retail prices for petroleum fuels at any location in Tasmania would of course be a matter for the State Government.
  4. I have received no representations concerning reduction of fuel prices on King Island.

Medical Benefits Fees Schedule (Question No. 6329)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. What was the total number of claims received for the Sydney, NSW region for (a) item 59 and (b) item 53 of the Medical Benefits Fees Schedule for each year since 1 973.
  2. What was the total number of these claims on a suburbbysuburb basis.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Statistics of medical benefits claims are not available from Departmental or Medibank records for areas smaller than States. It may, however, be of interest to you to have the estimated numbers of benefit claims in New South Wales for items53 and 59 of the Medical Benefits Schedule in each year since 1973 for which statistics are available. These are set out below:

Nuclear Weapons (Question No. 6359)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the Report to the Congress by the United States of America Comptroller General entitled Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and the Problems of Safeguarding Against the Spread of Nuclear Weapons. (U.S. General Accounting Office, 18 March 1980).
  2. What steps has the Department of National Development and Energy or any other Commonwealth Department or agency taken to investigate statements in that report which indicate potential problems in (a) the adequacy of U.S. Safeguards and Safeguards systems in ensuring that diversions of weapons-usable material will be detected, (b) the adequacy of material control and accountability systems, (c) the physical security arrangements at U.S. reprocessing centres, and (d) the effectiveness of international safeguards for the production, storage and use of plutonium and the possible diversions of significant quantities of nuclear fuels.
  3. In view of the potential problems identified in this report, will the Government reconsider the question of whether Australia should contribute uranium supplies to the international nuclear fuel cycle.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of a report to the United States Congress by the U.S. Comptroller General entitled Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and the Problems of Safeguarding Against the

Spread of Nuclear Weapons (U.S. General Accounting Office, 18 March 1980).

  1. This is an interim report, presenting the results of the General Accounting Office evaluation of the nonproliferation issues associated with commercial spent fuel reprocessing, and is directed towards fulfilling a requirement for the GAO to study and report on the implementation and impact of the N.S. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 on U.S. non-proliferation policies, purposes and objectives.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has made a number of comments on the GAO conclusions. These have been reproduced in Annex I of the Report. The DOE states that it has strong reservations regarding the presentation of certain safeguards issues. The DOE is particularly critical of the methodology adopted by the GAO. The DOE argues that the GAO has confused domestic and international safeguards and controls, and has judged domestic safeguards according to criteria appropriate only to international safeguards.

On the effectiveness of international safeguards to cover the production, storage and use of plutonium, the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) found inter alia, that materials accountancy, supplemented by containment and surveillance measures for existing operating reprocessing plants, was generally capable of providing effective international safeguards. It was foreseen that the establishment of future large commercial reprocessing plants would require improved safeguarding techniques, but that there was sufficient time to develop these given that the commercial use of plutonium was still a decade or so away. (See my statement on the outcome of INFCE - Hansard House of Representatives 19 March 1980, pp. 913-917).

  1. The supply of Australian origin nuclear material under contracts signed after 2 December 1972 is governed by the Government’s policy as announced by the Prime Minister on 24 May 1977. The stringent requirements of this policy, as applied through Australia’s bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements, will ensure that uranium supplied for peaceful purposes will not be diverted to nuclear weapons. Australian origin nuclear material supplied to the United States will be covered by the bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement between Australia and the United States signed on 5 July 1979. This agreement incorporates all the requirements of the Government’s nuclear safeguards policy. Australia’s support for international safeguards is tangible proof of the Government’s determination that the export of Australian origin nuclear material should advance the objective of non-proliferation.

Chile (Question No. 6371)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the International Commission of Enquiry into the Crimes of the Military Junta in Chile Report, published following the Enlarged Secretariat Meeting at Elsinor, Denmark, 7-9 December 1979; if so, has he instructed his Department to make any investigation of the Report especially in relation to the statement at page 84, that the (Chilean) Junta has not only failed to take into account the demands made to it by the international community but, more seriously, has aggravated the situation by again intensifying terror and repression.
  2. If an investigation has been carried out, does the result confirm or deny that statement.
  3. Has Australia made any representations to either the United Nations or Chile, following the revised constitutional arrangements for Chile which were announced recently by

General Pinochet; if so, when and to whom were those representations made and what was their substance.

  1. What diplomatic, military, political and trade relations has Australia conducted with Chile following the coup which overthrew the Allende Government on 1 1 September 1 973.
  2. Which demands (listed on pages 91 and 92 of the Report) does the Government (a) support and (b) not support and what are the reasons in each case.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of the Report mentioned and the statement contained therein that the Chilean Junta has not taken into account international demands and has again aggravated the situation by intensifying terror and aggression.

By way of prefatory comment, I would note that the Government does not regard the work of this Commission as an exposition of the view of the international community on the situation in Chile. The Government will continue to pay maximum attention to the work of the properly constituted authority in this field, namely the United Nations Special Rappoteur (Mr Abdoulaye Dieye) and will study his report in detail against the background of reporting on the situation provided by the Australian Embassy in Santiago.

  1. The Government is actively involved in following developments in Chile both through the Australian Embassy in Santiago and in such international forums as the United Nations. Most recently Australia supported a draft resolution at the 36th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March 1980, calling on the Chilean Government to respect human rights. However, the Government has been made aware of a deterioration in the situation in Chile in recent times following an increase in terrorism and agitation and allegations of the use of torture. Australia condemns the use of torture and the practices of arbitrary arrest, detention incommunicado and ‘disappearance’, wherever they occur.
  2. On 26 August, prior to the Constitutional plebiscite in Chile the Government expressed in the Senate (see Senate Hansard for 26 August 1980, p400) its concern that the proposed constitution outlined a political plan which would confirm the rule by decree of the present regime until 1989.

The Australian Government regrets that the new constitutional arrangements in Chile adopted in the plebiscite on 1 1 September do not represent a meaningful step towards the return of democratic rule in Chile. The new constitution institutionalises the present regime’s rule until elections in 1989 when the government retains the right to nominate the presidential candidate. The recent plebiscite was conducted in an atmosphere of government intimidation and opponents were not able to express their views freely and publicly. We regret that the Chilean people were not given the opportunity to vote on a plan for the genuine restoration of democracy in Chile.

  1. Australia maintained diplomatic relations with Chile following the coup of 1 1 September 1973 and after a lapse of some three years appointed an Ambassador to Santiago in July 1976. It has been the policy of the Government that the maintenance of diplomatic relations with any particular country does not necessarily imply acceptance of the policies or actions of that country. Australia has not entered into any military links with Chile since 1973 and no sales of Australian arms to Chile have taken place. Political links have been few although a number of parliamentarians, including several in recent months, have visited Chile. Australian trade with Chile declined from some $90m per annum in 1974 to under$1m per annum because of the Australian maritime union’s ban on shipping to and from Chile. With the lifting of the ban in 1978 Australian exports to Chile increased to $7.6m in 1978-79 and to$14m for the nine months of the 1979-80 financial year to

March 1980. Imports from Chile totalled $857,000 in the first nine months of 1979-80.

  1. The Government can in general accept the objectives of the ‘demands’ listed at pp. 91-92 of the Commission’s report, with the following exceptions:

    1. In respect of the demand for the international isolation of the ruling Junta, the Government does not believe that such measures are likely to contribute to political reform in Chile, Recent international experience suggests that isolation of particular countries on such grounds may, indeed, be counter-productive. As suggested above, Australia fully supports the expression in appropriate terms of international concern at existing violations of human rights in Chile. However, the Government considers that political reform in Chile is more likely if the Chilean authorities have reason to believe that international opinion will be readily responsive to such reforms. In that light, we consider that Chile’s total exclusion from the community of nations would only enhance the credibility in that country of allegations of unjust persecution, and thus could well set back a satisfactory resolution of Chile’s problems.
    2. In relation to the final demand for prosecution of members of the Junta and their agents, the Government notes that any such measures will be a matter for the succeeding Chilean authorities to pursue under domestic law.

Processing or Transfer of Australian Uranium (Question No. 6138)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1980:

  1. Have there been any discussions between Australia and

    1. Euratom, (b) any member country of Euratom, (c) Finland, (d) the Republic of Korea, (e) Japan and (f) the United States of America concerning the conditions under which Australia would be prepared to consent to the (i) high enrichment, (ii) retransfer and (iii) reprocessing of uranium supplied by Australia or nuclear material derived from that uranium; if so, what was the outcome in each case.
  2. If discussions have not been held, are any planned; if so when is it expected that they will take place.
  3. Has the Government determined the conditions under which it would be prepared to consent to the (a) high enrichment, (b) retransfer and (c) reprocessing; if so, in each case, what are these conditions.
  4. Is the Government prepared to give consent to the retransfer to the Soviet Union of uranium supplied by Australia or nuclear material derived from this uranium.
  5. Will he guarantee that Australia will retain the right to veto, at any time, the retransfer of uranium supplied by Australia or nuclear material derived from this uranium to (a) the Soviet Union or any Soviet bloc nation, (b) any Euratom member country and (c) any other country.
  6. Has Australia expressed any attitude to (a) Finland, (b) Euratom and (c) any Euratom member, concerning the retransfer of uranium to the Soviet Union; if so what attitude has been expressed.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The Government’s nuclear safeguards policy, announced by the Prime Minister in May 1977, requires that under Australia’s nuclear safeguards agreements with uranium importing countries the prior consent of the Australian Government is necessary for (i) enrichment beyond 20 per cent uranium 235 of Australian uranium supplied for peaceful uses, (ii) any transfer of supplied nuclear material to a third party, (iii) any reprocessing of nuclear material supplied by Australia.

Provisions for Australian prior consent to enrichment beyond 20 per cent, retransfers and reprocessing are included in all the nuclear safeguards agreements concluded so far. Nuclear safeguards agreements have been concluded with Finland, ROK, Philippines, UK and USA. The texts of these agreements have been presented to Parliament.

Negotiations on nuclear safeguards agreements with Japan and with the European Commission are currently proceeding. Australia’s policy on prior consent has been discussed during these negotiations. Details of these discussions are confidential to the two parties.

  1. See the reply to ( 1 ) above.
  2. (a) No.

    1. With regard to retransfers of nuclear material of Australian origin for the purposes of processing, i.e., conversion, enrichment below 20 per cent or fuel fabrication, the Government is prepared to consider giving its consent providing it is satisfied in terms of its non-proliferation policy as to the applicable arrangements and controls. As to retransfers of nuclear material of Australian origin for final disposal or end-use, it is a requirement that the nuclear material be covered by a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement with Australia.
    2. In my statement to Parliament of 19 March 1980 on the results and conclusions of the International Fuel Cycle Evaluation Study (INFCE), I noted that the conclusions of INFCE would bear closely on Australia’s postion on reprocessing, and that with the end of INFCE, it was timely to advance consideration of our reprocessing policy. 1 also said that the Government would not consent to reprocessing if the conditions and arrangements were not fully satisfactory in terms of our nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The results of consultations with several other governments (see reply to ( 1 ) above) will also be taken into account in the Government’s current consideration of policy on reprocessing.
  3. The Government’s policy on the retransfer of nuclear material of Australian origin for the purposes of processing, final disposal and end-use are outlined in the reply to 3(b) above.

Some countries depend on the Soviet Union for services such as conversion and enrichment and the Government has stated (see the reply to 3(b) above) that it is prepared to consider granting its consent for such services for Australian origin nuclear material in the USSR providing that the Government is satisfied in terms of its non-proliferation policy as to the applicable arrangements and controls.

Australia and Finland have agreed to arrangements under which Australian origin nuclear material may be processed (converted, enriched or fabricated into fuel) in third countries, including enrichment in the Soviet Union. These arrangements will include the return to Finland, or to another country where the nuclear material would be covered by an Australian nuclear safeguards agreement, of quantities of nuclear material equivalent to the supplied nuclear material. Enrichment in the Soviet Union would therefore be on an ‘all-in all-out’ basis, which would ensure that no Australian origin nuclear material remained in the Soviet Union. These arrangements fully meet the requirements of the Government’s nuclear safeguards policy.

  1. As noted in (1) above, it is a requirement of the Government’s nuclear safeguards policy that any transfer of supplied nuclear material to a third party is contingent on the prior consent of the Australian Government.
  2. See the answers to 3(b), (4) and (3) above.

Commonwealth Employment Service (Question No. 6146)

Mr Humphreys:

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

  1. Did either the National Director, the First Assistant Secretary, or an Assistant Secretary of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) executive in Melbourne, Victoria, indicate to CES staff during 1 980 that if training scheme targets for 1979-80 were not met, the future of CES would be in doubt.
  2. If not, why is a reference to that meeting included in CES reports of 25 March 1980 which are being circulated amongst CES branches in the Brisbane, Queensland, metropolitan area.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to a telex dated 23 April 1980, reportedly sent from the National Director of CES to CES staff, stating in part that whilst it is understood that an effort has been made to minimise inconvenience to clients, work bans could have serious consequences for the CES itself.
  4. Has he informed the National Director or any other member of the executive of the CES that the Service’s future is in jeopardy or in any way threatened.
  5. Has he considered handing over part or all of the job placement functions of CES to private employment agencies.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Obviously the honourable member is referring to a local meeting called by the South Brisbane Zone Manager and attended by CES Office Managers in that zone. If anything was said at that meeting that gave the slightest impression that the future of the CES was in doubt it was erroneous and quite misleading.
  3. Yes.
  4. No.
  5. No.

Custody Orders: Reciprocal Arrangements (Question No. 6244)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to a report in the Daily Telegraph (United Kingdom) on 21 May 1980 which reported that Britain was among 15 countries that signed a Council of Europe convention for the reciprocal enforcement of child custody orders under which (a) each State will set up machinery to deal with applications for the return of children alleged to have been removed unlawfully from another member State or retained after a holiday with one parent, (b) autorities in the ratifying States will be required to help trace snatched children and to assist in enforcing their return, (c) in certain circumstances, where an application is made within six months of the child being abducted, a State will be required to return the child immediately without a prior hearing in its own courts and (d) in other cases courts will only be able to refuse to recognise a foreign custody order and to return a child on limited grounds based on the need to ensure an impartial judicial decision.
  2. Further to the answer to question No. 3992 (Hansard. 21 August 1979, page 382) intimating that the Australian Government was represented by a senior officer from the

Attorney-General’s Department at the Hague Conference on Private International Law relating to the International Year of the Child in March 1979, can the Attorney-General now advise whether the Attorney-General’s Department was represented by a senior officer at the Conference of European Justice Ministers referred to in part (1) which opened recently at Luxembourg.

  1. Has the Attorney-General studied the convention in detail.
  2. Will the Government sign the convention; if so, when.
  3. If the Government will not sign the convention, why not.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. I am aware of the subject of the newspaper report referred to.
  2. The Attorney-General’s Department was not represented at the conference referred to.
  3. Yes.
  4. I have no plans to recommend that the Government sign the Convention referred to.
  5. A considered study of both the Convention referred to (hereinafter referred to as the European Convention) and the draft Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter referred to as the Hague Convention) has satisfied me that it would be preferable for Australia to concentrate on supporting the making of the Hague Convention and to take no action for the present with regard to the European Convention, for the following reasons:

    1. The European Convention applies only to cases where the child removed has been the subject of a custody order or an order for his or her return; the Hague Convention applies not only to such cases but also to those in which there have been no custody or other proceedings in the country from which he or she was removed- - and this is a substantial category of child removal cases.
    2. Under the European Convention the most effective provisions for securing recognition and enforcement of a custody order in another country are available only where the nationality of both the parents and the child is that of the country in which the custody order was made. There is no such restriction under the Hague Convention, under which- if the other requirements are satisfied - the obligation to return the child will arise regardless of his or her nationality, or the nationality of the parents.
    3. The grounds under the European Convention for being able to refuse to enforce a custody order from another country are complex, as is indeed the scheme of the Convention as a whole. The scheme of the Hague Convention is much more simple and practical, and there are three relatively straightforward grounds for refusing to return the child.
    4. The reservations permitted under the European Convention appear to be very extensive, and could, it seems, largely nullify the purposes of the Convention in a contracting country that exercised its right of reservation to the full. The reservations to be permitted under the Hague Convention have not yet been determined, but are expected to be at the October 1980 Fourteenth General Session of the Hague Conference, at which Australia will be represented by a delegation of two senior officers of the Attorney-General’s Department.

Indonesia: Expulsion of Mr Warwick Beutler (Question No. 6258)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. Has Australia made representation to the Indonesian Government regarding the expulsion of Mr Warwick Beutler, the former Australian Broadcasting Commission and Radio Australia correspondent in Indonesia; if so, what representations have been made.
  2. Can he state whether the Indonesian Government may reverse its decision in this matter and, if the decision is reversed, what conditions, if any, may be applied by Indonesia to future ABC staff based in Indonesia.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The Australian Ambassador to Indonesia made representations on 6 June in favour of renewal of Mr Beutler’s visa, after the Australian Government became aware that refusal to renew the visa was being contemplated by the Indonesian Government. On several occasions since then, the most recent being at the United Nations in New York on 26 August, I have expressed my concern about the matter to the Indonesian Foreign Minister Dr Mochtar Kusumaatmadja.
  2. I cannot say if or when the Indonesian Government will reverse its decision, or what conditions that Government might seek to apply to ABC staff in Indonesia in the future.

East Timor (Question No. 6259)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 9 August:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the article headed Timor Exits Blocked, Priest Says in U.S. in the Sydney Morning Herald, of 30 June 1980.
  2. Has he investigated the claim made by Father Fernandes, as reported in that article, that at least 15,000 people want to leave East Timor, but have been prevented from doing so by Indonesian authorities.
  3. Has Australia made representations to the Indonesian Government to allow East Timorese people to leave East Timor, if so, (a) what were they and (b) when were these representations made.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of the article mentioned by the honourable member.
  2. I know that a number of people who wish to leave East Timor have not been given exit permits by the Government. I have no way of confirming the precise number of such persons.
  3. Yes. I have made representations to Indonesian Ministers on a number of occasions about the slow progress that has been made with the family reunion program and the fact that Australia would like to see it accelerated. The Australian Ambassador is also in regular contact with the Indonesian authorities on this question.

Australian National Railways: Freight and Passenger Services (Question No. 6264)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. Have any programs to publicise Australian National Railways (ANR) freight and passenger services to the public been instituted in 1979-80; if so, what are they.
  2. What expenditure was incurred on marketing and publicity in the same period.
  3. How many staff are employed in marketing and publicity by ANR.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes. Promotion programs are carried out by ANR and the Railways of Australia Committee on an on-going basis. ANR embarked on its first major passenger advertising campaign in 1979-80. Services that received particular attention were the Overland from Adelaide to Melbourne, TransAustralian from Port Pirie to Perth, Indian Pacific from Adelaide to Sydney via Broken Hill, and the Victor Harbour and Mount Gambier passenger services. Emphasis was placed on the use of Motorail were applicable. Particular emphasis was also placed on advertising the last 12 months running of the narrow gauge Ghan passenger train.

A major freight activity promoted by ANR was an improved piggyback style freight service for road operators to both Western Australia and the Northern Territory. In addition the Railways of Australia Committee advertises both freight and passenger services on behalf of the five government owned railways.

  1. The advertising, promotions and public relations budget for 1979-80 amounted to more than $190,000, plus salaries of marketing officers. In addition ANR’s contribution in 1 979-80 to the Railways of Australia Committee’s advertising and publicity expenditure was $89,407.
  2. Public Relations staff- 4 full-time plus1 part-time. Marketing staff - 16 (plus typing and administrative assistance).

Australian National Railways: Sales of Food, Drinks and Souvenirs (Question No. 6268)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. On what basis are price levels set for food, drinks and souvenir items sold on the vehicles and premises of the Australian National Railways (ANR).
  2. What are the profit margins for those items.
  3. What monthly sales of food, drinks and souvenirs were recorded in 1979-80 on board each train operated by ANR, and each major fixed outlet.
  4. What was the monthly profit in 1979-80 as a result of sales of food, drinks and souvenirs.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Prices for ‘on train’ meals on intersystem services are set by Railways of Australia, and are subject to approval by State and Federal Transport Ministers. In setting these prices, consideration is given to the cost of ‘on train’ catering staff, movements in the Comsumer Price Index, cost increases not within CPI, and market factors.

Prices for drinks and other items on intersystem services are reviewed in consultation with other railway systems.

On train’ refreshment services on the South Australian section of the Overland and on SA country passenger services are provided by the South Australian State Transport Authority, who recommend prices subject to ratification by ANR.

Liquor prices on intrasystem services are similar to those charged in hotel lounges, with the addition of extra costs such as those incurred by penalty payments to ANR staff.

  1. Table A below provides relevant information.
  2. Tables A, B, C below provide relevant information.
  3. Generally, profit and loss statements are not prepared by ANR for ‘on train’ services. Income from such activities is included in general revenue from passenger operations. Financial results for Refreshment Rooms and ‘on train’ services conducted by STA for ANR are shown in Tables B and C respectively.

Victor Harbor,South Australia, Railway: Passenger Timetables (Question No. 6269)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. What changes have been made to rail passenger timetables on the Victor Harbor, S.A., railway line since the transfer of the non-metropolitan South Australian rail system to the Australian National Railways (ANR).
  2. What were the reasons for any change that have been made.
  3. What was the monthly patronage to and from each station on the Victor Harbor Branch Line (a) during the 12 months prior to the most recent timetable change and (b) since the most recent change.
  4. Are any further alterations to Victor Harbor passenger railway services envisaged by ANR.
  5. What have been the implications for train crew utilisation as a result of any timetable changes since transfer of the line to ANR.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Prior to 1 March 1980 trains departed from Adelaide and Victor Harbor as follows:

On 1 March 1980 the following amended timetable was introduced:

On 28 April 1980 the timetable was further amended as follows:

  1. The changes implemented on 1 March 1980 followed a detailed review of the Victor Harbor line passenger services. These changes took account of the low patronage for much of the year. Also the timetable was restructured to increase the tourist potential of the line. The Friday return service was reinstated on 28 April 1 980 to satisfy the needs of Victor Harbor residents.
  2. Detailed passenger statistics for each station are not regularly recorded. However, based on total daily passenger counts, for the Goolwa-Victor Harbor tourist area, the monthly patronage was as follows:
  1. The Victor Harbor passenger service is scheduled for review in 1981.
  2. Since the introduction of the revised Victor Harbor passenger schedules, train crew shifts have been reduced from IS to 9 shifts per week. Some railcar drivers have been redeployed elsewhere within ANR.

Register of Birth Defects (Question No. 6294)

Dr Blewett:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Commonwealth Government established a register of birth defects.
  2. If so, (a) when was the register established, (b) what was or is the register’s charter and (c) when will a report on the register be presented to the Parliament.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. No. However there is a National Perinatal Statistical Unit in the course of development at the Commonwealth Institute of Health, The unit will report from time to time, as indicated by its activities, which are carried out in conjunction with data collection systems in the States and Territories.
  2. See(l).

Insurance Act Committee of Inquiry (Question No. 6297)

Dr Blewett:

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

  1. How many doctors are currently being investigated by the Health Insurance Act Committee of Inquiry.
  2. Have any cases been finalised or concluded; if so, what were the results.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

As at 30 June 1980, the latest quarter for which complete statistics are available -

Twenty-six doctors were being investigated by the Medical Services Committees of Inquiry (MSCI).

Ten cases had been concluded, with five resulting in Determinations. Of these five - four involved the recovery of medical benefits paid for services subsequently determined to be excessive; in one of the above cases, it was determined that the practitioner concerned also be reprimanded one required the recovery of medical benefits for services subsequently determined to be excessive and, in addition, required that benefits for excessive services, which were payable but had not been paid, be withheld.

Three of the doctors involved sought a review of the Determinations by the Medical Services Review Tribunal (MSRT). The MSRT set aside the Determination in one case, and substantially varied it in another. No decision has yet been made in respect of the third case.

The Determination in respect of the other two cases became effective and moneys to the amount of $15,938.85 are being recovered. Details of these two Determinations were published in the Commonwealth Gazette.

In respect of the other five cases, the MSCI reported that the doctors concerned did not, in their opinion, contravene the provisions of the Health Insurance Act. I have accepted these findings.

Railway Level Crossings (Question No. 6308)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Is he able to say (a) how many railway level crossings there are without warning lights or gates in each State (b) how many accidents have occurred at these crossings since 1975 and (c) what investigations have been undertaken into the upgrading of the safety of these crossings.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Railways of Australia Committee has provided the following information:

New South Wales- Not available.

Victoria - 222 collisions between road vehicles and trains between 1976 and 1979 inclusive. 16 accidents involving pedestrians at crossings with signs and/or crib crossings between 197S and 1978 inclusive.

Queensland - 668

South Australia- 193

Western Australia- 70

Tasmania - 24

Northern Territory - 3

  1. (i) NSW- In 1960 the New South Wales Government established an Inter-Departmental Level Crossing Committee responsible for examining conditions at public level crossings throughout NSW. The Committee makes recommendations to the State Minister for Transport for the elimination of level crossings and for the improvement or replacement of facilities at level crossings. The State Rail Authority has an on-going program of installing automatic warning equipment at manned level crossings.
  2. VictoriaVicrail’s Level Crossing Committee carries out investigations on the conditions at level crossings throughout the system and recommends improvements to safety including a priority order of installation of flashing lights and boom barriers.
  3. Queensland- $200,000 is allocated each financial year jointly by the Main Roads Department and the Railway Department to provide improved warning devices on a predetermined priority basis.
  4. South Australia - ANR installs flashing lights at South Australian level crossings in accordance with priorities determined by an Interdepartmental Committee comprising representatives of ANR, the State Transport Authority and the State Highways Department. The number of installations that can be carried out depends on availability of capital works funds. ANR and the SA Highways Department consult on the installation of stop signs at unprotected crossings throughout the State.
  5. Western Australia - In Western Australia an Interdepartmental Railway Crossing Protection Committee was constituted in the late 1960s and has continued on a permanent basis to review and determine the type of protection installed at all level crossings. The Committee is chaired by the Commissioner of Railways.
  6. Tasmania - The Tasmanian Level Crossing Warning Committee comprises representatives from the Department of Main Roads, the Tasmanian Transport Commission and ANR. The Committee assesses the need for level crossing protection in accordance with Railways of Australia codes.

Oil Companies: Arrangements with Dealers (Question No. 5610)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1 980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports that a number of oil companies are demanding that their lessee dealers enter into new deeds of lease; if so, do these deeds of lease include extraordinary rental increases.
  2. If the situation is as reported, does it indicate that some oil companies are exploiting delays in the introduction of petrol marketing legislation to increase their power within the industry before legislation takes effect.
  3. What protection does the Government offer to dealers who may face bankruptcy because of the behaviour of oil companies.
  4. Will he intervene to freeze existing franchise agreements until proper guidelines and arbitration procedures are established through legislation.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

I have been informed that at least one oil company has recently moved to charging an economic or market rental, with at least in some cases a consequential adjustment to the wholesale price of petrol supplied.

The Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill which were introduced into the House on 9 September 1980 and which the Government intends to have enacted during the current sittings will provide protection for service station lessees, prohibit unjustified price discrimination by oil companies between lessees and reduce the involvement of oil companies in direct retailing operations. That legislation will also prohibit an oil company seeking to charge a rental for a lessee dealer site in excess of a reasonable market value.

Aid for South Pacific (Question No. 5703)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

  1. During which years will the three year forward civil aid commitment of $120 million for the island states of the South Pacific region, announced by the Prime Minister on 19 February 1980 (Hansard, page 26) operate?
  2. What sum will be spent in each of the three years to which this commitment applies?
  3. Will this aid be funded by (a) an increase in total Australian development assistance (b) a reduction in aid to other countries or (c) a combination of these approaches?
  4. Which (a) island states and (b) programs will benefit by this increase?
  5. What will the increase be in each case?
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The three year forward civil aid commitment for the island states of the South Pacific will operate for the financial years 1980-81 to 1982-83.
  2. The sums which will be spent in each of the three years to which this commitment applies are subject to parliamentary appropriation in the context of annual budget allocations. The allocation from the 1980-81 budget is $36 million.
  3. As the aid budget is subject to annual parliamentary appropriation, it is not possible to answer the question in relation to the financial years 1981-82 and 1982-83. In 1980-81 the increase in aid to the South Pacific represents part of the increase of $48.6 million budgeted for this year over expenditure in 1979-80.
  4. (a) The island states which will benefit by the increase are Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Western Samoa.

    1. The commitment will cover contributions to regional institutions and programs for island country equity in joint ventures with Australian interests, and to support the programs of non-government organisations in the South Pacific, as well as to the island states of the region bilaterally. Bilateral programs which will benefit are determined by island priorities and the Australian ability to respond. This is done through discussions with officials of the aid co-ordinating agencies of each government and departments involved.
  5. The commitment given in 1979-80 did not form part of a triennial pledge. The table below shows the actual expenditure for the triennium 1976-77 to 1978-79 and in 1979-80 against the commitment for 1980-81 to 1982-83. The increases shown relate to the two triennial pledge periods.

Imports of Knitted Garments (Question No.5937)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1 980:

  1. Were recent changes in import requirements with respect to knitted garments under the traditional handicraft provisions made by officials of his Department without reference to the Government.
  2. Do these changes have the effect of removing from existing quota and tariff arrangements low priced mass produced woollen knitted garments.
  3. Will these changes result in up to5 million garments entering Australia outside existing quota arrangements.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The legislation covering the duty free admission of handicrafts into Australia has been basically unaltered since 1974. Late last year and early this year the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs issued Bureau of Customs Notices giving guidelines concerning the artistic/decorative criterion for knitwear.

On 27 June 1980 the Government announced that following a very rapid buildup of imports, knitted coats, jumpers, cardigans, sweaters and like garments, on and from 1st July 1980 would be excluded from the general handicraft concession. However, special handicraft quotas would be introduced to permit the continued duty free importation at the recent average trade levels, for the 12 months to 30 June 1981.

This interim action was taken pending the Government examining the longer term treatment to be accorded such handicraft products.

On15 August 1980, the Government announced that from 1 January 1982, all textiles, clothing and footwear products will be excluded from the general handicraft concession and modified criteria will then apply.

Separate duty free handicraft quota categories will then apply to the following products knitted coats, jumpers, cardigans, sweaters and the like towelling and towelling products woven skirts and blouses female swimwear dresses, dressing gowns etc other outerwear (including woven skirts)

  1. No:see(l)above.
  2. The guidelines issued earlier were not intended to extend the handicraft concession to goods not previously eligible for duty free entry as handicrafts.

The concession was designed to facilitate the entry into Australia of products which were of a nature and type which would be unlikely to seriously affect the market prospects of locally produced goods. However, recent imports included many products indistinguishable from products of Australian industry.

Mr Bela Csidei (Question No. 5938)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1980:

  1. Is the Attorney-General able to indicate whether a Mr Bela Csidei was arrested in the Northern Territory in the 1970s.
  2. If so, (a) were charges laid; if so, what were they, (b) who was the presiding judge and (c) who conducted Mr Csidei’s defence.
  3. Was Mr Csidei convicted at that time; if so, (a) what sentence was imposed, (b) when did he commence his sentence, (c) in what prison was he interned and (d) is he still in prison or has he been released.
  4. Is this Mr Csidei the same person who was arrested approximately 2 years earlier in Norfolk Island; if so, was Mr Csidei on that occasion carrying a large sum in Australian currency.
  5. If Mr Csidei was arrested in Norfolk Island and was carrying a large sum of money, (a) what sum was involved, (b) did it belong to him and (c) was all or any of it confiscated.
  6. If the money was not confiscated, what happened to it.
  7. On that occasion (a) were charges laid; if so, what were they, (b) who was the presiding judge, (c) who conducted Mr Csidei’s defence and (d) was Mr Csidei convicted; if so, what sentence was imposed.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. 1 ) Mr Bela Csidei was arrested in Sydney and extradited to Darwin where he was arraigned on 17 February 1978.
  2. (a) The following charges were laid against Mr Csidei:

    1. conspiracy to possess a prohibited drug;
    2. conspiracy to sell a prohibited drug;
    3. conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by corrupting a member of the Northern Territory Police.

The Crown did not proceed in relation to the charge of conspiracy to sell a prohibited drug.

  1. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Forster, presided at the trial.
  2. Mr R. G. James of Counsel, instructed by Messrs Cridland and Bauer, Barristers and Solicitors, Darwin, appeared on behalf of Mr Csidei.

    1. Mr Justice Forster discharged the jury and ordered a new trial following the publication of an article, referring to Mr Csidei, in the ‘Northern Territory News’. At the second trial at which Mr Justice Forster also presided Mr Csidei was found guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by corrupting a member of the Northern Territory Police Force.
  3. Imprisonment for15 calendar months with a nonparole period of 9 calendar months.
  4. 27 September 1978.
  5. Fannie Bay Gaol, Darwin, 27 September 1978 to 15 December 1978. Gunn Point Prison Farm, 15 December 1978 to 9 March 1979. Fannie Bay Gaol, 9 March 1979 to 27 July 1979.
  6. Mr Csidei was released on 27 July 1 979.

    1. Mr Csidei was arrested in Norfolk Island on 31 July 1975 and extradited to New South Wales. He was not searched and it is therefore not possible to say whether he was carrying any Australian currency.
    2. and (6) See answer to question (4).
    3. (a) Two charges were laid:
    1. furnishing a misleading statement with intent to deceive in contravention of section 375a of the N.S.W. Companies Act 1 96 1 ; and
    2. common law conspiracy to cheat and defraud Harbourside NL and members of the public.
  7. On 12 June 1980 he was committed for trial by Mr J. Flynn, S.M., but a date has not been set for the trial.
  8. I have no information on this point.
  9. See answer to 7 (b) .

Nuclear Waste (Question No. 6367)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. Has Australia had discussions with any other nation regarding the dumping of nuclear waste in the Pacific since the 1980 meeting of the South Pacific Forum; if so, (a) when and where were those discussions held, (b) who represented Australia, (c) what was the result of those discussions and (d) which other countries were represented.
  2. What is the Government’s current attitude to (a) interim storage of any form of nuclear waste in the Pacific area and (b) permanent disposal of any form of nuclear waste in a sub-seabed manner in the Pacific area.
  3. Is any monitoring being conducted by any Federal Department or agency into nuclear weapons or weapons delivery systems testing in the Pacific area by (a) France and (b) any other country; if so, does such monitoring include testing of atmospheric and environmental levels of radioactivity within Australia.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

    1. Discussions were held in Canberra on 1 9 August 1 980 between Australian officials and a Japanese technical mission, on Japan’s proposal to conduct a trial dumping operation of low-level nuclear waste into the north Pacific Ocean in late 1 98 1 .
    2. The meeting was chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and included representatives from the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, National Development and Energy, and Science and the Environment, and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
    3. The discussions provided the Australian side with an opportunity to obtain specific information on Japan’s dumping proposal and to draw to the attention of the Japanese mission Australia’s opposition to the use of the Pacific for the indiscriminate and uncontrolled disposal of nuclear waste. The Australian side emphasised the concern of the South Pacific countries in regard to nuclear testing and waste issues. It was agreed that Australia and Japan would keep in close touch on the matter.
    4. No other countries were represented.
  2. (a) Australia supported the adoption of a resolution at the eleventh South Pacific Forum meeting in Tarawa on 1 4- 1 5 July 1 980, which noted that any proposal for the storage of nuclear waste outside home countries is a matter of international importance and should be examined closely by all countries concerned. The resolution condemned any action which represents further exploitation of the Pacific for nuclear purposes in ways which disadvantage the peoples of the Pacific. At the same time, the Government also appreciates the potential proliferation risks posed by the existence of large amounts of spent nuclear fuel and the importance of international solutions. The issue of possible international spent fuel storage facilities is under close examination in an expert study being carried out under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Australia is participating.

    1. There are no current proposals to dispose of any form of nuclear waste in the sub-seabed. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (the London Dumping Convention) prohibits the dumping of high-level nuclear wastes onto or into the seabed.
  3. (a) and (b) Yes. The Government undertakes a regular program of monitoring of levels of atmospheric and environmental radioactivity at a network of stations within Australia and at the Australian base at Mawson in Antarctica. In addition, a network of siesmic monitoring stations in Australia assists in the detection of nuclear explosions.

Nuclear Powered Vessels (Question No. 6368)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the article headed Radioactivity report’ in the Canberra Times of 24 March 1980; if so, has his Department investigated the claim in that article that abnormal radioactivity was detected from seawater at the United States of America naval base in Okinawa during the stay there of the United States nuclearpowered cruiser Long Beach.
  2. If an investigation has been made, is he able to state (a) in what way the radioactivity was abnormal, (b) whether any review of Australian policy of allowing nuclear-powered vessels into Australian ports had been carried out as a result of the Okinawa incident and (c) whether nuclear-powered vessels will now be banned from Australian ports.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a) Yes. The incident referred to in the Canberra Times of 24 March 1980 relates to circumstances surrounding port calls on March 16-17 and March 20-21 1980 at White Beach, Okinawa, by the nuclear-powered cruiser, USS Long Beach.

Several official press releases were issued by the Japanese Science and Technology Agency (STA) giving technical details of the incident. From these reports it can be stated that during the course of the two visits minor fluctuations were detected in one of three monitors immersed in the sea in the vicinity of the ship. These fluctuations ranged from 9 to 14 counts per second (CPS) compared with the 9 to 10 CPS expected. The STA reports confirmed that the readings were well within the range of fluctuations of 9- 1 8 CPS which can be attributed to normal environmental variation.

The STA monitoring guidelines define an abnormality as three times normal background and the STA reports concluded that the fluctuations associated with the monitoring of Long Beach were not abnormal.

The reports also confirmed that subsequent analyses of sea water samples and sea bottom sediment collected immediately after the port calls disclosed no abnormalities or changes from samples collected before the visits. (2) (b) and (c) In view of the findings of the Japanese Science and Technology Agency in respect of this port visit, no review of existing Australian policy in regard to the entry of nuclear-powered warships is considered necessary.

East Timor (Question No. 6370)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Foreign

Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the report on the ABC radio program AM of 1 1 June 1980 regarding Amnesty International’s evidence to a United States of America Congressional Sub-committee to the effect that Indonesian occupation forces in East Timor have persisted in the torture and execution of East Timorese, including Fretilin members, and that Indonesian forces are holding more than 800 political prisoners in Dili.
  2. Has he instituted any investigation into the reported statements made to that United States of America Congressional Sub-committee by the American Chairman of Amnesty International, Mr David Hinkley; if so, can he state whether there is any substance in the statements.
  3. If he has not instituted any investigation into the reported statements will he do so.
  4. Has the Government made any protest to Indonesia about the reported torture and execution of East Timorese people by Indonesian forces; if so, (a) when was that protest made and (b) what was the Indonesian response.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of this report.
  2. My Department examines reports of this kind against the background of information available from a variety of sources. To date there is no information available to corroborate the allegations made by Mr Hinkley.
  3. See answer to part (2).
  4. See answer to part (2). The position of the Australian Government regarding violations of internationally accepted standards of human rights is well known to the Indonesian Government.

South Africa (Question No. 6372)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the article headed Qantas seeking South Africa route at page5 of the Age of Tuesday, 12 August 1980.
  2. If so, is he able to confirm that the statement in the article that some problems were seen, attributed to a spokesman for his Department, was correctly reported.
  3. If the statement was correctly reported, what are those problems.
  4. Has his attention also been drawn to the statement in the article that last year the Government appeared to breach its own policy, by providing export incentive grants to 25 Australian manufacturers to take part in a trade fair in South Africa.
  5. If so, is he able to state (a) that those export incentive grants were made, (b) which Minister authorised the payment of those grants, (c) which companies were recipients, (d) what were the sums involved in each case and (e) what were the conditions attached to the grants.
  6. What was the Government’s official policy towards South Africa at the time those grants were made.
  7. Is the Government’s attitude towards South Africa in relation to trade between the two countries still the same as when those grants were made.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)Yes.

  1. The statement is an accurate, albeit incomplete, account of the spokesman’s remarks.
  2. In referring to the existence of ‘problems’ the spokesman was indicating that the matter was one which required consideration by the Government. As the article indicates officials are examining the request. They will advise the Government whether it is consistent with existing international trade, civil aviation and foreign relations policies.
  3. Yes.
  4. I am advised that grants in support of export promotion are provided for in the Export Market Development Grants Act, 1974. The Act makes no reference to the countries in which the market promotion takes place.

The Minister for Trade and Resources does not approve the payment of individual grants. This is the responsibility of the Export Development Grants Board. Under the legislation, the Minister is specifically precluded from directing the Board as to payments to individual companies.

I understand that to date no grants have been paid in respect of participation in a trade fair in South Africa in October last.

  1. The Australian Government has followed the policy of maintaining diplomatic relations with South Africa without allowing this to derogate from its total opposition to apartheid, which it has on many occasions made known to the South African Government.

Consistent with this policy, normal economic relations with South Africa have been allowed to continue but without avoidable official assistance. Accordingly,

  1. All governmental promotion of trade and investment in South Africa has ceased.
  2. Neither export insurance cover under ‘national interest’ provisions of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) Act, nor investment insurance, is available; further, EFIC has been advised that the provision of funds on concessional terms to support exports to South Africa would be against Government policy.
  3. Trade Commissioner activities at the Johannesburg Post are limited to the provision of basic marketing information and to the normal servicing of Australian exporters.

    1. The policy of the Government in relation to trade between Australia and South Africa remains as outlined above.

East Timor (Question No. 6373)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the publication Stop the Land Rovers, published by the Australia-East Timor Association of 33 Smith Street, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065.
  2. Has he received any representations regarding the Australian military aid program designed to supply 250 Land Rovers to Indonesia; if so, can he say what was the substance of those representations.
  3. Can he indicate whether there is any substance in the reports of fighting in East Timor as set out on page 2 of the publication referred to in part ( 1 ) under the heading Glimpses of the Timor War; if not, can he state what the current position is regarding continued fighting in East Timor, including (a) who the combatants are and (b) what (i) military and (ii) civilian casualties are being sustained.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I thank the honourable member for bringing this article to my attention.

  1. I have received correspondence from time to time expressing concern about and seeking explanations of aspects of our defence cooperation program with Indonesia.
  2. There remains some low level Fretilin activity, but information available to the Government from a variety of sources indicates that the Indonesian Government exercises effective control of the province. The Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Critchley, travelled widely in East Timor in May 1 980, and considered that the security situation in the areas visited appeared well in hand. We have no accurate figures for casualties in Timor, but because activity is now at a low level, we would expect casualties to be few.

Human Rights Bureau (Question No. 6398)

Mr West:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) Does article 25 of the 1 966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia signed in December 1972 and ratified in August 1980, guarantee universal and equal suffrage for every citizen.
  2. Did the Attorney-General, on 5 August 1980, establish within the Attorney-General’s Department the Human Rights Bureau, whose functions are, at the AttorneyGeneral’s request, to inquire into any federal infringements of the Covenant and, at the Attorney-General’s direction, to discuss relevant human rights issues with State authorities.
  3. Has the Attorney-General (a) requested the Bureau to inquire into federal laws on enrolment and voting by Aborigines and (b) directed the Bureau to discuss with Queensland and Western Australia their laws on enrolment and voting by Aborigines.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Article 25 of the Covenant provides, inter alia, that every citizen shall have the right and opportunity without unreasonable restrictions to vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and adult suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.
  2. On 5 August 1980 the Attorney-General established within the Attorney-General’s Department the Human Rights Bureau. One of the functions of the Bureau is, under the direction of the Attorney-General, to continue discussions with appropriate State authorities about co-operative arrangements and relevant issues in the Human Rights field.
  3. No. Should the Attorney-General receive a complaint that specific laws or practices of the Commonwealth concerning electoral matters infringe against the provisions of the Covenant, he will consider whether it is appropriate for such a complaint to be referred to the Bureau.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Question No. 6399)

Mr James:

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

  1. 1 ) Which Commonwealth countries have Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State.
  2. Which of these countries have (a) signed the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Australia signed in December 1972 and ratified in August 190 and (b) have declared, under article 41 of the Covenant, that they recognise the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider claims by a State party to the Covenant that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
  3. Does article 18 of the Covenant guarantee that (a) everyone shall have freedom to have or to adopt a religion of his choice and to manifest his religion and (b) no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion of his choice.
  4. Is he able to say whether any State parties to that Covenant have complained to the Human Rights Committee that another State party in the Commonwealth is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant in that the United Kingdom Act of Settlement of 1 701 precludes the Crown from adhering to a particular religion and precludes the heir to the Throne from marrying a person who adheres to that religion.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. and (2) A list of the countries concerned and their positions in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is provided in the attached table. It should be noted that signature of an international instrument, in contrast to ratification or accession, does not entail a legal obligation to implement the provisions of the instrument.
  2. Yes.
  3. No States party to the Covenant have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Committee on the ground suggested.

Snake Bite Kit (Question No. 6422)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1980:

Why is the development of a safe snake bit kit by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory, which also includes information enabling the species of snake concerned to be identified, not mentioned in his Press release No. 80/42 entitled Ban on unsafe snake bite kits.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

The press release which I issued in relation to the action taken in banning unsafe snake bite kits was not issued for the purpose of publicising specific kits which might provide methods in accordance with National Health and Medical Research Council endorsement for first aid treatment of snake bites. It was issued to publicise the ban which had been applied to the snake bite kits considered to be inappropriate and possibly dangerous.

State Parliaments (Question No. 6425)

Mr Jacobi:

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

  1. Can the Attorney-General say whether New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have enacted, in pursuance of Section 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, legislation for the purpose of requesting the Commonwealth to pass laws that will extinguish the colonial limitations which operate to restrict the legislative authority of the Parliaments of those States.
  2. Can the Attorney-General also state whether the titles of these Acts are (a) in New South Wales the Constitutional Powers (New South Wales) Act 1979 (Act No. 1 30 of 1978), (b) in Victoria the Constitutional Powers (Request) Act 1980, (Act No. 9408) and (c) in Tasmania the Constitutional Powers (Tasmania) Act 1979.
  3. If this legislation has been enacted, will the Government accede to the requests; if so, when.
  4. Is the Attorney-General able to say whether all States intend to make the same or similar requests.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 September 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800918_reps_31_hor119/>.