Senate
25 March 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 775

PETITIONS

Australian Capital Territory: Commissioner for Housing Loans

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of the Australian Capital Territory:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That the failure of the Government to honour its 1975 election promise that the existing Commissioner for Housing loans scheme would continue will cause widespread hardship among citizens of the Australian Capital Territory because:

It will cause financial difficulties for those who, in good faith, and believing the Government would keep its promise, have entered into contractual arrangements;

It will exacerbate the accommodation shortage in the Territory; and

It will exacerbate unemployment in the building and dependent industries.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should therefore impress upon the Government the need for:

Election promises to be adhered to, particularly where contractual arrangements and purchases have been made by private citizens as a result of such promises; and

The need for the continuance of Commissioner for Housing loans on the same basis as before the December 1975 election.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Children’s Commission Projects

Senator RYAN:

– I present the following petition from 53 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

The need for the continuation and extension of projects undertaken by or proposed to the Children’s Commission such as:

Australian National University Child Care Centre, Parents-on-Campus Co-operative Creche, Research Students Association Family Day Care Scheme, Spence Children’s Cottage, Bunbury Street Creche, Woden Family Day Care Scheme, Narrabundah Family Day Care Scheme at Marymead, Part-time co-ordinator of services for two Southside caravan parks, Neighbourhood Children’s Centre.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to make finance available to support and maintain these projects.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 775

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 775

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he recalls a telegram he sent as Minister for the Media to the Australian Broadcasting Commission House Committee at Gore Hill on 9 December last in which he said, amongst other things:

Our firm policy is non-interference in the affairs of the ABC. Independence from political control is something journalists have rightly fought for.

Does he also recall a reply by his colleague. Senator Carrick, last Tuesday to a question on the ABC? In that reply Senator Carrick said:

Independence in itself is not a goal. Those who talk of independence often seek license and that is fundamentally wrong.

I ask: How does the Minister rationalise those 2 statements and also how does he rationalise them with his own statement of yesterday in which he said: ‘The sooner the ABC is cleaned up the better’. Is it not a fact that it is now quite apparent that this Government proposes to ensure that the ABC becomes an agent of government policy and will no longer permit criticism of the Government by any of its staff?

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I have no difficulty at all over the statements which I have made and those made by my colleague, Senator Carrick. I reiterate that we believe that the Australian Broadcasting Commission must be independent, and it must report fairly and accurately. It is always somewhat interesting to me that the Opposition appears so touchy about the ABC. If ever there was a government that leant on the ABC it was the previous Government, and it was notorious for doing so. Our aim is to make the Australian Broadcasting Commission free and independent of pressures both from Governments and from Oppositions. That is our aim and that is what we intend to do. Over the last 3 years we saw enough of the manipulations, the attempted manipulations and the waste of taxpayers’ money in trying to prop up the worst government in the history of Australia.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is not consistent with your statement yesterday.

Senator WITHERS:

-That it was the worst government that Australia has ever seen and a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money? I believe that the ABC must be independent of both Government and Opposition and it may well be that it needs to be looked at to make certain it is independent.

page 776

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF CAR ENGINES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce seen reports in yesterday’s Press that Chrysler Australia Ltd may go it alone in the production of 4-cylinder car engines and have the backing of the South Australian Government? Following the recent announcement by General-Motors Holden ‘s Pty Ltd that it is also to produce a 4-cylinder car engine, can the Minister say what effect this latest decision will have on the proposed Australian- Japanese consortium to produce 4-cylinder car engines in Australia and also on the Australian content in locally produced cars, particularly in relation to suggestions that it be reduced to 85 per cent?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Yes, I did see the reference to this matter in the Press and I was surprised that yesterday nobody raised the matter with me. I would like to say one or two things. First of all, Chrysler Australia Ltd is an excellent company with which I have very good relationships and with which I have had a lot of very useful discussions. The company representatives paid me the courtesy of sending the whole of the detail through before they held their Press conference. The Press conference was held substantially to protect their own position against people who are trying by innuendo to create false positions. Therefore I think they are entitled to at least some defence from me. A report appeared in one newspaper which indicated that the company was perhaps having problems. The announcement we believe was mis-described as a last minute attempt to convince the Government that the company’s facilities should be used to produce 4-cylinder engines. It was nothing of the kind.

Senior executives of Chrysler visited the Department which I currently look after on the day before this announcement and they told me as well as the Department of the terms of their announcement and the reasons why it was wise to take this course of action. They explained that the company wished to counter damaging and incorrect speculation that if the Adelaide engine consortium does not eventuate the company will have no alternative means of obtaining a locally made 4-cylinder engine. Some ill-informed people have gone so far as to suggest that

Chrysler’s future as a manufacturer depends on the formation of an engine consortium. On earlier occasions similar speculation has apparently had an adverse effect on the company’s sales. In making its present announcement, the Chrysler company merely wishes to re-assure its dealers and the public in general that, while the proposed consortium is its first preference as a source of 4-cylinder engines, it does have well developed alternative plans to manufacture its own engines. It has many other options also available to it. As the Senate knows, the Government is in the process of reaching a total position on the motor vehicle industry and it is hoped that, in the process of doing that, there will bc proper room for everybody, including manufacturers, and that due regard will be had to the consumer interests in this country.

page 776

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Parliament of the progress to date on the land claims for the people on Victoria River Downs? Is it a fact that the claim made by the Aboriginal people for this land has been deferred indefinitely?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I am not able to provide any information immediately on the question that has been raised. I shall refer it to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and obtain the information required.

page 776

QUESTION

DEAKIN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I must confess that I am not a reader of the Melbourne Sun; I am unaware of the Press report. However, I will seek the information sought in the first part of the question from my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As to the other parts of the question, I think that I ought to refer those to my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. They are matters of a technical nature and, no doubt, he has officers within his Department who can supply that information. I shall seek thai for the honourable senator.

page 777

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. In view of the Government’s decision embodied in the statement put down by the Minister on Tuesday last to the effect that persons in receipt of unemployment benefit are now required to lodge their income statements personally with the Commonwealth Employment Office each fortnight, I ask the Minister: What provisions have been made by the Government to assist unemployed persons residing in outlying areas where there are no suitable transport facilities in fulfilling these requirements?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As has formerly applied, those people who live in remote areas orin areas where transport is unavailable will not be required to attend personally with their fortnightly statements.

page 777

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Construction. Does the Minister recall that I asked him a question last Thursday concerning alleged economy cuts in the Northern Territory civil works program? Did the Minister undertake to seek some additional information from his colleague for me? Is the Minister in a position to advise me of the result of his inquiries?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– The question concerning the Northern Territory civil works program has been raised in the Senate previously. I undertook to have this matter made clear during this week. The honourable senator will be aware that yesterday a statement, directly relating to this matter, was made by the Minister for Construction in another place, the Hon. J. E. McLeay, M.P. I refer the honourable senator and other interested persons to that statement which, in part, reads:

The position is that the total value of Capital Works for Civil Departments deferred until the next financial year for the whole of Australia is $137m. Expenditure in the current financial year is $6m less than would have occurred if no civil works had been deferred and is, in fact, Sim higher than the amount provided for in the Budget. This has to be seen in the context of a total publicly funded program for Australia of $2,000m.

The Government, in addition to its commitments and expenditure on the Civil Works Programme throughout Australia earlier this month, approved an additional $ 1 2.5 m as a special allocation for works for the Darwin Reconstruction Commission in the Darwin area for the remainder of this financial year. The value of works for the rest of the Territory which has been deferred is $52m and all these deferments are currently under Government examination . . .

There is still a carry-over of work in the Darwin area of $200m and a similar carry-over in the rest of the Territory of $37m. This is the particular area under Government examination and the priorities for new work commencements ure now being considered.

I say to the honourable senator that the Minister’s statement arose out of a question which the honourable senator raised last week. I hope that the reading of that statement will satisfy him.

page 777

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: STAFF RESTRICTIONS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, concerns the effect that the present staff restrictions are having on the efficiency of her Department. Have regional officers of her Department expressed concern at the effect of the restrictions on the efficiency of the various officers? Is the ability of her Department to investigate and supervise social security matters being adversely affected? Are some regional offices having difficulty in getting pensions and other benefits to beneficiaries on time? Will the Minister inquire into the effects of these staff restrictions and report to the Senate on any action which she may consider necessary?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It will be understood that regional offices of my Department have different functions. Some of them provide almost a full range of services, while others supply somewhat limited services. It has been brought to my attention that there are some difficulties with regard to staff restrictions. For instance, it is understood that in a regional office which had 3 typists, two of whom have left, there would be difficulties. State directors are overcoming whatever difficulties they are facing. If there is any information which will give more details, on which I can report after I have examined the question from the honourable senator, I shall do so. All officers of the Department are maintaining the services as required. They are making whatever adjustments are necessary within the Government’s decision with regard to reduction of staff.

page 777

QUESTION

COUNSELLING OF SMALL BUSINESSES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce considered utilising the skills of prematurely retired or retrenched executives for the counselling of small businesses in Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-Yes, I have. The area about which the honourable senator is asking is of interest in the Australian society. People who retire and who have immense skill and ability very seldom use that in any way on advisory or consultancy bases. I have felt for quite a long time that in Australia there is a solid case for making much better use of the ability of people who have retired at a reasonable age, or a little earlier than they might otherwise have wished, in the decision making and advisory processes. One of the things we are looking at in this area of small business counselling is access to this sort of ability. Another is a concerted program of consultation between ourselves and the States to make sure that we work closely together in the area of trying to assist small business.

page 778

QUESTION

ALLEGED RAID ON INSURANCE OFFICE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Police. By way of preface I point out that honourable senators will recall the great headlines in the Press and the mock consternation of honourable senators opposite regarding the activities of the Commonwealth Police in tracking down a dangerous group of neo-fascist guerillas operating in and out of Australia and Yugoslavia in the past. Will the Minister inform the Senate why the Commonwealth Police raided the office and seized the books of a Melbourne insurance group last Friday? Is this the start of an Australia-wide investigation into the insurance industry? If this information, as reported in last Saturday’s edition of the Melbourne Age is correct, did the instructions to raid the insurance office come from the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Police or the Attorney-General? Will the Minister table a full report on this unusual intrusion into a hitherto protected industry?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I also do not read the Melbourne Age so I am unaware of the report. I have no desire to be misinformed like most honourable senators opposite. I do not know whether the Commonwealth Police raided the office of an insurance company. I will seek information for the honourable senator. I trust that if the information turns out not to be as Senator O ‘Byrne alleges he will apologise to the Commonwealth Police.

page 778

QUESTION

BALL BEARING INDUSTRY

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He will bc aware of the difficult position in which the ball bearing factory of SKF Australia (Sales) Pty Ltd in Echuca in Victoria has been placed by the Cabinet’s acceptance of the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendation that quotas be lifted on the importation of Echuca type ball bearings. This factory is the only complete manufacturer of ball bearings in Australia. The company is concerned that the collection and publication of import statistics is very slow and that there could be a flood of ball bearings, similar to that which occurred in 1974 and early 1975, without the Government or the industry being aware of it for some months. Can the Minister take some action to improve the position regarding the collection and publication of these statistics?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I know something of this matter and I may be able to help the honourable senator. One of the problems we always have in Australia in the decision making process is that we rely upon statistics which tend to be published rather late. The latest figures available on import clearances for ball bearings are those for the September quarter of 1975. Normally, further information becomes available within six weeks to eight weeks of the publication of the previous figures. It is not as easy to speed up these statistical processes as honourable senators might imagine. It is desirable to do so, but for a long time there have been problems in Australia in reducing the time lag in regard to the publication of official statistics. I think last year or the year before a proposal was put forward by the then Government to speed up the collection of statistics and to bring the process into a more modern era. The then Opposition-I think I led for the Opposition in the debate- supported that proposal very warmly, and we still support it. My Department, on the other hand, carries out its own continuous check process in an effort to monitor the situations which appear to present some problems. Therefore, in that context, I am able to make some comments.

In the IAC report to which Senator Tehan referred the Commission stated that it had no evidence to support the view that imports would increase significantly in the short term. As I have mentioned, the Government is watching this area closely. If the demand were to rise very quickly, we would take whatever action we considered necessary, consistent with our attitude to try to help the industry. When the Government receives the further detailed report on long term measures for the ball bearing industry from the IAC some time later this year, it will consider the question of full long term assistance.

page 779

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Il relates to the Australian planter, Mr Rex Sydell, a former resident of East Timor. At present he is in Indonesia. He has recently alleged, amongst other things, that he was maltreated by Fretilin soldiers, that arms have been sent from Australia to Fretilin forces in East Timor and that Fretilin soldiers, and not Indonesian soldiers, were responsible for the death of 5 Australian journalists on 5 October last year. Will the Minister confirm that it is within the knowledge of the Government that Mr Sydell is and has been for 2 years a paid agent of the Indonesian Government?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I can neither confirm nor deny it. I will have to seek that information from my colleague, Mr Peacock.

page 779

QUESTION

MEDIBANK CARDS

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I preface it by reminding the Minister that on 23 March I asked her to explain to the Senate why the term ‘given name’ is used on Medibank forms and not Christian name ‘. In her reply the Minister said:

  1. . there are within Australia people who would not recognise the term ‘ Christian name ‘.

Whilst some people could be offended by that term, other people like myself who are professing Christians would be offended if they were asked to use the term ‘given name’ rather that Christian name’. Therefore I ask the Minister whether she will have a look at the proposition that on cards or forms that have to be filled in the term ‘Christian names/given names’ is used so that no one will be offended.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The substance of the question is something that could be subjected to examination and I will undertake to do so.

page 779

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL VISIT TO NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface it by reminding him that last Tuesday he told my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland that recently he went to New Zealand to have discussions with the New Zealand Government and that the head of his Department, the Minister’s private secretary and the Minister’s wife accompanied him. I now ask: Did the Minister return to Australia through Norfolk Island? Were he and his party there joined by the Minister’s Press secretary? If so, in view of the economic stringencies now being imposed by this Government on other sections of the Public Service, will the Minister explain the necessitous circumstances that required his Press secretary to join him and his party in Norfolk Island?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I can well understand that the honourable senator does not care 2 hoots about what happens to the people on Norfolk Island. I gathered while I was there that the people were delighted by my visit, including one of the councillors over there who is well known to honourable senators opposite- Mr Ab Bathie- who has been a long time supporter of the Opposition party and a dedicated lifelong worker for it. We were welcomed and received nothing but kindness from the people on the island covering a wide political spectrum. I deliberately requested my Press secretary to go to Norfolk Island because I thought that it was important that he also should understand the views of the community, their wants and their needs. After all, there is a media system on the island which is struggling to remain in existence. He was able to talk to the local journalists and to the people running the local radio station. Norfolk Island is almost 1000 miles away from the Australian mainland. It is a magnificent community. I make no apology at all for taking my Press secretary with me.

page 779

QUESTION

FILMING OF TASMANIA TATTOO

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunciations. Can the Minister inform the chamber whether there is any further information regarding the question I asked on 26 February about the filming of the military tattoo in Tasmania by the Australian Broadcasting Commission? I believe that at the moment the Tasmanian Government film unit is filming the tattoo very successfully. As this function is proving to be an outstanding success it seems a pity that the whole of Australia could be denied the opportunity to view it later.

Senator CARRICK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I am able to give the Senate and the honourable senator some information. Following upon her question my colleague, the Minister, contacted the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and I have before me a letter from which I will read the 2 relevant paragraphs:

You may care to advise Senator Carrick that the organisers of the Tasmania Military Tattoo were informed verbally on Friday 20 February last, and in writing on 26

February, that the ABC could not proceed with plans to telecast an evening performance of the Tattoo because of severe technical difficulties- principally the problem of inadequate lighting. We would not have been able to achieve a production standard at night that would have been in the best interests of either the ABC or the Tattoo organisers. These technical difficulties have been frequently pointed out to the organisers since the project was first mooted in February last year. The ABC has consistently pointed out the technical problems to the organisers and rejects suggestions of a ‘lastminute ‘ withdrawal. In fact, we are disappointed that technical considerations make a coverage of the Tattoo at night impractical.

However, since Senator Walters’ question in the Senate, the organisers of the Tattoo have announced a special daytime performance for children on Friday, 26 March. We are most interested in this and have re-opened negotiations with the organisers with a view to producing a thirty minute television program from the afternoon presentation (when there should be no lighting problems) for later transmission.

page 780

QUESTION

CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO ADVERTISING

Senator MCINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the Minister’s reply to a question asked in another place about cigarette and tobacco advertising and the proposed uniform legislation to ban such advertising, could the Minister explain to the Senate how she reconciles such action with subsidies given to the tobacco growing industry?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is not within my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Health to need to justify the subsidies that are given to tobacco growers in this country. As far as any announcement with regard to radio and television advertising of cigarettes and tobacco is concerned, the Minister for Health has made his statements. The reference to the proposed legislation relates to the fact that the State Ministers for Health at their meeting in 1975 agreed to work towards some uniformity of legislation in this matter. I am unable to justify or to reconcile the 2 matters which have been referred to by the honourable senator.

page 780

QUESTION

DEATH DUTIES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns death duties. The Minister may recall that an article appeared in the Australian newspaper some days ago written by an eminent journalist, Max Jessop, which indicated that the Queensland Government would abolish death duties in the next State Budget. Can the Minister state the Federal Government’s attitude to the abolition of Federal death duties? What is the estimated revenue that will be derived by the Commonwealth during the current financial year from that source? Can the Minister give me an estimation of the costs involved in collecting this sum of money?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am not one to quarrel with the eminence of the Jessops, wherever one may find them. A very interesting report on the abolition of death duties was produced by a Senate Committee a couple of years ago in which the revenue derived from death duties and the cost of collecting death duties was fairly well tabulated. Senator Gietzelt was the Chairman of that Committee. It may be recalled by those who followed the work of the Committee that Senator Guilfoyle, former Senator Lawrie and myself made a minority report in which we said that we thought it would be worth while for the Commonwealth to abdicate the field. As far as I remember, the revenue yield from the tax is about $70m to $75m in a year, depending on who dies or the level of estates in that year. As to the question of whether the Commonwealth will abdicate the field and if it did so, what its consequential action might be, I cannot answer that. This is really a policy question. It is also a Budget question and one cannot answer questions in those areas. I understand the concern of the honourable senator and, indeed, of a great many Australians. I think that the matter is still worth looking into.

page 780

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate which follows from a reply he gave early this morning to a question from my colleague, Senator Wriedt. Do I understand from his reply to Senator Wriedt ‘s question this morning that he still asserts, as he did yesterday, that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is full of Australian Labor Party supporters and has been pumping out Labor Party propaganda year in and year out, and that that is not a matter of opinion but a matter of notoriety? If so, will the Minister give the Senate details of some of the alleged notorious instances? Is his allegation intended by him to be an attack upon the professional integrity of journalists and others in the employ of the ABC? Is it also a most severe condemnatory attack on the efficiency of senior executives and management of the ABC? Docs the Minister intend raising any specific complaint with the Ethics Committee of the Australian Journalists Association or with the Senior Staff Officers Association of the ABC?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday.

page 781

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns the new superannuation scheme for Commonwealth public servants. I refer particularly to those people who presently contribute to the Provident Account and are not pan of the general pension scheme. Can the Minister say what effect the new scheme will have on Provident Account contributors? Can the Minister indicate in general terms whether the new scheme includes special provisions to cover the interests of people who currently contribute to the Provident Account?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I have a general base paper from the Treasury on the question of the Provident Account contributors. I will endeavour to extract from that paper sufficient material to answer the honourable senator’s question. If it is not sufficient, the question will have been monitored in my office and we will supply data from the Treasury to back up the information that is provided here. I understand that there will be no provident account under the new superannuation arrangements that will come into effect on 1 July and that all the present Provident Fund contributors will transfer to the new scheme. As announced on 25 February 1976, these contributors will qualify for the full government financed pension of 50 per cent of final salary on retirement at age 65 years after 20 years contributory service and will be eligible for the additional pension for more than 30 years contributory service in the same way as other contributors. The advantages to Provident Account contributors, as they are listed here, are: Firstly, access to pension benefits, the government element of which will be updated; secondly, very much better benefits on age or invalidity retirement or death; thirdly, full benefit on retirement after 20 years contributory service; and, fourthly, retention of the right to take a full lump sum benefit on the present basis. If the honourable senator would like additional information, we can check it out after question time and get more detail from the Treasury.

page 781

QUESTION

EDUCATION COMMISSIONS

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Minister will appreciate that parents and teachers are concerned about the fate of the commissions set up by the Labor Government, particularly the Schools Commission. It is understood that the operation of these commissions is being investigated by Sir Harry Bland. Will the Minister indicate whether, as part of the system of open government favoured by the present Government, the findings of the Bland Committee will be made public and subjected to public debate before being implemented?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will have to seek that information for the honourable senator from the Prime Minister.

page 781

QUESTION

RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Has the Minister seen comments by the chairman of the Australian Telecommunications Commission that it is hoped that by the year 2000 every home will have a telephone and that the invention of the telephone has brought a new dimension to business and social life in the 20th century? Do such comments apply to the rural areas of Australia? Will country people have to wait until the year 2000 before their applications for telephones are serviced without long waiting periods before installation? When can it be expected that some relief will be given to country applicants who presently are required to pay many hundreds of dollars, and in some cases thousands of dollars, in installation charges?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I did note the statement which arose out of a publication called Telecom 2000, a planning report issued by Telecom Australia. I am delighted to tell the honourable senator that my understanding is that the report says that it does apply to the rural areas. So that answers the first part of his question. In the second part of his question the honourable senator asked whether people in rural areas will have to wait until the year 2000 before their applications for telephones are serviced without long waiting periods before installation. As I understand the situation and am advised, Telecom is making strong efforts to reduce the waiting time on installations and that in the current financial year -1975-76- Telecom has the specific aim of reducing by 10 per cent the average delay in installations. I am informed that it has been able to achieve this substantially. As to the third part of the question, the installation charges will bc considered, of course, in the Budget context when the Australian Telecommunications Commission presents its business plan to the Government.

page 781

QUESTION

YUGOSLAV IMMIGRANTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question which can be fielded by either the Minister representing the Attorney-General or the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. By way of preface, I refer to a deputation from the Sydney Yugoslav community which I introduced to the AttorneyGeneral several weeks ago and which expressed concern about certain rising pressures developing from the actions of a small right wing group from the Croatian section of the Yugoslav community at large, which was epitomised by certain incidents at the Olympic Park in Melbourne and at the Sydney Sports Ground. It is in that context that I ask: When can we have an indication as to the Government’s determination to curb such lawlessness? I refer to the case of a man named Suljak, who is serving a non-parole period of a sentence for violence. The judge, when sentencing Suljak, indicated that he should be dispatched from Australia at the end of his sentence because he neither sought nor possesses Australian citizenship?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · VICTORIA · LP

– I ask the honourable senator to put his question on the notice paper.

page 782

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF CAR ENGINES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and refers to the discussions on the 4- cylinder engine consortium raised earlier today by Senator Young. I ask: Has the Minister noted the section of the statement by Chrysler Australia Ltd which says that timing is a crucial factor and that Chrysler cannot afford to lose much more time? Is the Press reference that the Government will make an announcement about this matter on 3 1 March correct? If not, can the Minister give any information relating to any possible announcement?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-It will be recalled in my favour, I think, that very early in my administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce I said that I was seeking to get some clarity and definition in relation to the whole of the Australian motor vehicle industry and its plans for the future and that with that in mind I would try to have the matter concluded by 3 1 March. The work of the Department in this area was completed by late February or early March. It involved consultation by the Department with practically everybody in the industry and in many cases with some of the unions. That would therefore then go into the process of Government consideration, which is where it is now. I expect the timetable of the end of March to be very close to being fulfilled.

page 782

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF CAR ENGINES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question follows the earlier questions concerning the manufacture in Australia of a 4-cylinder engine and also the point made in Senator Davidson’s question. Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce say whether the announcement yesterday by the managing director of Chrysler Australia Ltd has in fact created a new situation? He is reported to have said that if necessary Chrysler will go it alone and manufacture its own engine requirements irrespective of what General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd does. Can I take it from what the Minister has stated that this is in no way likely to impede his report to the Government? I also ask, as Senator Davidson asked, whether the Minister can in fact say that the decision will now be made about 3 1 March.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I do not think that I need to repeat the answer that I gave to Senator Davidson’s question to the extent that Senator Bishop’s question covers the same area. I do not think that the Chrysler announcement has altered the scene in any way. What it has done is put some clarity into the position, as against all kinds of conjectures and rumours from other people misconstruing Chryslers’ position and, indeed, trying to misconstrue the Government’s position. I have said before and I say it again that the Chrysler organisation is a very worthwhile organisation and it has done a damned good job in this country. I hope to obtain from all this a situation which will be satisfactory for everybody concerned. The basic overall problem is that the motor vehicle industry in Australia has been suffering from fairly slack total growth. But that is not a problem of the motor vehicle industry alone. It is a problem of a country that has been going backwards economically.

page 782

QUESTION

DEATH OF VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Leader of the Government and honourable senators will be aware of the death of Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery. The contribution of this famous soldier to the allied cause during World War 1 1 and his association with the Australian forces is well known; indeed, it is almost legendary. Would the Minister feel it appropriate to place in the records of this chamber acknowledgment of the contribution of this great soldier to the cause of free peoples?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am aware that the death of Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery has just occurred. I think that all honourable senators would agree with the remarks made by Senator Scott. The suggestion made by the honourable senator that something should be done within the Senate chamber interests me. Perhaps I could leave it at this: I shall discuss the matter with the Leader of the Opposition and with you, Mr President, and shall report to the Senate on the matter later.

page 783

QUESTION

PENSION PAYMENTS TO BANKS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Would the Minister for Social Security advise the Senate whether it is possible for pension payments to be paid directly into savings bank accounts? If some savings banks will not at present accept payments of pensions direct into payees’ accounts, would the Minister be willing to make representations to those banks to see whether they will agree to making such a service available to pensioners?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is possible for pension payments to be paid directly into savings bank accounts and several savings banks have agreed to accept payments of this nature. Other savings banks have not yet advised that they are willing to enter into such an arrangement. But certainly it is a matter that could be the subject of further examination, investigation and consultation. I shall undertake to do that and to ensure that if there is any difficulty from a departmental point of view which could be overcome this will be undertaken to provide this additional service to pensioners in Australia.

page 783

QUESTION

PRICE OF PETROL IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask Senator Greenwood as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: Did an announcement come yesterday from the Prices Justification Tribunal indicating that there was to be an alteration in the retail price of petrol in New South Wales? Is this alteration in fact going to be a reduction in the price of petrol and can the Minister indicate the circumstances surrounding this reduction?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I did notice a comment which appeared in one of the newspapers indicating that the Prices Justification Tribunal had announced that there was to be a reduction in the price of petrol in New South Wales. I am not sure how it is that the Prices Justification Tribunal announces reductions but I suppose it is an indication of the pervasive influence of one of those creations of the former Government that not only is the Tribunal concerned with price increases and their justification but also it is concerned with price reductions. I am quite sure that the people of New South Wales will welcome the price reduction which, I think, is of approximately 10c a gallon in the major city areas. I understand that the reduction is due to the fact that a petrol tax which was imposed by the New South Wales Government because of the financial restraints and stringencies imposed upon it by the previous Labor Government has now been lifted. I think Sir Eric Willis said that he had been looking forward to the time when he could lift the tax. I imagine that he lifted it because he looks forward with optimism and expectation to the continuance in office of a government which is more conscious of its responsibilities to all the people of Australia, particularly those of New South Wales, than the previous Government.

page 783

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 1 refer to the Prime Minister’s electoral broadcast of 21 March in which he stated that the Government was studying a system for personal tax indexation. He went on to say that this would stop a government raising its revenue without telling the people what it was doing and so would make governments honest again. He said that if governments want to raise taxation they will have to say so. I ask: Is it not a very simple exercise to adjust a taxation schedule to offset any rate of inflation? If so, will the Government fully index personal taxation in the 1 976 Budget? If not, why not?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I thought Senator Walsh would have been here long enough to know that Ministers do not answer questions about what the Budget will or will not contain.

page 783

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security, but it might be better directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that some invalids are debarred from receiving an invalid pension due to the income of their spouse and because the invalid, who might be very badly incapacitated, does not receive the invalid pension the invalid ‘s spouse cannot claim a housekeeper as a taxation deduction. Will the Minister examine the taxation legislation and see whether it can be amended so that a housekeeper can be claimed as a tax deduction in cases such as I have mentioned?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I think this question would be more directly related to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It is a fact that my Department applies a means test to determine whether a person receives a pension, but the taxation deductibility of a housekeeper or spouse for that matter is a matter for the Treasurer. Perhaps my colleague, the Minister representing the Treasurer, may wish to comment.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I would like to join forces with my attractive colleague and help the honourable senator. Yes, it is principally a Treasury matter. All these areas are matters for consideration in the context of the total expenditure and the revenue patterns that have to be considered in a Budget situation. It is not possible to pre-empt those considerations by making decisions ahead of that time, but it is possible to put the honourable senator’s viewpoint and the problem that he raises to the Treasurer and to the Taxation Office for consideration at the time, and that will be done.

page 784

QUESTION

MINING ON ABORIGINAL LAND

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether she will inquire into the decision of the Queensland Premier to send the Queensland Ombudsman to Aurukun to arrange agreement for mining on the Aboriginal reserve? Is this visit to take place this week while all Aboriginal leaders are at Gove studying the effects of bauxite mining on Aboriginal lands? Will the Minister act upon the powers given to the Federal Government by referendum in 1967 to take responsibility for Aboriginal communities and not leave them to the mercy of an unsympathetic State government and the various mining interests?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of the situation that has been outlined by the honourable senator. I will refer the question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I am quite sure that he will fulfil whatever responsibility he understands he has with regard to Aboriginal concerns in this country.

page 784

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of reports which are critical of Government policies or its Ministers currently being presented in newspapers, as distinct from similar criticisms Senator Withers believes are from time to time orchestrated by Labor supporters within the Australian Broadcasting Commission, does the honourable senator believe the newspaper journalists who have written articles such as are contained in this morning’s Age and Australian Financial Review are similarly motivated because they are supporters of the Labor Party?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have said in this place before that silly questions often deserve sensible answers, but I think not even this question falls within that category.

page 784

QUESTION

CHAIRMEN OF PARTY COMMITTEES

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. By way of preface I inform the Minister that I was advised this morning that the Government has established a Chairmen of Committees Committee chaired by Senator Chaney. As a consequence I ask: What effect will the Chairmen of Committees Committee have on the workability of the committees in the existing committee system? Would it be correct to assume that the purpose of the Chairmen of Committees Committee is to centralise the control of all committees in order to ensure that committees do not probe too closely into areas which may be an embarrassment to the Government?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

- Mr President -

Senator O’Byrne:

– Do not be witty now.

Senator WITHERS:

– No, no. I was just going to give the Senate a few facts. As I understand the private member committee system which operates within the Government Parties, it was devised by a committee of backbenchers. As I recall it- Senator Missen was on the committee and Senator Chaney, its Chairman, is not here at the moment- I do not think any members of the Ministry or the Cabinet were on that committee at all. I think that is right. The fact that -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Who selected the personnel?

Senator WITHERS:

-They selected themselves. They were selected by the back bench.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They were volunteers, not conscripts.

Senator WITHERS:

– They were volunteers; they were not dragooned.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You have learnt from one of the Labor Party’s ideas.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Gietzelt says that we have learnt from the Labor Party. Wc could learn nothing from the Labor Party. Wc have been running committees like these for years, and years and years- and very successfully, too. That is why we stay in government for so long. It was from the committee of private members that the suggestion came that the chairmen of the various committees ought to meet occasionally to swap ideas and to co-ordinate their activities. The honourable senator perhaps sees something sinister in that. But I recall- I think it was under the presidency of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack- that the chairman of various Senate Committees used to meet occasionally on an informal basis in the President’s office, again to have an exchange of information. I understand that it has been the situation for a long time that the Senate secretariat staff meet on some sort of regular basis, again for the exchange of information. Why the honourable senator should think that there is something unusual about the chairmen of the various Government Parties’ committees getting together and having an exchange of views on an informal basis bewilders me. All I can suggest is that she might put the proposition to Caucus, and perhaps it will start acting like a Party instead of a rabble.

page 785

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT: COURT PROCEEDINGS

Senator RYAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. It relates to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 8 March 1976. The article reports the decision taken by the Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, to take no further action in the Garland case. The article claims:

Legal advisers- some of them in Mr Ellicott ‘s Departmentfeel that Mr KilduffS.M. erred in discharging Mr R. V. Garland and Mr George Branson last week.

Can the Minister inform the Senate whether this newspaper report is true or false? If it is true, why did the Attorney-General decide to take no further action?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think that this matter should be placed in proper perspective by referring to what the Attorney-General himself said and not what some newspaper report interprets him as saying or alleges he said. The Attorney-General has indicated quite clearly that he did not receive any advice from any senior officer of his Department, or from the Secretary of his Department or from the SolicitorGeneral suggesting that the magistrate had erred in this case; indeed, he had spoken to one of the counsel who had prosecuted the case, and that counsel had said that the magistrate had acted consistently with section 9 1 of the ordinance. In those circumstances, I find the honourable senator’s persistence in trying to hound a man who has been discharged quite remarkable. It indicates, if I might say so, that what the Labor Party once valued as one of its great attributes- a degree of mateship and not dobbing another fellow in- is completely absent from this Labor Party.

page 785

QUESTION

GROWTH CENTRE PROGRAM

Senator GIETZELT:

– Did the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, indicate at the dinner of the Urban Development Institute that the Australian Government would withdraw from the growth centre program which had the support of both Houses of the Parliament and ail Parties over the last 3 years? If the Minister has been reported correctly, does not the Government find itself in conflict with the New South Wales and Victorian Governments, both of which have expressed a desire to see a continued Federal involvement in growth centres? Does not this new attitude show that the Government’s so-called federalism policy is now being developed in conflict with State interests and wishes?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have seen the report in today’s Press of remarks I made at a dinner on Monday night. The report is inaccurate and it misreports what I said. It is a mixture of falsity and misrepresentation of which, unfortunately, the Australian Financial Review is showing increasing signs in recent days. Let me indicate one area in which it made some misinterpretation. The article stated that I had signified the end of the Federal Government’s involvement in growth centre development. Then it went on to state:

Although Senator Greenwood skirted around specifically referring to growth centres, his comments came immediately after those of Sir Eric Willis about the centres.

The fact is that at the meeting I was not asked anything about growth centres. I was asked one question, I imagine as a courtesy because I was present. The speaker for the evening was Sir EricWillis. I said a few words about the Government’s federalism policy and urban affairs. 1 did not mention anything whatsoever about growth centres. Why, in those circumstances, a journalist regards my remarks as signifying the end of Federal Government involvement is beyond me. The fact is that the Government is considering the whole matter of decentralised development, which includes growth centres. This is not a study upon which I can give a finite answer readily. We are determined that in this area we will make an exhaustive examination of the whole matter. When that examination is finished, we will be able to make a specific statement. I regret to say that the newspaper account is wrong.

page 785

QUESTION

SUPPORTING MOTHERS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– Does the Minister for Social Security accept that in the community there are many women who are bringing up children on their own and who, at the moment, arc struggling to make ends meet on the supporting mother’s benefit? Does she accept that many of these women have no current qualifications which would lead to constant employment at a wage which would enable them to bring up their children in a life-style similar to that of the majority of the rest of the community? Does the Minister accept that there are many women who are not receiving supporting mother’s benefit but whose domestic circumstances are such that they also need qualifications to enable them to earn a living that will cover the responsibilities, which they have taken on, of raising a family? Does she agree that, for the greater good of the community and for the good of the persons involved, it is better for people to be independent than to be receiving frugal handouts from governments? If the Minister agrees with all or part of these propositions will she endeavour to have her Government design a scheme of training which is not tied to the normal pros and cons of assets owned, pensions received or domestic arrangements, but is based on personal circumstances, so that the community at large may benefit from the greater harmony in so many homes in the community, from the greater dignity of the individual and from the expertise which would then be made available to the community?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Most of what has been said by the honourable senator is consistent with the Government’s attitude towards the independence of the individual in whatever circumstances he or she may find himself or herself. What has been suggested with regard to training programs for supporting mothers or for other women who have family responsibilities is also consistent with our attitude towards the personal development of the individual with the opportunity to take part in the mainstream of activity in our community. I shall examine the suggestion which has been made by the honourable senator. It is quite consistent with the philosophy of the Liberal Party.

page 786

QUESTION

WAGES POLICY

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Prime Minister been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review by Anthony Hill entitled: ‘GMH breaks with wage policy: Fraser angry’? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the statement in that article that the private agreement reached with the unions concerned is outside the wage indexation guidelines and that the Government is also concerned to try to prevent a flow-on of the GMH agreement to private awards negotiated by both the Ford Motor Company of Australia and Chrysler Australia Ltd. Despite what the Prime Minister said today in another place, do inquiries by him reveal the article is totally false? Do further inquiries reveal that the agreement was based on the catch-up provisions which were within the wage indexation guidelines, that the agreement was made to rectify a situation in which all employees in the whole motor vehicle industry, except those at GMH were receiving the increased rates, and, that the increases will have no effect within the industry or on the wage policy generally? Will the Minister investigate the question whether false information was supplied by an officer of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to Mr Anthony Hill in an effort to set up this Government in an unnecessary confrontation?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The question asked by the honourable senator is very interesting. If what he alleges is true, it is a most serious matter. Therefore, I will take up his question with the Prime Minister and seek an early reply for him.

page 786

TASMANIAN TRANSPORT INQUIRY

Report and Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-( Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate)- For the information of honourable senators I table the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania. The report was presented to the Governor-General by Commissioner J. F. Nimmo, C.B.E., on 8 March. I seek leave to make a statement concerning the report.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WITHERS:

-In broad terms the Commission’s report seeks to increase, for the State of Tasmania, the efficiency of shipping and associated services including port usage. It proposes the provision of direct financial assistance to those producers and persons who are disadvantaged because of Tasmania’s separation from the mainland. Some of the major findings and recommendations are that:

  1. While recognising that port development has outstripped user demand it would be uneconomic to close any of the five major Tasmanian ports. Provision should be made for closer coordination of development in the future;
  2. Government owned and operated services should raise their charges as quickly as possible to an economic level. This should be done in the interests of their own efficiency and to remove the unfair competition with private operators which currently occurs because of subsidisation;

  3. feasibility studies should be carried out as soon as possible of:

    1. a pure roll on-roll off service between Melbourne and Northern Tasmania:
    2. a rail ferry service between Westernport Bay and Devonport;
    3. a fast passenger service between Westernport Bay and Burnie;
  4. The Commonwealth Government offer direct financial assistance to Tasmanian consignors of specified goods bought for use or exported for sale on the mainland;
  5. The Commonwealth Government offer financial assistance to persons travelling between Melbourne and King and Flinders Islands.

The report will be the subject of examination and appropriate consultation after which the Government will be in a position to decide on the action to be taken on the Commission’s recommendations. Printing of bulk copies of the report will be completed in about 3 weeks. In the meantime, I also seek leave to table a summary of the principal findings and recommendations taken from Chapter 2 of the report. I ask that this extract be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO TRANSPORT TO AND FROM TASMANIA

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commission’s recommendations are brought together in this Chapter. They are preceded by a summary of the principal findings on which many of the recommendations have been based.

1 Summary of Principal Findings

The Commission’s Advisers, Canadian Pacific Consulting Services, commented favourably on the efficiency of the organisation and operations of the freight forwarders who arrange the door-to-door movement, and frequently the consolidation, of non-bulk goods between Tasmania and the mainland. This is a very competitive business, and mainland-based freight forwarders told the Commission that profits on their Tasmanian operations are relatively low. It was found that efficiency could be improved by reducing the variety of cargo units in use, and by speeding up the turnround of these units.

Road transport in Tasmania is efficiently organised to carry the goods moving interstate.

The efficiency of aspects of the administration and operation of some shipping and stevedoring services could be improved. Industrial stoppages have increased ship operating costs. It was widely accepted that Tasmanians suffer no appreciable financial disadvantage from the movement of goods in bulk by sea. The economic viability of privately owned shipping lines is being threatened by the subsidies being paid to the ANL and the TTC. The costs of operating the ANL’s passenger vessel the ‘Empress of Australia’ and the TTC’s ‘Straitsman’ are so high as to suggest that these vessels are inefficient for the purposes for which they ure being used. The shortest practicable sea route for moving persons between Victoria and northern Tasmania was found to be Westernport-Burnie. For goods, the shortest practicable route would seem to be Westernport-Devonport.

There has been some over-investment in berths and other facilities at some ports in Tasmania relative to the volume of non-bulk cargo expected to bc moving through the ports for some years to come. Some berths have a very low utilisation. This has caused wharfage rates and other port charges in Tasmania to be amongst the highest in Australia. There has been a failure to co-ordinate the new investment proposals of the Tasmanian Marine Boards.

With existing vessels, and vessels on order, the most economic means of moving goods by sea between the mainland and places in northern and north-western Tasmania will be by the continued use of the ports of Bell Bay, Devonport and Burnie. The port of Hoban also has an essential role to play in the interstate movement of general cargo.

The services provided by the Tasmanian Railways to carry goods moving interstate were found to be less than efficient, due to the rundown state of the track, the continuing use of obsolete equipment and a failure to rationalise freight operations.

The Commission gained the impression that Tasmanian exporters who moved their goods by air pay charges that are no higher, and probably lower, than the charges for moving similar goods by air over comparable distances on the mainland.

Investigation of the comparative economic cost of moving goods over various routes and by alternative transport modes between Hobart and Melbourne revealed that the direct sea movement was cheaper and more efficient than by a combined sea-road or sea-rail movement.

The Commission found that the average door-to-door charge in the March quarter 1975 for the surface movement, north and south, of almost every non-bulk good between places in Tasmania and places on the mainland was higher than the charge for moving similar goods over comparable distances by road and rail on the mainland. Largely due to the freezing of ANL’s charges for moving most general cargo northbound from Tasmania, the excess transport charges on imports were found to be higher than on exports. The excess transport charges for moving refrigerated cargoes from Tasmania were found to be significantly higher than the excess charges for moving most dry cargoes.

Some of the reasons why the charges for moving most goods between Tasmania and the mainland are higher than the comparable mainland charges were found to bc: included in the charge for moving goods by sea are the costs of two intermodal transfers at sea terminals which do not form part of the direct road or rail linehaul on the mainland; the need for more consolidation when goods were moved by sea; the greater emphasis placed on the space occupied by low density cargo moved by sea in setting sea freight rates than in determining charges for the movement of similar goods by road or rail; and costs for the sea linehaul have been rising more rapidly than the costs for road and rail linehaul on the mainland.

The Commission found that many Tasmanian firms producing for export to the mainland were more concerned by the unreliability of the shipping services than by having to meet excess transport charges. However, it was only rarely that a Tasmanian firm said that transport charges were not a matter of concern.

The main advantages of locating in Tasmania mentioned by Tasmanian exporters were: a more stable workforce; relatively cheaper hydro-electric power; cheaper land for industrial and commercial purposes; an abundant supply of fresh water; and a very fertile soil with a more assured rainfall than on the mainland.

Disadvantages in relation to transport from locating in Tasmania were stated to include: the inherent unreliability of the shipping services due primarily to industrial stoppages, and the threat of industrial stoppages; the time taken to transport goods to the mainland, resulting in some loss of sales and reduced profits; excess transport charges for moving goods to the mainland and on imported raw materials; more damage to goods in transit when moved by sea than when movedby road or rail; and higher inventory costs in respect of both imported materials and finished products.

Firms, mainly subsidiaries of mainland producers, who had recently ceased producing in Tasmania and other firms who had been seriously considering producing in Tasmania, but had decided not to proceed, were almost unanimous in saying that the uncertainty of transport and excess transport charges were not the main reason for their decisions to withdraw or not to proceed.

Average retail prices in Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Burnie are a few per cent higher than in Melbourne and Sydney.

Investigations carried out by the Commission brought to light that Tasmanian consumers and users of a wide range of items imported from the mainland, including most consumer goods, building materials and equipment, the smaller varieties of agricultural equipment, motor cars and some raw materials used in production obtained considerable relief from excess transport charges through the practice of most national manufacturers and distributors on the Mainland of equalising the prices they charge for their goods delivered to Australian capital cities.

The Commission found widespread concern in Tasmania at the relatively high cost of sea and air passenger fares between Tasmania and the mainland. These fares are consistently higher than the fares for travelling over similar distances by road and rail on the mainland. 2.2 The Recommendations

The Recommendations made in the Report are set out below. Reference to detailed discussion in subsequent chapters is indicated in brackets. 2.2.1 Shipping

That ANL be asked to carry out as expeditiously as possible a study of- the cost of moving general cargo between a port in Westernport Bay and a wharf in Devonport in a Pure Ro-Ro vessel that completes the round trip in 24 hours as compared with the cost of moving the same cargo between

Webb Dock and Devonport in a Searoader or the Melbourne Trader.

That, if the study reveals that a Pure Ro-Ro service between Westernport Bay and Devonport should be more efficient and cheaper, the Ministry of Transport be asked to carry out a study of relative cost of door-to-door movement of goods between places in Victoria and places in Northern Tasmania over this route on its own wheels as compared with cargo boxes or on flats in Ro-Ro vessels from Webb Dock.

That, if the foregoing studies show that it would be more efficient and cheaper to move cargo by Pure Ro-Ro from Westernport than Ro-Ro from Webb Dock, consideration be given to the design, speed and capacity of a Pure Ro-Ro vessel suited to trans-Bass operations. (Chapter 6, Section 6.10.1)

That, if a fast cargo Pure Ro-Ro service is introduced between Melbourne and Northern Tasmania, the Tasmanian terminal be located at Devonport. (Chapter 7, Section 7.9.4. )

That an in-depth investigation be carried out into all aspects of the provision of a rail ferry service for the carriage of goods and livestock on Tasmanian rail wagons between Westernport Bay and Devonport. (Chapter 6, Section 6.10.3)

That, if it is decided to introduce a rail ferry service between Westernport Bay and Northern Tasmania, the Tasmanian terminal be located at Devonport. (Chapter 7. Section 7.9.4.)

That the future sea passenger service between Tasmania and the mainland be provided by two vessels operating between Westernport Bay and Burnie. Features of the service would be: return crossing in 24 hours; daylight passenger service; and express cargo service by night. (Chapter 6, Section 6.10.4)

That, if a fast daylight passenger service and return cargo service by night is to be introduced between Westernport Bay and Burnie, consideration be given as to whether the Ocean Wharf at Burnie be upgraded. (Chapter 7, Section 7.9.4)

That ANL be permitted to undertake the booking of cargo carried in its vessels in the coastal shipping services, and he encouraged to do so. (Chapter 6, Section 6. 1 1 . 2 )

That all replacement pallets for use in the Tasmanian trades be constructed on the 1100mm x 1100mm basis. (Chapter 4, Section 4.4)

That a meeting be convened of all interested parties to consider the practicability of establishing a pool of cargo units of standard size, and its contribution to improved efficiency. (Chapter 4, Section 4.7) 2.2.2 Ports

That the Tasmanian Government be requested to consider setting up a central port authority to co-ordinate future port development. (Chapter 7, Section 7. 10.3 )

That the Tasmanian Government be requested to- consider, in regard to the port of Stanley: that the Marine Boards of Burnie and Circular Head he amalgamated; and that the port of Stanley be closed to Ro-Ro vessels. (Chapter 7, Section 7.11) 2.2.3 Government Owned Services

That operators of Government owned services be required as quickly as practicable to charge economic freight rates. (Chapter 11, Section 11.4)

That the level of charges for the rail movement in Tasmania of all goods moving interstate be increased to, at least, double its present level; or as an alternative

That interstate goods moved by rail between places south of parallel of latitude 42 degrees south, and Northern Tasmanian ports be made inelegible for the direct transport assistance propose in Chapter 15. (Chapter 8, Section 8.7.3)

That, until such time as a mere efficient sea/passenger service is introduced for the Bass Strait crossing, the Commonwealth Government increase its subsidy to $2 million per annum on condition that: the Empress of Australia makes three return trips per week; and

A.N.L. increase fares and charges to rates, which when account is taken of the subsidy, are economic. (Chapter 16, Section 16.12) 2.2.4 Transport Assistance Schemes

That the Commonwealth Government offer direct financial assistance to Tasmanian consignors of most goods bought for use or exported for sale on the mainland. The assistance would be confined to merchandise moving interstate from Tasmania by sea in Ro-Ro or conventional vessels or by air (i.e. it would not apply to the interstate movement of goods in bulk ships).

That the date of effect of the new scheme be in mid- 1976. (Chapter 15, Section 15.8)

That the level of rates be reviewed either annually or biennially, possibly by the Interstate Commission. (Chapter 15, Section 15.14)

That the Commonwealth Government consider whether an offer of direct assistance should be made to Tasmanian consignors who ship their goods from Stanley to Melbourne if both the port of Stanley and the existing shipping service continue to be subsidised by the Tasmanian Government. (Chapter 7, Section 7. 1 1 )

That the Commonwealth Government offer assistance: in the case of air travel between Melbourne and Flinders Island- of the order of $10 on the single fare for an adult; in the case of air travel between Melbourne and King Island- of the order of $7.50 on the single fare for an adult, on condition that air fares to and from the Islands charged by licensed operators be approved by the Commonwealth Government. (Chapter 17, Section 17.6.2)

That investigations be pursued forthwith, with a view to offering financial assistance to producers who use imported materials and equipment which are not price equalised by mainland distributors. (Chapter 15, Section 15.8)

Senator WITHERS:

-I thank the Senate. Pending the printing of the bulk report, copies will be placed in the Parliamentary Library for study by honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to make a brief statement now.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Probably no report has been awaited with greater expectation in Tasmania than the report which has just been tabled by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers). This is not the appropriate time to enter into a lengthy debate on it, primarily because we have not had time to study the full report. In fact the documents which have been tabled and which were made available to honourable senators, I understand, some time before the Senate met this morning are a very brief precis of the report, and much of what is contained in them is difficult to assess because of its brevity. But I wish to say on behalf of the Opposition that, on a very brief look at what wc have, there appear to be some aspects which give rise for concern immediately.

The Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania was appointed by the previous Government. It is one of many which have been appointed over the years to inquire into this seemingly never ending problem of Tasmania’s transport disabilities. Once again we appear to have- I stress that we appear to have- a report which is somewhat loose, as I read it. A comprehensive approach, which I hoped the Commission would take, has not been taken. We find recommendations made in isolation from other factors. I suppose that one should not be more critical than that until such time as one has had an opportuntiy to study it in greater depth. One thing is fairly apparent immediately. On the first page of the ministerial statement we find the following:

Government owned and operated services should raise their charges as quickly as possible to an economic level.

That immediately suggests that the Australian National Line will be required to conduct its services on a commercially economic basis. As I read it at this stage, that recommendation without qualification means that Tasmania can look forward to quite a dramatic increase in freight charges in the foreseeable future. I also assume that it implies at least that the present subsidy, which was instituted by the Australian Labor Party Government, on north bound traffic from Tasmania is to be removed progessively. If that is the case and if the Government is going to act on that assumption, obviously Tasmania will gain very little from the findings of the Commission.

Let me say only one other thing as it is not proper to debate this matter at length. I ask Senator Withers and the Government to bring this matter on for debate as quickly as possibleif possible, next week. It is a matter of very great concern to a State which suffers a very great disability. It is only fair that this matter bc allowed to be debated at length as soon as possible. As Senator Douglas McClelland has pointed out to me, it could be debated in general business next week. I think that, in view of its importance to one of the States of Australia, the Government might consider a particular period outside of general business when this matter could be debated properly. I ask leave to continue my remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WITHERS:

-( Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate)- I move:

I would like to speak very briefly to that motion in response to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt). The Government is anxious that most ministerial statements brought down be brought on for debate. There is not much point in bringing down a statement unless it is debated. I hope that if we can keep our legislative program fairly tight, in line with the weekly forecast that I have put out, we will be able each week to devote some time to the debating of ministerial statements.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 790

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL PRESS RELEASES

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

- Mr President, I seek leave of the Senate to give some information regarding a question I was asked yesterday by Senator Colston. It is not strictly a ministerial statement, but I have the information now. I seek leave to reply to him now.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WITHERS:

-Yesterday Senator Colston directed a question to me regarding the distribution by the Australian Information Service of a Liberal Party secretariat Press release on the visit to Australia by Mrs Margaret Thatcher. I have caused investigations to be made about this matter and have discovered that this release was distributed by the Government Publications and Inquiries Centre in Brisbane. I am informed that this action resulted from a sequence of errors by officers in the central office of the Publications and Inquiries Centre in Canberra and the Publications and Inquiries Centre in Brisbane. It came about through a collection of Press releases, including releases of the Liberal Party secretariat, being sent by error by the

Canberra office to the Publications and Inquiries Centre in Brisbane. Acting on her own initiative, an officer of the Brisbane centre copied these releases and distributed them to Commonwealth parliamentary offices in Brisbane, including that of Senator Colston. The action was completely outside the system of distribution established for the ministerial documents service which does not and should not include a release such as that of the Liberal Party secretariat in its distribution service. The investigation by the Department shows that the errors were honest in intent and in the case of the officer in Brisbane were the result of an excess of enthusiasm to implement the distribution process for parliamentary offices. I have taken the necessary action to ensure even stricter control of the operation of the ministerial document service through the Publications and Inquiries Centre. I hope such a mistake does not occur again.

page 790

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I present, pursuant to section 16(2) of the Social Welfare Commission Act 1973, a progress report by the Social Welfare Commission on social welfare manpower. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– This report is the result of an inquiry into the needs of manpower in the welfare field. It was prepared by a working party headed by the Professor of Social Work at the University of Queensland, Professor Edna Chamberlain. The working party also comprised representatives of State and Federal government departments, voluntary welfare agencies and professional and educational bodies. The working party was established by the Commission in November 1973 and the report now being presented incorporates its findings together with the comments of the Social Welfare Commission on issues in social welfare manpower planning.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I seek leave to propose a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GRIMES:

-I move:

I welcome the report and seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 791

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The PRESIDENT:

-Is notice of motion No. 4 standing in the name of Senator Mulvihill and relating to the reference of a matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment formal or not formal?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDFormal.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment the following matter- The impact on the Australian environment of the current wood-chip industry program.

page 791

REFERENCES TO SENATE COMMITTEES

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:
Victoria

- Mr President, I seek leave of the Senate to make a short statement in relation to the notices of motion that have just been dealt with.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I am rather disturbed at the problem that has been presented to the Senate by these notices of motion and references to standing or general purpose committees of the Senate. In 1970 I made what I thought was a substantial speech, in terms of length and substance anyway, on the whole question of committees. One of the matters to which I addressed myself with, I thought, great clarity and cogency was the Senate referring to these committees matters which tended to be open-ended, which were not precise in their terms and which would lead to the Senate committees finding themselves involved in matters that would get out of control. I am sure that Senator Chaney, former Senator Everett, who lost his seat at the last election, and Senator Coleman would agree with me that one committee was totally incompetent to manage the reference that was given to it. Therefore, I beg the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) to see that terms of references are precise and are within the capacity and ambit of committees to examine.

The second matter is even more important than that. I notice that there is no time stated by which the committee should report back to the Senate. These committees are the children of the Senate and the Senate should never allow them to escape without some sort of control over them. The most effective control is to put a time limit on the work of the committee so that it is under a discipline imposed by the parent, the Senate. It is open to the committee to come back and ask for an extension of time. This has always been granted in the past. I suggest that in future references to these committees should have a time limit placed on them.

I add a further matter which, Mr President,I hope you will take into consideration in your office as President. In 1970 I made the forecast that eventually the Standing Orders Committee of the Senate would have to turn its attention to the question of Senate committees. I suggest that the time has now arrived when the President of the Senate, in his normal role as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, might consider in discussion with the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition, who sit on that Committee anyway, that the Standing Orders Committee review the whole question of the Standing Orders as they relate to committees of the Senate.

page 791

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Douglas McClelland on behalf of Senator Wriedt moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That, after the consideration of General Business notice of motion No. 1, intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of notice of motion No. 4, standing in the name of Senator Mulvihill, and notice of motion No.5.

page 791

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement in relation to business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 .

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DEVITT:

– Notice of Motion No. 1 relates to a provision in the Australian Capital Territory Unit Titles Ordinance and was given on the last available sitting day before the Regulations and Ordinances Committee had been appointed to allow that Committee to continue the inquiries it was making last year in relation to the provision. The provision affected the power of the Supreme Court to determine appeals relating to rents and its purport was not clear to the Committee. The provision has now been explained to the satisfaction of the Committee. Accordingly, I withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1.

page 792

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Keeffe resigning from his place as a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pursuant to section 14 of the Act.

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964-1973, the Senate appoint Senator Cavanagh to be a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies to fill the vacancy on the Council caused by the resignation of Senator Keeffe, on and from this day, and that he continue as a member until 17 July 1977.

page 792

JOINT COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to the resolutions finally agreed to by both Houses on 18 March 1976 establishing certain joint committees, I inform honourable senators that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating senators to be members of the committees as follows:

Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory:

Senators Archer, Georges, Knight and Ryan

Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System:

Senators Sir Magnus Cormack, Gietzelt, McAuliffe Mulvihill, Rae and Tehan.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence:

Senators Bishop, Sir Magnus Cormack, Durack, Scott, Sibraa, Sim and Wheeldon

Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House:

Senators Drake-Brockman, Mcintosh, Melzer, Missen, O ‘Byrne and Young.

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That the senators nominated be appointed members of the respective joint committees.

page 792

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Cotton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– I move:

I suggest to my colleagues that as this Bill has been introduced already into the House of Representatives it might save our time if I were given leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. ( The speech read as follows)-

The primary purpose of this Bill is to include an allowance for the labour of owner-operators of wheat farms in the specified cost items used to determine annual movements in the home consumption price of wheat under the current sixth Wheat Industry Stabilization Plan. Honourable senators will recall that this legislation reached the second reading stage in the other chamber last November but lapsed when Parliament was dissolved. An owner-operator allowance has been included in home consumption price adjustment procedures in previous wheat stabilisation plans although the basis of calculating this allowance and the method of inclusion has varied. In the first four plans it was adjusted annually along with all items in the index to determine movements in the home consumption price. In the fifth plan it was one of a collection of items which were held constant in the index for the duration of the plan.

One of the changes at the commencement of the sixth plan was the exclusion of those cost items which had been held constant during the previous plan from the index structure used to calculate movements in the home consumption price. The owner-operator allowance was one of those items. However, at the same time the then Government gave an undertaking that the decision with respect to that allowance would be reviewed prior to the second year of the plan. 1975-76. As a result of this review it was decided to include in the cost items used to adjust the home consumption price of wheat an item representing the cost of the owner-operator labour input into the wheat enterprise. The decision gained the acceptance of the Australian Wheatgrower^ Federation and was endorsed by all State governments as parties to the complementary legislative arrangements supporting the orderly marketing and stabilisation scheme for wheat. Information collected by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in its wheat industry survey will be used to ascertain the owneroperator physical labour input into the wheat enterprise. This will then be costed using appropriate rural wage awards and the annual movements in this item included with the movements in cash costs and rail freight and handling charges that are taken into account in the annual review of the home consumption price of wheat.

The Bill before the Senate is virtually identical with that previously introduced except in one respect. If the original legislative proposals had been passed in the normal course the determination which has since been made of the home consumption price of wheat for the year commencing 1 December would have included an amount of 62 cents per tonne- being the amount calculated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and accepted by the Wheat Index Committee as the labour allowance for owner-operators of wheat farm enterprises. Since it is impracticable to provide for retroactive application of such allowance in the purchase price of wheat it is now proposed under the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill that the home consumption price will be increased by 62 cents per tonne effective from the day following the date of receipt of the royal assent.

Concurrent with the introduction of amending legislation for the purpose described above, opportunity is being taken by the accompanying Wheat Export Charge Amendment Bill to effect a machinery amendment to the definition of wheat products’ at present in section 4 of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act. The opinion of the First Parliamentary Counsel is that this definition should reside in the Wheat Export Charge Act. Clause 3 of the Bill effects this transfer. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 793

WHEAT EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 793

WHEAT PRODUCTS EXPORT ADJUSTMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 793

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Greenwood) reada first time.

Second Reading

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Victoria · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

The purpose of the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill is to authorise the Treasurer ( Mr Lynch) to advance to the States this financial year the sum of $364.6 million for welfare housing in accordance with the provisions of the 1973-1974 Housing Agreement. This amount will be distributed among the States as follows:

The level of advances for 1975-76 is as determined by the previous Government and this amount has been provided in the 1975-76 Budget. We are maintaining this level of spending for welfare housing despite our overall policy of stringent restraint on public sector spending. Advances for 1975-76 will be somewhat less in real terms than the record level set in 1974-75-$385.4m-but still high compared with earlier years.

Some States are currently experiencing difficulties in maintaining their welfare housing programs- difficulties I might add that are a direct legacy of the previous Government. Let me explain this. Funds available to the States for welfare housing increased from $ 169.8m in 1972-73 to $2 18.7m in 1973-74. The funds made available for welfare housing escalated even further in 1974-75. When the initial allocation of $235m was made, the States were informed that further funds would be provided if they could demonstrate that they had the capacity to spend more. This encouraged the States to accelerate their programs and the advances actually made in 1974-75 rose sharply to $385.4m, an increase of about 60 per cent over the original allocation. Then, in the 1975-76 Budget, the inevitable happened. The enormous expansion in advances to the States was brought to an abrupt halt and total advances in 1975-76 were held at about their 1974-75 level.

Because of the earlier rapid expansion of their programs, most States have had to curtail commencements sharply in 1975-76 to permit the completion of houses already under construction. As a result, the level of government building activity has declined. Nevertheless, Housing Agreement commencements which constitute the bulk of State government housing activity will probably exceed 7000 in 1975-76. Although this figure is significantly less than the 1 1 463 Housing Agreement commencements in 1974- 75, completions in 1975-76 are expected to reach a record level of 13 800. Overall, therefore, the public housing programs in the States in 1 975- 76 will still be substantial.

Meanwhile, signs of recovery in the private sector emerged around the middle of 1975 and a continued high level of activity in most States can be expected. Loan approvals for housing, local government approvals and commencements have all been expanding strongly since mid-1975 and point to further expansion in private commencements during the coming year. In the December quarter, dwelling approvals were running at the rate, seasonally adjusted, of 1 37 800 private and 7900 government, totalling 145 700, compared with 90 800 private and 20 900 government, a total of 1 1 1 700 in the December quarter of 1974. Commencements for the 1975 December quarter were running at the annual rate, seasonally adjusted, of 125 400 private and 132 400 total. Comparable figures for the same quarter in 1 974 were 96 300 private and 1 1 3 900 total commencements. The expected continued high level of activity in the private sector should go some of the way towards taking up the slack emerging in the government sector.

The Bill also authorises the Treasurer to pay to the States in the first 6 months of 1976-77 the sum of $ 182.3m which is half the allocation for 1975-76. This amount will be distributed on the same basis as the advances for the current year. In other words, the Treasurer will be authorised to continue payments to the States for welfare housing in the period from 1 July 1976, until an appropriation measure for 1976-77 is passed by the Parliament. As well, the Bill recognises that, in exceptional circumstances as occurred this year when passage of the authorising legislation was delayed, it may be necessary to continue payments beyond the 6-month period for which specific financial provision is made. The Bill provides that interim payments made for welfare housing under the authority of section 5 of the Financial Agreement Act 1928 as advances supplementary to the advances under the approved Loan Council program will be deemed to be made under that Act.

The advances to be authorised by the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill are repayable over a period of 53 years. The rate of interest payable on advances during the full 5-year term of the Agreement is fixed at 4 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the State housing authorities and 4½ per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the home builders’ accounts of the States. The apportionment of the allocations between the State housing authority and the home builders’ account for each State was determined by consultation between the Minister for Housing and Construction in the previous Government and the Housing Minister of the State concerned. The repayable interest-bearing advances will, as circumstances dictate, be made either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund and will be on the terms and conditions set out in the 1 973- 1 974 Housing Agreement. Provision is made for any payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose to be reimbursed in due course from the Loan Fund, when the Treasurer considers this appropriate. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 795

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the text of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill provides for the payment of grants to the States for universities in 1976. The Bill is associated with the States Grants (Universities) Amendment Bill 1976, the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1976, the States Grants (Advanced Education) Amendment Bill 1976 and the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Amendment Bill 1976, all of which I intend to introduce presently. Rather than take up the time of the Senate unnecessarily I propose to speak on the common aspects of all 5 Bills in this statement.

The previous Government decided that the year 1976 should be treated outside the normal triennial progression and asked the 4 education Commissions to recommend separate programs of funding for 1976 within certain guidelines. This Bill and the related ones represent the implementation of the announced decision of the Government in its caretaker capacity in November last that the programs for 1976 approved by the previous Government for universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education should proceed on the basis announced by the previous Government. This undertaking assured the States and the educational institutions concerned of the level of financial support they could expect in 1976 even though the prorogation of the Parliament in November 1975 made it impossible until now to enact legislation appropriating funds for the 1 976 programs. I shall be introducing later in this session a Bill to provide for the announced 1976 program for schools which the Government also undertook to implement. To enable the programs under this Bill and the associated ones to proceed, with effect from the commencement of 1976, the caretaker Government made special interim financial arrangements with the States pending the passing of these Bills early in 1 976. The Bills in respect of universities and colleges of advanced education provide for reimbursement of the States where they have made payments under the special interim financial arrangements. This provision was not necessary in the case of technical and further education where existing legislation provides financial assistance to the States until 30 June 1976.

One change from the usual form of legislation of this kind is that the funds provided under this and the associated Bills generally are appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund but in the case of grants for building programs and equipment purchases, provision has been made for the alternative use of the Loan Fund. The grants approved for these programs by the previous Government were expressed in June 1975 price levels and were on the basis that further grants would be provided to make allowance for subsequent movements in costs. Returning to the States Grants (Universities) Bill 1976, a total or $498m is available to the States for university purposes in respect of the year 1976, of .which $447m is for recurrent costs and equipment purchases and $51m for building programs. These amounts make allowance for known movements in costs since June 1975. Further adjustments for cost movements to the end of the year 1976 will be required. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 795

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the text of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill amends the States Grants (Universities) Act 1972-1975, to adjust the approved program of grants to State universities for the 1973-1975 triennium. The Bill takes account of known variations in costs over and above those which have occurred since the previous adjustments were made in similar legislation enacted in 1975. Further adjustments for cost movements to the end of this triennial period will be required as statistical data becomes available. The Bill also gives effect to a decision of the previous Government not to proceed with projects for which contractual commitments had not been made, by deleting certain building projects and reducing the grants available to others. The Bill compensates the State of Queensland for fire damage to teaching hospital facilities of the University of Queensland at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. The additional funds provided by this Bill total $25m bringing the funds available for State universities for the 1973-1975 triennium to $1,1 67m.

I refer honourable senators to my second reading speech on the States Grants (Universities) Bill 1976. My remarks there on interim financial arrangements apply to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 796

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the text of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for programs of financial assistance to the States for the funding of advanced education in respect of the year 1976. The Bill provides for grants totalling $296m for expenditure under the recurrent program and $5 6m for expenditure under the capital program. The recurrent program includes an allowance to cover cost increases since the June quarter 1975. In addition the Bill provides for recurrent grants on a formula basis to assist in meeting the administrative costs of student residences and affiliated residential colleges of advanced education. The estimated expenditure on these grants in respect of 1976 is $lm. Both the recurrent and capital programs will continue to be supplemented until the end of 1976 in accordance with the established procedures to maintain their values against cost increases. In summary the total program for 1976 amounts to $353m. In the intervening period since the 1976 program was approved by the previous Government, a committee on post-secondary education in Western Australia, headed by Professor P. H. Paltridge, has made a report to the State Government recommending that the School of Mines at Kalgoorlie should not continue at the tertiary level and that consequently the Kalgoorlie capital projects listed in Schedule 2 to this Bill under the heading of the Western Australian Institute of Technology ought not to proceed. We will therefore review the future of the projects following consideration by the State Government of the report of this committee.

I refer honourable senators to my second reading speech on the States Grants (Universities) Bill 1976. My remarks there on the background to the funding arrangements for tertiary and technical and further education in 1976 apply to this Bill as do my remarks there on interim financial arrangements. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 796

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

-l move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill amends the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1972-1975 to adjust the approved program of grants to the States for colleges of advanced education and nongovernment teachers colleges in the triennium 1973-1975. The Bill takes account of variations in costs over and above those which have occurred since previous adjustments were made in similar legislation enacted in 1975. Further adjustments for cost movements to the end of this triennial period will be required as statistical data become available. The Bill also amends the schedules to show changed names for some colleges and incorporates a number of approved transfers of funds within the recurrent and capital programs provided for under the Act. The additional funds provided by this Bill total $21m bringing the funds available for colleges of advanced education for the 1973-75 triennium to $743m. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 797

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. ( The speech read as follows)-

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974 so as to extend its period of operation from the present termination date of 30 June 1976, to 31 December 1976, and to provide additional funds to the States for the extended period. There have been some adjustments made to the grants to 30 June 1976 under existing legislation, involving an increase of $1.9m for recurrent expenditure and the deferment of $8.3m for capital expenditure. For the period 1 July 1 976 to 31 December 1976, $ 12.5m is available for recurrent expenditure and $ 17m is available for capital expenditure. The net effect of these measures is to vary the total funds available to the States from $ 107.8m over 2 years to $ 131m over 2Vt years. I incorporate in Hansard a table summarising the various grants which are payable over the 2!6-year period to the end of 1976, as set out in the Schedules to the Bill and, in relation to unallocated grants, in the principal Act:

I will present to Parliament later in the session, a statement on payments made in the 1974-75 financial year under the existing legislation. I refer honourable senators to my second reading speech of- the States Grants (Universities) Bill 1976. My remarks there concerning the background to the Government’s decisions on the 1976 education programs apply to this Bill.

In considering amendments to the principal Act, the Government has sought to make only the minimal changes necessary to implement the 1976 programs in technical and further education. Section 13 (c) of the Act gives the Minister powers to require information from the States as a condition of grants for recurrent expenditure. However, I can assure honourable senators that information sought under this section would be limited to reasonable requests. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2.15 p.m.

page 798

QUESTION

ACCREDITATION OF JOURNALISTS

The PRESIDENT:

– On 23 March, Senator Chaney asked me a question concerning the accreditation of certain journalists and the accuracy and standards of reporting. I reply only within the area of my responsibility, which relates to proceedings in Parliament. Mr Clem Lloyd is not an accredited member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Mr Andrew Clark is the accredited representative of the National Times.

In his question, Senator Chaney referred to my statement last week that the Press Gallery accreditation of a photographer had been withdrawn because of a breach of the rules relating to the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Senator Chaney asked whether the rules of the Gallery contain any requirement about accuracy and standards of reporting. I table a copy of the rules breached by the photographer. Accuracy and standards of reporting are not dealt with in those particular rules. My understanding is that members of the Australian Journalists Association are subject to their own code of ethics. They and others are also subject to the law of parliamentary privilege dealing with writings relating to proceedings in Parliament. I leave the matter there.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

- Mr President, I seek leave to move ‘That the Senate take note of the statement’.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator COTTON:

-I move:

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 798

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

First Reading

Debate resumed from 24 March on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

-When this debate was interrupted last night I was discussing the confrontation which exists between the Third World and the First World and the change which has taken place in that confrontation over the last 6 months. I was discussing the nature of the confrontation, its origins and its development. I pointed out to honourable senators the cruel clowning of Idi Amin, the President of Uganda, at the United Nations 6 months ago. I drew attention to the repeated insults which he made to Great Britain and Israel, to such an extent that the ambassadors of those countries left the General Assembly. I mention that there was a difference this time because after that speech a spokesman for the West, for the first time, spoke out in defence of the achievements of the West. I pointed out to honourable senators that the United Nations consists of 142 members of which only 24 are democracies. I mentioned that the rest are either totalitarian states- communist or socialist- or ancient or modern despotisms.

I said that I thought it was no accident that Idi Amin is the leader of the Organisation of African Unity, because that Organisation represents by far the greatest proportion of the less developed countries. I pointed out that the First World consists of the industrialised and developed West: the Second World represents the Soviet bloc; and the Third World represents the newly emerging, under and less developed countries. 1 stated that China, for ideological more than economic reasons, sought to lead the Third World. I went through portion of the history of events in the United Nations since 1960 when the problems of these less developed countries were realised. In 1960 the United Nations started its first decade of development with the object of raising the gross national product of these unfortunate nations to 5 per cent a year. But this scheme did not get off the ground. So in 1970 a second decade of development was started. But even by 1975 the best rate these countries could achieve was still less than 3 per cent. In the meantime the populations of these countries had rocketed and inflation and runaway oil prices had compounded the problem.

I pointed out that all these programs had failed, as had similar programs in both Russia and China- indicating the futility of legislation in trying to fix these problems and showing the dangers of government interference with the economy. There are 4 billion people on the earth. Of that number, 2 billion subsist on an annual income of less than $200. Of that 2 billion, hundreds of millions are incomparably worse off. There are 900 million people who live on an annual income of less than $75. They live in an atmosphere of squalor, hunger and hopelessness. They are the absolute poor. They live in conditions which are below any rational standard of human decency. Their plight is manifest. The fact that their leaders should come together to try to improve their lot is understandable. But, the way they have chosen, confrontation with the First World has proceeded over the years from irrationality at the beginning to what is now tragic farce.

I gave honourable senators some recent examples of the macabre burlesque which is going on. In 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was called in Stockholm. The United States and its co-sponsors expected that they had found a field for fertile cooperation; but immediately, the conference was turned into a bitter political conflict. The Brazilians considered that it was a conspiracy between the haves and the have-nots. They said that the rich had got rich by polluting their environment and that those countries were trying to stop the poorer nations from getting rich by polluting their environments. They said that the conference was nothing but a plot to perpetuate the monopoly of the rich nations over the poor nations. The Brazilians said that the First World did not want to help the Third World but merely wished to exploit it. I mentioned Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who was shortly to turn her nation into a naked despotism. She asked: ‘Are not poverty and need the greatest polluters?’ She said that the problems of ecology were distracting India from the problems of war and poverty. At the conference even apartheid was brought in, which elevated the discussion from garbage removal and the problems of the disposal of indisposable industrial waste to the rarified level of political ethics.

The conference declared as its first principle that man had the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment of quality, permitting a life of dignity and wellbeing with a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. The declaration went on to state:

In this respect policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated.

In 1974 the United Nations called another conferencethe World Population Conference in

Bucharest. This was because of the rocketing populations of these less developed countries. China, with its 800 million people, had tried to limit its population. It was unsuccessful, but nevertheless it tried. But India was having far more problems because although its population was only 550 million- if one can use the word only’ in relation to a figure like that- its area is one-third the area of China. The conference was regarded as a substantial advance. Guidelines were established beforehand, and a plan of action was drafted. The idea was to reduce the birthrates in these countries from 34 per 1000 of population to 30 per 1000 of population by the year 1985. This all seemed reasonable enough and moderate enough- but not for the less developed countries and the communists.

President Ceausescu of Romania, who opened that conference, declared that the division of the world into developed and under-developed nations is a result of historical evolution and is a direct consequence of capitalist, imperialist and neo-colonialists policies of exploitation of many people. He called for a new economic order and rejected a pessimistic outlook on population growth. The Indian representative denounced the colonial denudation of the East and the vulgar affluence of the West. The Chinese saw population control as fundamentally subversive to the Third World and said that the bright future of the Third World could be spoilt only by the imperialists- that is the West- and the hegemonists, the Soviets. They declared that population control was their wrecking device. The upshot of this conference was a demand that economic development in the West cease and that the wealth of the world be redistributed. Through all this, and over the years, the Third World had the support of the West’s massive guilt complex. After Bucharest, a United Nations publication called the Development Forum was put out. In a section of that publication entitled Eating Little Children’, it was maintained that we in the West, by our huge consumption of meat, were depriving the children of the poorer countries of the cereals that would save them from dying of malnutrition. It said that we were cannibals, albeit indirectly.

When the World Food Conference was called in 1973 the Indian spokesman declared that the developed nations could be held responsible for the plight of the less developed countries and, therefore, the developed countries had a duty to help them. This help was not to be regarded as charity but as deferred compensation. In 1974 the United Nations approved a charter of the economic rights and duties of states. It provided for 5 things: First, the right to nationalise foreign property; second, the payment of compensation according to national law and not international law; third, the formation of producer cartels, similar to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel; fourth, the faster distribution of wealth from the rich nations to the poor nations; and, fifth, the faster distribution of technology from the rich to the poor nations. Peking, at this time, was saying that the new majority had written a brilliant chapter and it was sweeping ahead under full sail while the ship of imperialism and hegemonism foundered. As I was saying, the West has started to hit back, speaking of the tyranny of this new majority and the need to challenge the coalition between the communists and the Third World.

I think there is some profit to be gained in looking at the motivation of the Third World and its conduct. It appears that in recent times- by recent times’ I mean, say, since about the time of the discovery of Australia- there have been 3 huge revolutionary movements in the world. The first was connected with the French and American revolutions which sought to throw off autocratic and aristocratic government and to replace it with what might be called minimal government. There was the realisation that countries were better off if the government interfered less in the business of the people. There was created what might be called a minimal state. In this century there has been another huge revolutionary movement- the Russian and Chinese revolutions. They, too, were designed to throw off autocratic and aristocratic rule. But in this revolution total state government was imposed. During this century another revolution has been going on unnoticed. It has been going on more or less offstage. It is what I call the British revolution. The British revolution started just before the turn of the century with the formation of the Fabian Society in London. A group of young intellectuals got together. It consisted of Graham Wallas, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw and other intellectuals. They propounded the philosophy that private ownership should be superseded by public ownership, that production for profit should be replaced by production for use, that competition should be replaced by co-operation, that individual benefit should be replaced by common benefit, and that industry should be subject to collective and democratic control. Generally, the socialist characterised himself or herself by his or her commitment to fellowship. If we look at all these revolution in historical perspective, we can see the Hegelian dialectic in operation: The first revolution bringing about the minimal state, the second revolution bringing about the total state and in the synthesis between the two one can see the welfare state of Great Britain coming about.

But there are 2 important points in the British doctrine. The first one is its bias against economic development. The fundamental assertion of the British doctrine was that there was plenty of wealth to go around if only it was fairly distributed. Redistribution and not production was central to its theme and profit became synonomous with exploitation. The second point was that British socialism was more antiAmerican than it was anti-Soviet because America was the quintessence of capitalism. The British thought they were making a revolution just for Britain. So they were and the Tories half agreed with them. But they were making much more. During the first half of this century the influence of Britain abroad was much greater than that of any other country. The new political philosophy was carried to Europe and socialist parties sprang up in one country after another. More importantly than that, it was carried to Britain’s colonies. At this time, the British empire covered a quarter of the earth’s surface and it was spread to the farthest corners of the earth. Countless numbers of people came from the colonies to Britain to attain a higher education, and there they came into contact with this Fabian socialism, particularly if they had any contact with the London School of Economics. The pattern of thinking of the elite who were to gain control in these dependencies was prescribed in this way.

The worldwide British revolution really got under way in 1947 when the socialist British Government gave independence to the socialist Indian Government. The approach has been continued subsequently under successful Conservative governments. The colonies one after the other were emancipated by socialist-inspired means and with socialist-inspired constitutions, until in 1974, 47 of the 87 states which had joined the United Nations since its foundation were previously British colonies. The non-British colonies were also influenced by this Fabianism. The situation now is that these less developed countries numerically dominate all world forums that are characterised by universal membership. The Third World has been very quick to convert the precepts of Fabian socialism to its own purposes. For example, the idea of independence from autocratic and aristocratic rule has been changed to a demand for independence from colonial masters. The opposition to class discrimination has been changed to an opposition to racial discrimination. The idea of workers being exploited by the capitalists has been changed to exploitation of the colonies by the capitalist nations.

The Third World now claims a right to share in the wealth of others. British socialism on its own was prepared to forget the past and to go on, but not the Third World and the communists. The Third World demands revenge, reparations and something akin to looting. It is now easy to see why America, representing capitalism, and South Africa, representing discrimination, are the targets of the Third World. It is easy to explain the loudmouthed self- righteousness of the less developed countries and the guilt complex of the West leading to its pandering and kowtowing to these nations which have led to the monstrous burlesque. I spoke about it before. Let us take a look at what justification there is for this guilt complex in the West. One has only to look around these newly emerging nations to see that the benefits which the colonising nations received were well matched by the benefits they bestowed on their colonies. Certainly they could have done more, but without the coming of the white man there would have been no development at all. One should look at the nations that have been colonised and those that have not. It is the nations which have not been colonised that are poorer, such as Libya, Liberia and Ethiopa. Those nations are poor. The ones that have been colonised are much better off. It was the Liberian Ambassador to the United Nations who likened the situation in his nation to that of a man who had to build his own house from the ground up compared with a man who was left a large inheritance. Many of these nations are grateful.

Socially, they were given health benefits and education benefits which they would otherwise not have had. Politically, they were given the idea of modern administrations, an independent judiciary and democratic government. But they have all chosen not to follow those ideas and they have returned to despotism. It is true that, if the white man had not come, there would be no population problem in the lesser developed countries. The high death rate at binh, short life, plagues, pestilence, floods, disease and internecine wars would have kept the population stable as they did for countless centuries.

The joint Third World-communist coalition is immoral when it is judged by the conditions which exist within its own ranks. For example, in the Third World nations there are some with thrusting economies such as Singapore and Brazil. There are others like the Arab States, rich from oil, where the per capita income is $5,000 a year compared with India just over the water, with a population 100 times as great and a per capita income of less .than $200 a year. There is a gross imbalance of wealth within the less developed countries .themselves. Most of the wealth is fructifying in the pockets of cliques which by hook or by crook have assumed control.

The communists pretend to be the champions of the Third World and they lead the attack on the Western world, yet the West gives over $ 1 2 billion in aid to the Third World, the communists give $1.4 billion and the Arabs, who pretend to be friends of the Third World, put up the price of oil, adding $10 billion to the burden which the Third World has to carry, virtually wiping out all our foreign aid. There is no good cause for the West ‘s guilt complex.

I think that we should take a more realistic and objective view of our relationship with the less developed countries. This does not involve quality judgments. I think that we would all be prepared to concede that those countries may have some cultural aspects which are superior to our own, but in technology the West is incomparably superior, and the whole issue turns on technologythe ability to turn resources into wealth. The West has done this by its own ingenuity and effort. This is not a cause for shame. On this key issue the West holds all the trumps and it should play its hand accordingly, with strength. A cringing posture, as though it is an offence to bc ingenious, progressive and prosperous, invites a crooked deal. We should stand up for our own rights and achievements. We should throw off this habit of appeasement. We will gain the respect of other nations when we have regained our own.

There are 5 incontrovertible facts that everyone should know. khe first is that there is no limitless source of wealth waiting for redistribution. Prosperity depends on production. Second, socialism has failed as a producer of wealth, and it stands out there in the world as an abject failure for all to see. How can it work in the less developed countries? Look at what it has done to Great Britain. Since Great Britain espoused this nonsense its share of the world cake has been halved. Third, economic growth does not depend on Western conspiracies but on its own laws, and that it is not an egalitarian process. Fourth, the lesser developed countries are operating on imported ideas. They cannot progress until these are replaced by their own indigenous ideas. Last. development rests not on aid but self exertionon ingenuity, organisations, conservation and above all, work.

We should not confuse our idea of liberty with that of other people. Liberty is a subjective commodity. Our espousal of it has led to pockets of permissiveness, licence, anarchy, obscenity and degradation. Other people’s ideas of liberty may be a lot more healthy for them than ours. Our ideas of liberty are no more indigenous to Zaire, say, than are the Fabian socialist’s ideas of socialism. Therefore if we are to solve the problem we must forget all about ideological solutions. We should all live according to our own lights and co-operate as separate political communities on the basis of objective and demonstrable common interests.

At the centre of all this lies the United Nations. It is an example of the prime illusion that others are able to operate effectively in institutions which do not correspond in origin, nature, tradition or design to their own. The United Nations was designed on Western concepts of liberty and decision-making, especially decision by majority vote. It is the ultimate paradox that the less developed countries reject and denigrate the system of one man one vote in their own countries but they demand and exploit the right of one state one vote in the General Assembly because they do not understand democracy’s ground rules. They demand and exploit that vote despite the disparity in their powers, their resources, their experience, their responsibilities and their contributions.

The world is not a democratic world. It is not a world of Western civil liberties. Attempts to make it so have proved a disastrous failure. These illusions, embodied in the United Nations, have shaped and precipitated the present absurd world situation. There is no possibility of organising international affairs by a majority vote in a global organisation. Inter-state relations must relate to real considerations- a regional grouping of states- based on common resources, common problems, common technology and common economic advantage. Whatever the political costume of the players, here is the theatre for co-operation, consultation and collaboration. It is the basic building block for a workable world where interest cuts across ideology. Global conferences, resolutions and declarations will not bring world order. Regional states will compact, consolidate and grow in their mutual self interest. If we can gain our selfrespect vis-a-vis the rest of the world and foster this new development, then we shall see a new world order. I think that if that happens the

United Nations will be outflanked, isolated and redundant.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– Before I take the opportunity presented to me in this debate to address the Senate on some problems in the Australian Capital Territory resulting from the present Government’s policies and non-policies, I take the liberty to address myself to some of the remarks which have been made by Senator Sheil. I was very interested to hear Senator Sheil’s amazingly esoteric view of the history of the last century. I do not intend to address myself to all the assertions he made. However, he devoted some time to talking about the United Nations conference on population control held in Romania in 1974. He seems to suggest, among other things, that population control in the Third World had failed because of the influence of Fabian socialism. Last year as a delegate to the United Nations conference for International Women’s Year I was very privileged and interested to meet many of the women who had attended the population control conference in Romania as delegates for their countries in 1974. There was quite a deal of discussion, informally as well as formally, of the failure of population control in some Third World countries.

I would like to add to the remarks of Senator Sheil some of the reasons given for the failure of these programs in Third World countries, reasons which really had nothing at all to do with the ubiquitous influence of Fabian socialism. The women of the Third World became very angry at the kinds of population control programs that were being inflicted on their sisters because those programs were based on Western values and Western technologies and completely ignored the spiritual and cultural values of the women who were supposed to fit into those programs. It was from many tragic experiences where women involuntarily were subjected by visiting specialists to forms of birth control that were totally alien to their values of family and child rearing and child bearing that opposition to Western-type population control grew to the extent that there was a massive political rejection of these programs at the Romanian conference. I think if Senator Sheil had considered what was said by women delegates at that conference he would be better informed as to why some of the population control programs in the Third World had failed.

It was the view of those women, women who were intimately involved in what is happening to their sisters in the Third World countries, that if population control is to be successful, it must bc something that the women themselves want and understand and which does not destroy their whole fabric of family life. It never ceases to amaze me that people like Senator Sheil can expect other cultures to do what we think may be best for them because a particular idea may have proved successful for us, and at the same time perhaps resist any attempts within his own society to accept what other people might consider to be progress. We have seen in our own country a number of large lobbies organised to resist certain forms of control of fertility in this country. Those lobbies have a right to exist, to organise, to express themselves and to be effective if enough people support them. I would not deny that for a moment. But it strikes me as sadly ironical that we permit those kinds of lobbies to exist in our country- we permit people to express a range of views on subjects such as population control in our own country- and yet people like Senator Sheil look at the Third World countries and say, They have too many children. Why do they not accept compulsory sterilisation or the introduction of intra-uterine devices or some other western method of population control?’ They might be acceptable to us in terms of our cultural values. Perhaps such methods are acceptable to some people in the community and not to others. But it is certainly totally unacceptable to say this to the women in villages in India or parts of Africa. I point this out because I think that it was rather incomplete for Senator Sheil to talk about the failure of population control programs in the Third World without talking about what seemed to me to be the most morally significant aspect of that failure, namely, that the women on whom these programs were inflicted were never consulted.

I proceed now to the rest of my remarks. I would draw the attention of honourable senators back to some of the things that are happening in the Australian Capital Territory as a result of the change of government. I know that the view is widely held that the Australian Capital Territory is different and perhaps more privileged than other parts of Australia. But I think that in some ways the Australian Capital Territory, being the seat of government and the place where Government policies are most easily and directly implemented, provides a good litmus test for how a particular government is going. I am afraid that in the Australian Capital Territory we are seeing chaos in a number of policy areas which affect the everyday lives of ordinary people. I speak first about the confusion in the public transport system. Very recently, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) decided virtually to cut out bus services. Buses are the only form of public transport in the Territory. I say that in case honourable senators imagine that there are other forms of public transport. Bus services in the early mornings, in the late afternoons and on weekends were cut. Of course, this meant that the people who use bus services- children, housewives doing their shopping, elderly people, people who cannot afford cars, students and teenagers- had no way of getting from one place to another except if they could afford a taxi. Of course, most people in the categories I have mentioned cannot.

Senator Wright:

– Would not taxis be cheaper today?

Senator RYAN:

– No, taxis are not cheaper today. Although I think that perhaps buses are too expensive for a lot of people, they are still the cheapest form of transport. The removal of this form of transport at these crucial times has stopped people from getting to work and stopped elderly people from getting to senior citizen clubs or to hospitals to take advantage of the free medical system while it exists. It has prevented housewives from going to large supermarkets to do their shopping and forced them to use local, expensive small stores. Very seriously, it has prevented teenagers, of whom there are huge numbers in Canberra, from doing anything at all on weekends. As a result of a great deal of public outcry some of the services are being reinstated. But I suggest that a government which sees as an economy measure the taking away of a basie public service like the public transport system in a community where there are very many people dependent on it is a government which is on the wrong tack.

Another matter of great concern to people in the community is that there appears to be some threat to the salaried specialist service at the Canberra Community Hospital. I do not think that this is just a local issue. I hope that honourable senators from other States will pay some attention to this. It was mainly in the Australian Capital Territory that the Government had an opportunity to establish real choice under the Medibank system for clients of medical services. What we had at Canberra Community Hospital was the option of a free salaried specialist service. People did not have to have it if they did not believe in free medical attention. If they wanted to have a private specialist attend them and claim their rebate they could do this. If they opted for the free service, the hospital had employed a certain number of specialists who were there to provide it. The Australian Medical Association opposed this development and, as a result of its opposition, the Government was rather tentative in setting up this service. It employed a few specialists- not a great many and not a specialist in every area- and the idea was to see how the service went. The service has proved extremely popular, and it is not surprising that it has. When people come to the Territory and do not know any specialists but need specialist attention, it is logical that they should take advantage of the free specialist service at the hospital. This is what many people have done, with the result that most of the salaried specialists who are at the hospital now are seriously overburdened.

What does this mean? It means that if we want the system to be maintained more salaried specialists must be appointed very soon. If they are not appointed, the fact that the doctors are overburdened now and some patients have to wait for weeks to get to a doctor will mean the undermining of the service. People will say: ‘The free service is no good because you have to wait for weeks’. This will enable the Government to phase the service out. The salaried specialists are extremely concerned about this. They also are concerned because they believe that the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, is discussing ways of providing more specialist services- not necessarily free services- at the hospital with the private specialists in the Territory and representatives of the AMA but not with the salaried specialists who are already working in the hospital. They have endeavoured to see the Minister for Health to discuss their concern with him; but, so far as I know, to date they have not been successful.

A couple of weeks ago on their behalf I wrote to the Minister and asked whether he would speak to the salaried specialists about the future of this service in the Territory. I have had no reply. I do not want to be unduly pessimistic, but the lack of action by the Government, in either appointing more specialists or even discussing the matter with the salaried specialists who currently are overworked and concerned about their future, suggests that the Government intends to let this service run down- it is the only really successful example of free specialist medicine of which I am aware- so that it can say that it has been a failure and phase it out. The people of the Territory then would be deprived of the choice of a free service. I hope that the Minister for Health becomes aware of my remarks and addresses himself to this problem very quickly.

Other matters that are concerning the people of the Territory are directly related to the present Government’s policy on employment. The policy of no recruitment into the Public Service has left thousands of school leavers with no jobs. Canberra is still very much a Public Service town. That means that if the Public Service does not employ these people there are not many other employers who will. Not only has the Public Service stopped recruiting but it has cut down drastically on some of the training programs it has offered. For example, it used to offer an extensive program for girls wishing to become typists in the Public Service. Enrolments in this program have now been reduced to, I think, 30, which means that women are being deprived not only of employment but also of the opportunity to acquire the skills which could lead to employment in better times.

Similarly, people hoping to be employed in the construction industry are in a very unhealthy situation. Despite the fact that there was an announcement yesterday that the Government had backed down on its hard line attitude on contracts let by the National Capital Development Commission to the tune of $50m for urgent school buildings, the cancellation of major NCDC projects led the Executive Director of the Master Builders Association to say, as reported in yesterday’s Canberra Times, that there was nothing in the NCDC’s announcement regarding the $50m that will be made available to make him revise the Association’s previous estimate that 4000 to 5000 fewer people would be employed in the construction industry in Canberra by June this year than were employed in September last year. This is a serious situation and one that has been brought about directly by the Government’s ‘squeeze Canberra’ policy.

The housing situation has grown drastically worse in the last few months. There was an increase in the price of land- a decision which was taken unilaterally by the then Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Eric Robinson, without consultation with the local Legislative Assembly. The Government conveyancing office was shut, which has meant that people buying houses with Commissioner for Housing loans now will have to pay up to 100 per cent more in conveyancing costs to private solicitors. There has been a drying-up of funds for Commissioner for Housing loans. As yet there has been no specific statement about what funds will be available and under what terms funds will be available to people in Canberra seeking Commissioner for Housing loans.

Debate interrupted. (General Business taking precedence of

page 805

QUESTION

ABORIGINES AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I move:

That notice of motion was placed on the notice paper on 17 February 1976. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and other members of the Government have been saying over the past few weeks that the Aboriginal people will not suffer as a result of the implementation of the policies of the Federal coalition Government. For the record I will quote telegrams, copies of which were distributed, as far as I know, to all Aboriginal settlements prior to the election held on 13 December last. The telegrams emanated from Sydney and, I assume, were paid for by the taxpayers. The first was sent out on 28 November and is framed in these words:

Mr Bob Ellicott, Liberal and Country Party Spokesman for Aboriginal Affairs, said today there would be no cuts in Aboriginal Affairs budget or in Aboriginal Affairs programs. Funds will continue to be made available for housing, education, employment, health, legal aid etc. Pensions payable to Aboriginal people will not be cut and will rise automatically twice a year with cost of living increases. All available funds will be shared among Abonginal communities on a fair and impartial basis. A Liberal-National Country Party Government will support Aboriginal organisations such as the Aboriginal medical or legal services. It will hold an urgent inquiry into the role of the NACC to determine whether it can be given a more important role in Aboriginal Affairs. Efforts will be made to increase the number of Aboriginal people involved in Aboriginal Affairs. Employment and training schemes will be urgently investigated with aim of increasing job opportunities for Aborigines throughout Australia. Spread the word that there is absolutely no truth in Labor Party rumours about cuts in Aboriginal Affairs budget. Under a Liberal-Country Party Government Aborigines will be better not worse off. Urge Aborigines to vote LiberalCountry Party on December 1 3.

Honourable senators opposite may interject, but they have starved these people since they came to power- although I suppose that is in order, with their political thinking. A further telegram reads:

Liberal-National Country Party policy on Aboriginal Affairs. Following are main points:

Aboriginal Affairs budget. No cuts in Aboriginal Affairs budget or in programs. Funds to be shared among Aboriginal communities on fair basis. Funds to continue to be made available for housing, education, employment, health, legal aid, etc.

Pensions payable to Aboriginal people will not be cut and will rise automatically twice a year with cost of living increases.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Will grant land rights over all Aboriginal Reserves in Northern Territory. Will help Aborigines to buy land off reserves. Land rights legislation to have top priority immediately after election. All Aboriginal councils and other interested bodies and persons to be consulted on Land Rights Bill. Want local Aboriginal land owners to control use and development of their lands and to decide who should bc permitted to enter whether Aborigine or non-Aborigine. Prospecting and mining to reflect views of local Aboriginal land owners. Protection for all sacred sites. Mining royalties from Aboriginal land to go to Aboriginal people and fair share to local Aboriginal land owners.

Aboriginal Self Management

Aboriginal representatives to be encouraged to play greater role in policy making. Urgent inquiry to be held into role of National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) investigation to remove waste and inefficiency. Independent and efficient Aboriginal organisations to bc encouraged.

Additional Funds

Two new entitlement funds to be set up to recognise national responsibility for dispossession and dispersal of Aboriginal people. Money for Aboriginal loans and land funds commissions to continue.

Develop Aboriginal Self Reliance

Wish to reduce white bureaucracy in Aboriginal affairs and increase Aboriginal staff. Will give priority to extra Ahoriginal field workers and advisers in health education and community development. Also priority to new Aboriginal pre-schools. Priority to expansion of education in Aboriginal languages. All Australian children to be taught Aboriginal history and culture. Aboriginal parents to help in education programs. Will investigate employment and training schemes to increase Aboriginal jobs. In Government will consider all other proposals supported by Aboriginal people. Vote Liberal and National Country Party on December 1 3 for new deal for Aboriginal people.

The telegram was signed: ‘Bob Ellicott, LiberalNational Country Party spokesman on Aboriginal affairs’. It is obvious that when those promises were made they were purely political speculation. The Liberal and National Country Parties had no intention of carrying them into operation. I have pages of documentation before me showing that the Aboriginal people are now as badly off as they were prior to 2 December 1 972.

Two references on the last page of that telegram relate to the setting up of new funds. That has not happened. Funds previously established by the Labor Government have been dissipated, suspended, frozen or in fact are not being kept up to the level at which they ought to be kept for ongoing programs. It was also suggested that additional Aboriginal people would be appointed to staff positions, but we have found not only that additional Aboriginal people are not being appointed to staff positions but also that Aboriginal people are in fact being dismissed in increasing numbers. It will be recalled that a few weeks ago Mr Viner and I had a discussion through the Australian Press regarding the sacking of some people in an area in central Australia. A number of Press statements was made dealing with this matter. I will refer to them as I progress. I do not want to have a personal argument with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, but if he accepts the portfolio he has to accept the responsibility that goes with it. The unfortunate fact that the Prime Minister obviously has bis finger very tightly on the control of Aboriginal affairs, as does the Premier of Queensland, is to the discredit of the Government. The Minister ought to be given the right to make a few decisions himself.

The National Council of Aboriginal and Island Women has had its budget cut by at least 50 per cent. Previously it had a staff of four; it now has a staff of two. The allowance for the running of the Council’s car has been cut to $6 a week. I do not know whether any honourable senator opposite can run his car, including petrol, maintenance, registration and insurance costs, on $6 a week. The Federal Liaison Officer now has to do the job of the office cleaner as well. She is doing that when she ought to be out in the field doing a job on behalf of her own people. Last year, before the advent of the Fraser Government, by arrangement with the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Department it was decided to abandon the holding of Council meetings on the promise that they would be held this year. There will be no Council meeting as the Council has now been advised that no funds will be made available. The excuse given by the Department is that it wanted proof that the organisation was a national body.

It is a bit like the land rights problem at Aurukun. There has been a continuing argument as to whether the people there are to be dispossessed. The Queensland Government says that they are to be dispossessed. The Australian Government has not done very much about contradicting that statement. When the Queensland Ombudsman turned up there the day before yesterday he must have talked only to the gum trees around the settlement because the Aboriginal reserve council members were in fact in the Northern Territory. If that is an example of the organisation that is going on it is not hard to believe that the Government has set out on a concerted effort to deprive the people of their rights, of the grants to which they are entitled and of the ordinary justice that all of us in this community expect and accept.

One would hope that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs would at least keep the Australian Labor Party’s officers up to date on what is happening in the same way as the Ministers of the Labor Government used to do in days gone by for shadow Ministers, but there has been no communication in this regard. The position has become worse than that, as a gentleman named

Stuart Carter, who lives at Wagga, which is not many miles away from here, has found in his endeavours to make contact with Mr Wharton, who is the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement in Queensland. On the last occasion that Mr Carter wrote to him Mr Wharton refused to claim the letter. The following are some of the remarks that Mr Carter has made in an open letter:

Dear Mr Viner,

So much for our free society. So much for our lucky country, where all people have the right to express themselves freely. So much for all that. So what happens if the person or persons being spoken to refuse to listen to your point of view? What do you call that?

As you no doubt know from my previous correspondence on the Aurukun Aboriginal issue, I have not been unreasonable in my questioning. I have only endeavoured to be an informed and responsible citizen.

Might I say at this point that this is an example of what is happening to the Aboriginal people. Nobody will tell them what is the future policy of the Government. I notice that Senator Kilgariff is in the chamber. I think that he is probably as confused as other people because in Alice Springs recently he made a statement and then went home and issued a Press release contradicting his previous statement. I will read that to honourable senators in a moment. Mr Carter’s letter continues:

And how am I treated- with scorn and contempt- at least that is the only conclusion I can come to after writing to Mr Clive Wharton the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs. You see he refused and returned my letter. Mind you, I had gone to considerable expense for him to receive it personally by having it registered AR-and to think that is all I got.

He went on to talk about an enclosure with the letter. The final paragraph that I want to read was in the following terms:

So, when is the Government you represent going to use the powers conferred on it by the 1967 referendum to overturn the unjust legislation enacted by the Queensland Government to grant a mining lease in the Aurukun Aboriginal Reserve?

I refer now to comments made by the Minister in a Press statement issued on 1 March 1976. 1 will not quote the whole statement, but I think that I should quote certain paragraphs of it to prove the points that I am making. The Press statement was issued in response to a statement made previously by me in which I accused the Minister of political duplicity over the mixup that was taking place in central Australia. The Press statement released by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs stated:

Mr Viner said there was no denial from any section of the community that the country was facing a severe economic crisis and ways had to be found to cope with the massive deficit. One acknowledged means was to cut down on Government spending. He added:

The economies have been made throughout almost all areas of Government expenditure. The cut of $7.3m made to the current Aboriginal Affairs budget is, as I have stated previously, not a single blow aimed at the Aboriginal people.

Let us reflect on that for a moment. The then shadow’ Minister for Aboriginal Affairs said prior to 13 December: ‘Do not believe the propaganda that the Labor Party is spreading because no cuts will be made in the Aboriginal budget’. Less than 3 months later- within those famous 100 days- we have the Minister telling us of the massive cuts that have been made in Aboriginal expenditure. If that is not political duplicity I want to know what is. The Minister’s statement continued:

No person will go hungry, despite Senator Keeffe ‘s assertion to the contrary. Also, major disruptions to programs are not anticipated.

He did not say that that would not happen but that it was not anticipated that it would happen. But the Government can still take the eggs off the kids in the Central Australian settlements; it can still cut out the breakfast programs in other settlements; and generally, by dismissing people who probably will not receive social security payments, it can take the money away from a man and his family. I suppose that if one is black that is in order in this society but it is not in order as far as I am concerned. The Press release of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs continues: . . ‘wholesale sackings’, as alleged by the Opposition spokesman had not taken place. There had been some terminations of employment and closure of kitchens in the Northern Territory as part of an ongoing program started in 1974 under the Labor Government. The Minister went on:

The departmental telex quoted by Senator Keeffe specifically called for consultation with the Aboriginal communities and for recommendations on terminations, but not for terminations as such ‘.

Mr Viner said he had initiated immediate inquiries into Senator Keeffe ‘s statement that ‘a further eight Aboriginal employees had been sacked at Papunya’. As a result he had established that a misunderstanding of the Department’s initial telex inquiry within the Papunya community had led to the employing authority incorrectly dismissing eight Aboriginals. When the Department became aware of the error they had been reinstated immediately.

This is not true. Several days later those people had not been reinstated. The Press statement continues:

Mr Viner stated that no retrenchments of Aboriginal departmental staff had taken place as a direct result of the budget economies.

I shall read from a radiogram that was sent at 1500 hours on 13 February and states:

This branch has to make a saving of approximately $50,000 this financial year- in wages for industrials. After close scrutiny it has been decided that the only way to achieve this cut is to retrench industrials already employed. Numbers to be retrenched are as follows:

This is a white man’s decision. Allegedly the councils in each community are making these decisions but this decision has come from the office of the Department. The numbers of people to be dismissed in each area are listed in this radiogram. I shall ask leave in a moment, Madam Acting Deputy President, for the figures to bc incorporated in Hansard instead of my reading them out. But I wish to spell out another paragraph of the radiogram. It states:

Please liaise with community advisor to council at yours and provide this branch with your recommendations for termination on schedule Monday. It may be necessary to make further cuts later in year. It has also been necessary to achieve a cut in expenditure from food vote and this has been done by:

The list which follows includes:

Ceasing supply eggs all centres effective immediately.

Then this final little sting in the tail appears, in which everybody associated with the Department was requested to: . . watch very closely manner in which food prepared and served and to eliminate wastage theft/pilfering to bc reported and action will be taken against offenders.

So if one lived in an area where the food supply had been cut off and one had a couple of hungry youngsters who knocked off a potato or a slice of bread the youngsters would be dealt with in accordance with all the hard parts of the law. Returning to the Press statement of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, it is stated:

In regard to Senator Keeffe ‘s statement that it had been more than difficult’ to ascertain the Terms of Reference associated with the Hay Inquiry into the effectiveness of delivery of services by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Mr Viner said he himself had announced the terms.

They were contained in full in a Press statement headed Inquiry into Services for Aboriginals’ issued in Canberra on 30 January. As a courtesy, a copy of this statement had been sent to Senator Keeffe on the day of issue. He had apparently either not received it or had not read it.

I propose to read out the terms of reference and if anybody in this chamber can understand what they mean then they must have a sixth sense because I am sure that I cannot understand them and that the Aboriginal people cannot understand them and I do not think that anybody else can either. I doubt very much that Mr Hay can understand them.

Senator Chaney:

– Is there a prize if you can?

Senator KEEFFE:

-That is a very smart little interjection. I shall spell out the terms of reference in one syllable words and perhaps the honourable senator might be able to work them out for us. The terms of reference for the examination are:

To examine and report to the Government on the delivery of services financed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs with a view to:- -Assessing the effectiveness of the services financed.

We did not even have to wait for these; massive cuts were made straight away. The terms of reference continued: -Recommending improvements in the delivery of services and their financial arrangements in the interests of Aborigines and the community at large. -Establishing whether there are any areas of waste or inefficiency.

We have cut down on the eggs so I suppose that eliminates that area of waste; we have cut down on wages so I suppose that eliminates that area of waste; and there are the houses which are standing half finished around many reserves allegedly because the Government has run out of money. As my good personal friend, Holy Joe, said the other day when he arrived back is Brisbane: ‘The Federal Government is bankrupt- it is broke. It will not give me two bob’.

The Press release issued by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on 4 February 1976 which contained the terms of reference for the inquiry stated also:

The Minister said the examination was to encompass the delivery of services financed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs through community organisations and special agencies, in addition to those services delivered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs itself.

I understand that Mr Hay is on the road- he has gone walkabout. But he is not talking to any Aboriginal people if it can be avoided. He is talking to members of the National Country Party in Central Australia because he believes apparently that they are the people who run the show. Mr Hay has talked to a few Aboriginal people in Alice Springs. I have not been able to find that he has visited any of the reserves. Aboriginal people in every State of Australia are sending protests to me saying: ‘What is Mr Hay doing? When is he coming to talk to us?’ Apparently, at the direction of the Government, in the areas that he has been he has been told to talk to white people only and, to make it look respectable, now and again he may have a short conversation with an Aboriginal.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– If the honourable senator knew Mr Hay he would realise that that is not true.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am making no slur in respect of Mr Hay- if that is the implication of the honourable senator’s interjection. I am making a slur on the Government for not doing the job it was elected to do and for not carrying out the promises to which the Government’s present

Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) signed his name prior to 13 December. A meeting of 12 clan leaders of Elcho Island was held on Tuesday, 1 7 February 1976. I shall read some of the statements which were written by the Aboriginal people. Those present at the meeting were Mr Burramurra, who was the Chairman.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Chairman of what, senator?

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the honourable senator’s local progress association had a chairman he would probably ask me what he was doing, too. I am surprised at the honourable senator’s total ignorance in the field of Aboriginal affairs. He is the Chairman of the local Aboriginal Council and that is that. If the honourable senator wants a copy of this statement I shall photo copy it for him and send the copy to him by registered post. But I am not going to be deterred from continuing with this statement. I mentioned that Mr Burramurra was present as the Chairman. The following people were present also: Mr Djorrpum, Mr Djupandaway, Mr Matiuwi, Mr Nypaynga, Mr Barrnyurnyur, Mr Daypurryun, Mr Mowarna, Mr Monyu and Mr Liwukang. Most of these people represent either the Gupapuyngu clan, the Gumatj clan or the Dhal.wangu clan. But let me read their statement. It reads as follows:

Burramurra made the following speech as spokesman for the above clan leaders: ‘There has been a discussion this morning by the above clan leaders and we call ourselves an executive group and we recommend to the Government us follows:

This recommendation to go through the Northern Land Council to the Prime Minister that the Aboriginal Law and order must not change, our scale of system to remain; what Mr Whitlam and Mr Justice Woodward gave us during the term of the Labor Government. We decided about the significance that each tribe will supply to the House of Parliament in Canberra, Capital city of Australia. So the Prime Minister can decide whether he will accept this discussion from this meeting and what we suggest for our standard in Arnhem Land, we suggest we keep that one law, the same law of what we were before Captain Cook, before Mr Fraser. We are grateful for the Labor Government during Mr Whitlam’s time and his Government. Now this year Mr Fraser took over the power ruling the rules of us black and white here in Australia. Our suggestion to the Prime Minister Mr Fraser that we would like to keep one law, no change. Because the Liberal Government and Mr Fraser took over this time we don’t like, we don’t agree and are unhappy. This recommendation will go to the Northern Land Council. If the Government themselves not happy about this discussion we would like the solicitors, ambassadors, lawyers to come over and talk with us at Galiwinku about this system, this law we have been keeping throughout the ages, because the Aboriginal law it is not changing except because of the Balanda amongst the Yolngu people. But privately and individually the Aboriginal law is the same and one. Not to change. Nobody can move that we change that and break that. Nobody can conquer the law (Aboriginal law) and order. If any government or anyone puts out of his way, with one wish, will spoil it.

I will not quote the whole document. There are 2 other relevant sections of quite great significance.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Who wrote it for him?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I do not know why Senator Sir Magnus Cormack comes in with his ignorant interjections. He thinks because people are black that they cannot read and write. He brings in racist overtones to every debate on Aboriginal affairs which is held in this chamber. I think that is to his utter disgrace. The document continues:

We the Aboriginal people here in Arnhem Land are thinking for our land, thinking what things will change because of Liberal Government who got in this year 1976. New Government.

The Labor Government has been brotherly guidance, friendly in the light of the Whitlam Government.

The Chairman continues:

What is happening in schools, Aboriginal language and Balanda language -

As my colleague Senator Bonner on the other side of the chamber would know, Balanda is the white man’s language in this part of the country as it is the Gubs language in other areas and the Parma in areas around Cape York. The description of white people carries a different word in the various tribal areas. The Chairman continued:

What is happening in schools, Aboriginal language and Balanda language, we like that way in school, everything we are running together hand in hand, black and white. Everything we are governing for, that can be on the 2 people’s lips together, not just lips of black people not just white lips themselves. That not good way. Black and white working together and feeling one people that there are one people here in Australia according to that 1962 that assimilation that has been raised up in Northern Territory Darwin assimilation into law and order, but we are one, while we are one people for Australia. In Australia for everything work together. Any mining company or fishermen or forestry men or any occupation they can come and talk to the Aboriginal people finding out no yes if Aboriginal people say no or yes this way is proper way. This is the way that way if we can make it. We have to make it.

Part of that refers to something I said last night regarding the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Acts. A strong rumour has started that the Acts will be abolished and the 7 million acres of Aboriginal reserves in Queensland may be sold to white investors and developers. A proclamation was issued by the National Congress of the Australian Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders during its meeting here a week or two ago. I do not propose to read it all but I want to read the first few statements in the proclamation. It reads:

We the members of the National Congress of the Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders, assembled at Canberra, Australia this 10th day of March 1 976, do hereby, as the democratically elected representatives of our people, solemnly and unanimously resolve that we claim for our people the following inalienable rights:- the right to natural justice, the right to self determination as a separate and distinct people, with our own laws and customs, languages culture and heritage, living in our ancient home-land and with the right to a full voice in and influence on our own affairs, the right to be free from the racial oppression and discrimination imposed upon us by the uninvited European people who have invaded our country and imposed their own laws and way of life upon us, the right to preserve in perpetuity for our people the surviving tribal lands reserves and sacred sites in all Australian states and territories, the right to fair and just compensation to our scattered tribes, our detribalised and urban people, for the lands seized from our forefathers, and for the inhuman and violent treatment of our people.

The document comprises another page or so and I seek leave to have the remainder incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Coleman)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

PROCLAMATION

We the members of the National Congress of the Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders, assembled at Canberra, Australia this 10th day of March 1976, do hereby, as the democratically elected representatives of our people, solemnly and unanimously resolve that we claim for our people the following inalienable rights: the right to natural justice, the right to self determination as a separate and distinct people, with our own laws and customs, languages culture and heritage, living in our ancient home-land and with the right to a full voice in and influence on our own affairs, the right to be free from the racial oppression and discrimination imposed upon us by the uninvited European people who have invaded our country and imposed their own laws and way of life upon us, the right to preserve in perpetuity for our people the surviving tribal lands reserves and sacred sites in all Australian states and territories, the right to fair and just compensation to our scattered tribes, our detribalised and urban people, for the lands seized from our forefathers, and for the inhuman and violent treatment of our people.

And we further unanimously resolve: to place our claims before the United Nations and to appeal to all the peoples of the world who believe in freedom and justice for moral and financial support in the fight for our peoples ‘ rights, to call upon the Australian Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders to unite behind their Congress, and, as never before to fight as one to secure and preserve our ancient heritage, and we announce our resolve, with the support of our people, to build up the strength of the Congress, to conduct the next congress elections in September 1976, and to ensure that the claims of our people for a free and better way of life are pursued vigorously and without fear.

page 810

QUESTION

AND IN SO RESOLVING WE DRAW TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD THE FOLLOWING INESCAPABLE FACTS:

  1. The oppressed conditions of life and the misery and despair of our people, with the highest infant mortality in the world and an adult life expectancy of ten to twenty years less than the white community of our land, and the dispossession paralleled, in the modern world, only with the plight of the Palestinian people.
  2. The continuous encroachment upon the remnants of our tribal lands by mining and other white enterprises and the continuing process of genocide detribalisation and destruction of our culture which follows.
  3. The similarity of our position to black Africa, PapuaNew Guinea, Fiji and other former white controlled areas of the world- except that we can never hope to be completely free of the white majority- we can only fight for selfdetermination in a country dominated by a so called white master.
  4. The slaughter of our people in the past by an attitude of mind still reflected in police brutality and the racial discrimination actively pursued against us.
  5. The economic enslavement of a black race by a white master race.
  6. The complete refusal of the Australian white system to provide a place and way for us to participate in the administration of so-called justice- no judges, no magistrates, no jurymen- only a half-hearted and meagre attempt to give us representation when we fall foul of the white man’s law.
  7. The extraordinarily high proportion of our people held in white man’s gaols and the severity of sentences passed by the white man ‘s courts against our people.
  8. The opinion of many of the uninformed white people in our country that we are ‘no-hopers’- we who are born into a white dominated society in which we are offered no hope- a society which resents our very existence and in which many deplore that we were not completely wiped out by their forefathers.
  9. The determination of the majority of white politicians and bureaucrats in our country, supported by white vested interests, despite lip-service by some of them to the contrary, never to allow us to have any effective control over our own destiny.

And we further unanimously resolve, with the support of our people, to stand and fight, with all the means at our disposal, for the right of our people to live with freedom and dignity in the land of our ancestors.

President of the National Congress of the Australian Aboriginal People and the Torres Strait Islanders

Senator KEEFFE:

– Let me refer to another Press statement released by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This Press release was issued in the face of the promises made by the coalition parties prior to 13 December. The statement was made on 4 February. The Minister said on that date that his Department would defer the funding of certain projects and make savings in others, including travel, overtime and other administrative costs to put into effect the Government’s decision to cut spending in this area by $7m. He said that this would reduce the total expenditure by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs from the Budget appropriation of $ 142 m to an amount of $ 1 35m for the current year.

In the final paragraph of that statement he said that other savings would be made by economy measures already announced concerning the general field of Public Service unemployment. I say that these cuts are only the thin edge of the wedge and the cuts will be much greater than $7m. Let me cite a few examples whichI believe will indicate this quite clearly. Before the last federal election the Country Party sent a telegram to all the settlements saying that there would be no cutbacks in the Aboriginal Affairs budget or Aboriginal projects. That was a lie. I read the telegram earlier. I wish to refer to a circular that was sent to people in various areas, long distances from Alice Springs. Part of the circular reads:

Now a lot of people are being hurt by cutbacks and we want to find out what is happening at your place.

The first cut that was made applied to the Congress. Its budget was cut by $2 1 , 000 so that it can no longer put on the staff it needs to do the job. The medical service has run out of money and cannot get more although it was promised more. So far as I know it still has not got any. In regard to legal aid, there is only enought money for about another 6 weeks operation and the Government will not say if it will give more. This is happening with every Aboriginal service, whether it be the medical service in any of the States or in the Territory or whether it be the legal service. I know that some lawyers want to see the Aboriginal legal service abolished.

Many doctors who subscribe to the journals of the Australian Medical Association want to see Aboriginal medical services abolished. Finance to housing associations everywhere has been cut back. A lot of people have lost their jobs in certain areas. Let me refer to some of them. Docker River received some $330,000 less and 12 people were put off. Yuendumu received $300,000 less and 8 people were put off. Jay Creek received $180,000 less and 3 people were put off. Haasts Bluff received $200,000 less and one person was put off. I listed a number of other areas previously and I will not repeat them. I have a document that was made available by elders and other people associated with the administration of tribes in the Papunya area. I will read part of the document. The document was sent to Mr Fraser, Mr Viner, Mr Whitlam and to myself. It reads:

We are the bosses at Hermannsburg. We want the promise. We want the promise for the land rights too. You promised not to cut Aboriginal money before the election. Already you have broken that promise. You promised to make that land rights law right away after the election. Now you say the Darwin mob might make that law. We want you to make it yourself as you promised.

Having listened to the murmurings of the Prime Minister over the last few days, one can say that it is possible that the legislation may go through this Parliament.

Senator Bonner:

– On what do you base that statement?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Well, as I said, Mr Fraser made tribal noises the other day as a result of a delegation of National Country Party people who came down to Canberra, following their vote of no confidence in him. Those people saw him yesterday. They saw Mr Viner, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, also. I understand that the Prime Minister has said that as soon as possible the land rights legislation will go through both Houses of the Federal Parliament. I am not too sure that that is going to happen because, if the National Country Party dominated Legislative Assembly in Darwin can get its way, it will not allow that legislation to go through here.

Senator Missen:

– On what basis do you say that?

Senator Bonner:

– On what do you base that assumption?

Senator KEEFFE:

-Well, I am always an optimist, Senator Bonner.

Senator Missen:

– You sound like a pessimist.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am always an optimist. If the Prime Minister has made that statement in the last 24 hours, let us hope that, for God ‘s sake, he is not telling us another lie as he did throughout the election campaign and ever since he has been Prime Minister.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise to take a point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I hope this time that he might be telling the truth. At least I am prepared to -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Who did you say did not tell the truth? Madam Acting Deputy President, Senator Keeffe made a reference to someone telling a lie. I would be grateful if he would indicate to honourable senators who was telling the lie.

Senator Missen:

– The Prime Minister, he said.

Senator Martin:

– He said the Prime Minister.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will substitute for that word the word ‘untruth’ which is the parliamentary equivalent. I am sorry I said the word. I apologise. But I was provoked by honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber who apparently have less faith in their own Prime Minister than I think I might have just at the moment. But if by tomorrow he has changed his mind, I will be back to him again, boots and all.

Senator Bonner:

– What I am asking for is a clarification of your assumption.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I think that I have replied on that point. The final paragraph of this letter states:

You promised the law. If you give them the law they will break that word for you.

A number of signatures are attached to that letter. There are also a couple of paragraphs that I have not read. I ask for leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard, to save my boring people by reading it in full.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– No, I will not agree to that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is leave granted?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– No. I have been involved in the problem of Senator Keeffe ‘s asking for incorporations in Hansard. Until he indicates to the Senate what it is he is asking the Senate to give leave to incorporate in Hansard, I am not prepared to allow him to include in the pages of Hansard matters in respect of which he has not indicated to the Senate in general terms what he is asking the Senate to do. Senator Keeffe will recollect clearly what causes the Senate to object to the inclusion in Hansard of matters which the Senate has not had the opportunity of investigating.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr President, I can understand the worry of the former President of the Senate. I recall the incident very clearly. It was dealing with Aboriginal affairs. It was a statement by a young lady about some unjust treatment that she had received. She included fourletter words in the document. The President of the day was anxious to knock off for dinner as were Ministers on the Government side that day. They agreed to its incorporation and we had a lot of fun trying to get those words out. There is nothing at all obscene in this proposed incorporation. There are straight statements. For the benefit of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, I pass the document up to you, Mr President. The second page contains only signatures to the document.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is all right. That is what we want to know.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If you are happy about that, may I ask for leave to have the document incorporated, including the signatures if they can be read.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, it is the second page which you wish incorporated?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes, and 2 paragraphs on the first page.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted for the incorporation of a letter to the persons named therein, which was signed by a number of Aborigines?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Do you approve, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:
Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I offer no objection.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted for the incorporation of the document, including the signatures if they can be read. (The document read in part)-

We are tired of people telling us lies. How can we feed our families if you break your promises. How can we make better lives if you don ‘t give us our land.

Senator KEEFFE:

-I thank the Senate. Let me continue with the sorry story of what is happening. I turn to a statement that was given to me by responsible people. The Papunya settlement had a total of 16 persons sacked, including the industrial staff to whom I referred earlier in this debate. These are the people who do the grass cutting, cleaning and so on around the various settlements. Mr Viner made a statement that eight were sacked by accident and were reemployed. Now, my authority, who incidentally, is not an Aborigine, is totally reliable and totally associated with the black community -

Senator Bonner:

– Would you like to name him?

Senator KEEFFE:

-No, I am not going to name him. He is just as entitled to talk to me -

Senator Bonner:

– Then how do we know that he is reliable?

Senator KEEFFE:

- Senator Bonner, he is just as entitled to talk to me as people are entitled to talk to you in confidence. I do not have to name him, but I will tell you what he said. He said that Mr Viner ‘s statement that eight who were sacked by accident had been re-employed was ‘a load of frog shit’. Now, I am sorry about that -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

– Well, it is a word that is in common use -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That language is not parliamentary and it must not be used in the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Well, what can I use then when I am reading from the statement, Sir?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator may not read those things which an honourable senator may not say in the normal course of debate. Please do not use such terms.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Well, I will withdraw the word and say that it was a load of rubbish.

The PRESIDENT:
Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you. No one had been re-employed to his knowledge and the sackings were deliberate. The statement from the Haasts Bluff settlement is to the effect that the kitchen was closed before the last election. This was while there was a caretaker government. The doors allegedly did not shut properly on the kitchen so the Department of Aboriginal Affairs shut the whole place. At Utopia station, two housing association workers were sacked. At the Hooker Creek settlement the kitchen was closed because it did not show a profit and 4 persons were sacked. At Areyonga the kitchen was closed. In fact, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs put it to people that if the kitchen did not close down other economies would be made. So the people decided to close the kitchen and 7 persons were sacked, five from the kitchen and two from home management. Since then, one person has been re-employed. I mention next the Santa Theresa mission. There, all 15 -year-olds to 18-year-olds have been sacked by the Council to save money due to the cuts. The people tried to protect the older workers with family responsibilities. Only half wages are being paid to those still in jobs. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Prime Minister and others are saying that there are no cuts. All of these cases that I am presenting can be substantially backed up.

At Maryvale station, the housing association was stopped. That was done just prior to the election. Approximately 7 persons were sacked at Docker River from the housing association because work never actually started. The price of meals was increased by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs from 10c and 20c to $1 and $2 a meal. All 70 school kids used to eat lunch there but now they do not have lunch in many instances because nobody can afford the $1 or $2. Absenteeism at the school is sure to increase. I turn to the Garden settlement. Four persons were sacked there. This was the result of various bungles as well as lack of money. For 3 months the people tried to get the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to buy a part for a pump. It did not come; the crops failed; so 4 persons were sacked. That is a summary of statements that have been made by responsible people in these areas.

I have a protest telegram here which reads:

The Eastern Goldfields Aboriginal Communities are distressed at the axing of the Aboriginal Affairs budget. The Fraser Government will cause hardship and illness among our people. Please help us. (Signed) Ben Mason, National Aboriginal Consultative Committee.

Ben Mason is the NACC representative. To confuse the issue, great problems are being experienced in Queensland. I am not quite sure whether this is a morale busting job or what is going on. Honourable senators will recall that not so many years ago- about 2 years ago- I complained about the council on Palm Island being closed down. I complained also about the signing of a document by people who were not entitled to do so. In fact, two or three of the signatories had died before the document was prepared. We have a similar problem now in the Torres Strait. Phillip Nona, one of those who nominated for the position, indicates in a telegram what has happened. The telegram reads:

Further article ‘Uncle Protests on Poll Won by his Nephew’ Saturday 7.2.76. Following advice from Aborigines and Islanders legal aid have forwarded petition to Mr Wharton Minister AIA worded ‘We the undersigned wish to register a complaint on the general administration of the recent Badu Island Councils.

Substantial Australian Government funds are going into this area. I understand that there has been a serious cutback in funds for the Torres Strait area. Where there has been no cutback, no departmental officer can tell anybody what is happening. They do not know whether the money will continue to be made available. Ninety-nine people from Badu Island signed the petition that I have in my hand. I shall read the covering letter and then ask that the names of the petitioners be incorporated in Hansard. The letter reads:

I have attached a petition signed by ninety-nine (99) voters from Badu Island Community who want to complain about the Badu Council elections.

I have been advised by my lawyers to send copies to the Honourable Mr E. Deeral, M.L.A.; Mr P. J. Killoran, Director of Aborigines and Islanders Advancement; Mr Tanu Nona, O.B.E., Chairman, Island Advisory Council; and Mr Cetano Lui and Mr George Mye, Island Advisory Council.

The matter I wish to incorporate in Hansard is only signatures. There is nothing subversive about this. There are no four-letter words or eight-letter words in it. I seek leave to have the signatures incorporated in Hansard, provided that they can be read.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Bonner:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. If the honourable senator has a petition, why has he not presented it in the normal way?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Bonner, Senator Keeffe has expressed a desire to have matter incorporated. He has sought leave. Is leave granted?

Senator Bonner:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted, subject to the proviso that the signatures can be read.

Senator KEEFFE:

– In answer to Senator Bonner, I point out that this is a petition to Mr Wharton; it is not a petition to this House of Parliament. I said that in the first place. If honourable senators listened more closely to the debate they might hear me. I am not casting aspersions upon Senator Bonner’s hearing. I just wanted to mention that. The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (Inc.) released a Press statement recently. In part, it states:

Representatives of our Organisations have now visited every major Aboriginal community in Central Australia in the past week. The purpose of the visits was to seek the opinions of communities on the current controversy over cutbacks in expenditure and Land Rights Legislation.

At every community the response was similar. The people strongly support the stand which we have taken and have urged us to maintain the demand that Federal Parliament pass the Land Rights Legislation as a matter of priority . . .

It is also clear from our discussions with our members that Government cut-backs have been even more serious than wc originally thought. Despite what Mr Viner may believe, no choice was offered to communities about cut-backs. They were given an ultimatum that cuts were to occur and their only choice was on the question of who should be sacked.

The Government memo dated 13 February 1976 which started the cuts makes the lack of choice very clear.

I referred to that earlier. A delegation came to Canberra a few days ago. I understand that the Central Australian Aboriginal people who were represented by the delegation saw the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, as well as a number of other people. They gave a report on the reason for setting up the delegation and the manner in which it had been selected. Their statement reads:

On Friday 12th March 1975 the largest meeting of Aboriginal people ever held in the Northern Territory took place at Alice Springs. The meeting and march involved 1500 people. They came from every community in a radius of one million square miles and endured hunger and great hardship in making the journey.

The meeting was in response to requests from Aboriginal people who wanted to demonstrate their concern on two vital issues:

The suggestion that the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill 1975 which the Government had promised to pass as a matter of urgency with no changes in substance would be handed over to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for drafting and control.

Cut backs in Aboriginal employment and programs which despite pre-election promises, had taken place causing great hardship to many communities.

Senator Bonner:

– Can you tell us who were the organisers of that meeting?

Senator KEEFFE:

-The organisers of that meeting were Aboriginal groups in Alice Springs and the communities on the settlements. I have no reason to doubt that whatsoever, because I have talked to many of them.

Senator Lajovic:

– How many?

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the honourable senator is implying that Senator Kilgariff organised that delegation, he is quite wrong. Senator Kilgariff made a statement to the crowd telling them that he would support action to have the matter of their land rights dealt with in the Federal Parliament.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I did not. I said that the Liberal-National Country Party policy is to give Aborigines their land rights.

Senator KEEFFE:

-There were 1500 witnesses. Nobody has said anything different to me. I say that the honourable senator changed his statement in a Press release which he prepared afterwards and which was published on 15 March 1976. It states:

Senator Kilgariff today expressed concern that Government funded organisations appeared to be distorting Aboriginal programs into propaganda platforms.

He was referring to last week’s land rights demonstration in Alice Springs, attended by over 500 Central Australian Aborigines.

Of course, that is Senator Kilgariff’s figure. The figure of the Aborigines and of independent witnesses is 1 500. The statement continues:

He said Aboriginals were obviously concerned over the Land Rights issue and their views were genuine.

However, in actually promoting the demonstration, people such as Mr Neville Perkins and the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service had apparently abused the principal terms of their existence by using money which had been allocated for other purposes.

Senator Kilgariff said Mr Perkins had withheld important information when he addressed the rally last Friday.

He failed to tell the people assembled that Mr Viner had notified Mr Perkins by telegram saying the Government was vigorously pursuing the Land Rights matter . . . The Minister had also assured Mr Perkins that finance was in fact being made available to Aboriginal programs within the N.T.,Senator Kilgariff added.

I have not seen that telegram. I do not know whether Senator Kilgariff has seen it. I do not know where he got that statement from, but it is of very dubious origin as far as I am concerned. The Press article also states:

Senator Bernie Kilgariff today reaffirmed that the Country-Liberal Party was endeavouring to control the introduction of Aboriginal Land Rights legislation through the Legislative Assembly.

No doubt that is consistent with the general political philosophy of the great majority of people in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

One of the early sackings which took place was of a gentleman named Buzzacott. He was sacked in South Australia. I have a letter which was addressed to Mr Buzzacott on 27 February 1976. It states:

Pursuant to Section 82 (6) of the Public Service Act. your services as Exempt Liaison Officer (National Co-ordinator for the Nigerian Festival) are terminated with effect from close of business, Friday, 27 February 1976.

The decision of terminating your services has been made by the Chief Officer on the basis that the specific project for which you were engaged has reached the stage where your services are no longer necessary.

In accordance with Clause 15 of Determination 32 of 1956, payment in lieu of 1 week’s notice will be made to you.

Yours faithfully.

I understand that he was a popular officer. I suppose that a good excuse for his dismissal is that there were cut-backs in finance. But the crux of the situation is that, while the Government protests that it has made no cuts in moneys for Aboriginal affairs and while it protests that nobody will suffer, it is in fact sacking people. The fact that this is happening is a repudiation of every promise made by the Liberal and National Country Parties prior to the election on 13 December 1975.

The Aboriginal people cannot be blamed if they protest. Let us suppose that a few dollars was used in getting a meeting together in Alice Springs or anywhere else in Australia. Have not the Aboriginal people the right to congregate? Have not they the right to protest? Have not they the right to state their case in the courts of justice for themselves? After all, the Prime Minister has just had a junket to New Zealand. He is going overseas on another junket. He is projecting a trip to Red China, as honourable senators on the Government side call it, in the near future. Who is going to pay? Is the Prime Minister going to pay out of the profits of Nareen? Is he going to pay for the trip out of profits which he is able to make as a result of the superphosphate bounty? No. We the taxpayers will pay for it, and so we ought to. If we spend a few dollars on behalf of the Aboriginal people out of taxpayers’ money. that is their right. I hope that note will be taken of the motion and that the Government will take stock of itself and reorganise its budget for Aboriginal affairs.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 815

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSE LAND: FAUNA AND FLORA RESERVES

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I move:

That in each instance where technological changes phase out the use of a lighthouse on the Australian coastline, any land hereinbefore reserved and thereby made available be retained by the Australian Government as a fauna and flora reserve.

Since I gave notice of this motion I have received from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) who, in this place, represents the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) an answer to my question No. 95. That answer listed a number of locations around the Australian coastline, in New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, at which a lighthouse or some other type of communication unit operates. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Minister’s answer to that question No. 95.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Mr Nixon. The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The attached drawing 45-22 shows the location of Navigational Aids operating around the Australian coast -correct to 1 January 1975.

The following aids have since been established -North Solitary Island (N.S.W.) -Great Keppel Island (Qld) -Bickerton Island (N.T.) -Truant Island (N.T.) -Cave Point (W.A.)

The following aids have since been withdrawn -Hand Island (N.T.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I thank the Senate. The purpose of my motion is simple. In the Senate last year, during the term of the Whitlam Labor Government, by a unanimous vote we created the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Of course, the prime purpose now is to acquire additional acreage to enable the Service to operate. The plain fact of the matter is that any land used by the Australian Government for. defence needs or for the installation of lighthouses or any other communication units is Commonwealth territory. When technological changes make a lighthouse obsolete, I want the land on which the lighthouse stands to be acquired by the Government and kept for its original purposes.

I should like to illustrate the value of sucha policy. When Senator Devitt and I came here as fledgling senators in 1966 we were associated with a very fine conservationist, Doug Dorward of Monash University. I am sure some honourable senators may have seen his documentary dealing with Cape Barren geese. At his instigation, we visited the Goose and Chapell Islands in Bass Strait. I am insistent that we should have iron-clad regulations on what constitutes a fauna reserve and particularly an island reserve. Sheep were running on both Goose and Chapell Islands. Of course, when it came to the competition for vegetation the sheep won. Then, of course, the residue of the Cape Barren geese became a menace to the pastures on Flinders Island. Then there was a response from the farmers. The number of Cape Barren geese was less than two hundred. As a matter of fact, this situation regarding the Cape Barren geese was almost on a par with that of the whooping crane in the United States. The population of that species was even further decimated than was the population of the Cape Barren geese. I must pay a tribute to all concerned. In the case of the Goose and Chapell Islands, Senator Devitt and I were able to see Ian Sinclair, the then Minister for Shipping and Transport who was the custodian of lighthouses, and the Premier of Tasmania at that time, Mr Reece. As a result, both islands were made fauna reserves with iron-clad regulations. That was a bipartisan approach, and it was successful. I feel that in future all honourable senators must endeavour to ensure that land, which is no longer used because of technological changes, becomes reserves.

When the previous Liberal Government was in office certain ideas were put forward about projects in the Jervis Bay area, which is on the New South Wales coastline. I am thinking of a particular penguin rookery. We came across one or two areas that could have been called private enterprise Shangri-las. People obtained a lease say, 20 years ago, and developed a private sanctuary. To me, that situation is not for the common good. I believe that all off-shore islands should be preserved in the way that I suggest. When Mr Broomhill was the Minister for Conservation in South Australia- he is an extremely competent and dedicated Minister- a case arose involving a lighthouse in that State. The matter involved him and the then Australian Minister for Transport, Mr Jones. In these instances, the fact that the land was Commonwealth territory meant that it was subjected to some surveillance by naval patrol craft.

At the time I suggested- I did not get my way completely- that the Royal Australian Air Force also should keep an eye on these places. It may well be that with the increase in narcotics smuggling and with the greater degree of collaboration between the customs people and the Navy, we will find that a lot of these islands will be less subject to pillage by some of these drunken amateur fishermen and people like them who go on a slaughterhouse expedition. The point about which I am concerned is that when a lighthouse becomes obsolete a marine slum could develop. I think all Tasmanians will agree with me that in earlier years there were some tremendous depredations in regard to seals. Of course, we are supposed to learn from past history. I simply emphasise that I believe that we should establish the positive formula, that as each of the lighthouses on these islands is phased out due to technological changes, the land automatically becomes a fauna and flora area. I say that with a lot of feeling. I am sure that some honourable senators were nauseated a few weeks ago to see the bloody traffic in seals that goes on in certain outposts of Canada. We might have a situation where we are in need of a certain country’s trade but I believe that we can remain solvent without indulging in such an activity. It is to the credit of successive Australian governments that we have a very effective monitoring system in the Antarctic in relation to the seal population.

I will relate for some of the new honourable senators a very fine story that I admire about a very illustrious Australian- John Grey Gorton. When he was a Minister in this chamber and he was responsible for science and kindred matters, I know that whenever I asked him a question -

Senator Archer:

– John who?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Senator John Grey Gorton as he then was. He was a very fine Australian, although I know that a lot of Liberal senators seem to recoil in horror when I mention his name. The fact is that -every time a question was asked by conservation groups about ideas that some queer people had for the use of certain types of insecticides- some people wanted to experiment down at the South Pole- John Grey Gorton was a very strong champion in the fight to ensure that seals were protected. This is not a question of establishing a Utopia; it is a question of plain fact. We will always have people in the community who want to destroy things.

I believe that as time goes on the commercial areas will spread out around the coastline but it is essential that we should maintain some of these areas as reserves. I have never argued that we cannot have industrial projects on the coastline, but I have always believed that they should bc established only after the conservationists have had their way. I know that people like Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, who keeps a finger on overall policies, would well know that a senator who may aspire to greatness in the United States Senate in the near future- I refer to Senator Ed. Muskie who will be succeeding Senator Mike Mansfield- has always played an important role in regard to the coast of Maine in the United States. He has indicated to me in letters that there always seems to be a plausible excuse for making an exception so that the coastline can bc used for other purposes- whether it be for an oil refinery or something else. I make the strong plea that the areas listed in the answer to which I have referred- I am sure there will be additional areas- should be consolidated by the Australian Government.

I have no doubt that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber- I speak here in regard to my own State- will agitate for the Australian Government to unlock certain land. I accept that principle provided, of course, that the Commonwealth Government does not let the States go into the real estate business. In the Middle Harbour of Sydney a dastardly act was perpetuated by the Lewis Government. With the concurrence of” the Australian Government some land was released and the governments then went 50-50. Half of the land was made a fauna reserve and the other half was used for high priced dwellings. Today the big cities need their lungs, as it were; they need these handkerchief areas. Although my opening remarks referred to coastline projects they still have particular relevance to the overall transfer of land.

I notice that Senator Withers is in the chamber. I suppose that he is really the honest broker who handles all the Government’s land matters. I inform him that I told certain conservation groups that I expected this matter to come up today. As a postscript to this matter pf the overall land transfer from New South Wales I have been asked to suggest to him that a portion of the Holsworthy Army Camp land which has been deemed redundant to a degree should be grafted onto the Heathcote State Park instead of being used for housing. I say that for a nostalgicreason. Some years ago my colleague in the shadow Ministry, Senator Gietzelt, and I were successful in prevailing on the PostmasterGeneral to keep certain PMG excavation out of the Heathcote State Park. I simply conclude on the note on which I began: As far as item 4 is concerned I believe that a lot of these acquisitions which were justly needed for defence purposes and which have become outmoded could form the nucleus of the empire of the National Parks and Wildlife Service that was formed last year.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator Melzer:

– I second the motion.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 817

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S YEAR

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I move:

I rise on this matter because I feel that, as International Women’s Year finished about two or three weeks ago, the matter should not be dropped but should be kept before the Government and the people of Australia. Because when International Women’s Year was first mooted the government of the day had long recognised that discrimination against women was incompatible with human dignity and with the wellbeing of society, it saw International Women’s Year as a chance to highlight areas to which the community had turned a blind eye for so long. That Government recognised, and I think that the whole community should recognise with some sober thought, the fact that the year had to be granted. In the year 1974 it was thought necessary to give the world 12 months in which to recognise that there had been discrimination against women, that there was discrimination against women and that unless steps were taken to bring women out of themselves and to realise their full potential, the world was missing out on the potential of over 50 per cent of the population. So it was thought necessary to nominate a year to ensure that the basic human rights of women were recognised.

International Women’s Year was seen as a year to provide opportunity to stand back and assess what had been achieved and what needed to be done. In many ways what needed to be done far outweighed what had been achieved. Various things such as equal minimum wage, maternity leave in the Public Service and equality of promotion in the Public Service which could be done by putting pen to paper had been done. But the feeling in the community in many ways had not been changed. In many areas nobody had thought it necessary to do anything for women in a particular fashion. Some of the projects that were taken up during International Women’s Year, of which I think we should not lose sight, have only just begun and should be extended. So I am asking the Government to look at them very keenly and to provide the necessary funding. I refer for instance to the continued establishment of a network of community centres to respond to women’s problems and to encourage their activities. People talk a lot about suburban neurosis, about the problems of the nuclear family, about the problems of women from other countries who do not speak English and who are isolated in outlying areas of our major cities. Up until this point nobody thought that by providing the sheer physical environment, a place where women could meet, talk and discuss their problems, we might be going a long way towards curing some of those very real, very nasty and very modern complaints that do so much to tear the fabric of our modern society apart.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– But that is only in the highly concentrated urban areas. You are not saying that this is true of the country areas, are you?

Senator MELZER:

– Thank you, Senator Cormack, but I do know that our civilisation covers more than the outer suburban areas. As I was about to say, women in country areas sometimes have an even harder row to hoe because at least in some areas of our cities people can occasionally board a tram- when the tram runsand go to communicate with their fellows, with people who speak the same language or with their families, although that is becoming increasingly difficult in the cities which we have created. People in the country have an even harder row to hoe. Women isolated in the country where they have not even a telephone cannot communicate with their fellows. In that regard the present Government might consider making the telephone a public utility and not just a luxury that some people can afford. Even a telephone is better than not having human beings to talk to face to face.

Other areas in which women needed the establishment of some sort of community centre were the areas of health, shelter, refuge, counselling and rape. Some very hard things have been said about the sort of women who have taken advantage of these centres and the sort of women who have set up these centres. But I suppose that it is a bit hard for men to understand that there are times when women want to talk to people who understand exactly what their health problem is- and that is not a man. Sometimes it is of great comfort for a woman to talk to another woman about what is happening to her body, because that woman does understand as it has been happening to her body. She can talk to somebody who understands what she is saying and does not have to go into a great deal of gynaecological detail. She knows that she will receive sympathy from the person to whom she is talking because that person has suffered from the same sort of disability. With the best will in the world, no man can understand how a woman feels in some circumstances because he is not a woman. He is a man. For very little outlay and upkeep such centres can be established where women can go and find out that they are not freaks, that the things that happen to them happen to other women and that somebody ought to be taking some notice of the things that happen to them.

By the same token, women who because of their domestic difficulties, because of overworkthere will be more of them- have broken down and have found that they cannot stand the pressure of working, keeping a family and looking after a house, need some place where they can go after the first violent reaction so that they can find their way back into the community, talk to their fellows or their peers, talk about ways to manage their lives and ways to manage the seemingly endless problems that come up. When that breakdown comes, when violence occurs in the home that seems to be happening with increasing frequency these days- there needs to be a place of quiet where people can go, talk to other people, talk out the problem and be assured that things can be better, that something can be done, that they are not mad but that it is just the pressure of modern society that has pushed them out of kilter for the moment. Once upon a time that place was the church. Increasingly- I do not want to go into this argument- it is not the church anymore. Once upon a time it was the family doctor. Now a person is lucky if he sees the same doctor more than twice running at the same clinic. So there has to be another place. These days there is not the large family unit where there were grandmothers, mothers and aunts to whom a woman could talk. Sometimes there is just a 3-year old, whom she loves very much but who does not talk her language. There needs to be a place where people can go. I am not saying that there does not need to be a place where men can go in such circumstances. But in this instance I am very much aware of the fact that there needs to be a place where women can go to seek shelter and refuge and some advice. It is becoming an increasingly more serious problem in the community because so many people are getting to a crisis situation these days. It is an area at which our society has to take a greater look.

So many of the crises, burdens and problems that arise could be side-stepped if there were more facilities available for people to get together to discuss, to increase the skills they have and to practise the skills they have achieved in being housewives and mothers. They have considerable skills in being housewives and mothers. Too often these days I meet women who, when I ask them what they do, hang their heads and say, ‘We are only housewives’. It is one of the saddest sights to see. They are not only housewives. They are also people who have contributed tremendously to our society and to our civilisation. They are the people who have kept our civilisation and our society going. Without their expertise, their care and their love I doubt whether society would have lasted as long as it has. It is good for them to realise, it is good for their inner beings to know, it is good for their confidence to know that they have the skills, that they can share those skills with other people, that they can teach other people those skills and go on contributing in that way. This was one of the areas that International Women’s Year wanted to cover and I think started to cover.

Another of the areas that we wanted to look into was the effect of the education system on women’s self-image. So many women had no confidence in themselves. That was partly due to the education system they had gone through which had seen them as only filling in their time at school. It had seen women as filling in their time between leaving school and having a baby. It did not give a damn what happened to them after that period of producing a family had passed. In some cases, they were left with 30 and 40 years of their lives in which they could give of their expertise to the community. The isolation of women, on which I have touched, is a very real problem. It is a very real problem in an understandable way for migrant women who come to Australia and who do not understand our language. Their husbands are away all day, and sometimes all night too, because they have 2 jobs to fill. Their children learn another language that is not their mothers’ language. There are no programs on the television in their languages. There are no programs broadcast by the radio stations in their languages. They are lucky in some instances if they can read a newspaper because of the circumstances in which some of” them came to Australia, even if they could buy a newspaper in their own languages. That is a terrifying isolation in which to leave anybody.

It is terrifying for women more so because while their husbands go out to work and of necessity must have some contact and learn something of the community they live in, those women can be locked up inside 4 walls day in day out. It is not human to leave them there in that condition. Until the International Women’s Year conference raised that problem it was not even considered to be a problem. I am ashamed to say that not a great deal has been done about it up to this point. For those women it is a diabolical problem. But it can be a problem also for women living in outer suburbs and who spend their days in conversation with 3-year-olds. The husbands in those areas do not get home from work until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. By that time their wives are worn out. The terrifying isolation of looking at 4 walls and talking to yourself 5 days a week is not good. It does not do good things to good human beings.

International Women’s Year wanted to cover the participation of women in the area of films, television and radio programs. It wanted to get their expertise and their ideas into those areas. We found that in those areas women were very good clerks, filing clerks, telephone answerers or letter-typers and they gave a great deal of advice. It has often been said that managing directors can die but as long as their secretaries are there the next managing directors will be able to carry on. That holds true just as much in the area of the media. Women are working hard in that area and have a great deal of expertise. But because they are women not very much notice is taken of them. One little program was broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It was the Coming Out Ready or Not show. It was written by women for women and was broadcast by women. I must say that it was a breath of fresh air in the great mass of material that pours out through the radio stations. I am amazed that commercial stations which profess to have such a great concern for women and which certainly, day after day, try to sell women goods worth hundreds of thousands of dollars cannot take up the challenge and do something along their own lines to provide a program for women which is produced by women. For once, they should listen to what women want and provide it. They should not do as so much of the media does, namely, provide the greatest load of tripe unhung because it is cheap and because it fills in the time between when the station goes on air and the time when the husbands come home at 7 o’clock at night.

International Women’s Year provided an opportunity to stand back and assess what had been achieved up to date in this area and what needed to be done. It was discovered that a great deal more needed to be done than has been done up to that time. When the national secretariat for International Women’s Year advertised the fact that money could be devoted to various projects coming under the heading of International Women’s Year, by 4 December 1974 the costed submissions it received amounted to $3.5m. At that stage only $2m had been allotted for this purpose and there was still 12 months to go. The submissions poured in on all sorts of subjects. Some of them sounded funny; some of them sounded like the sort of ideas that could go on for year after year. But they all came from areas concerned for women’s rights, for women’s lives, for women and their children and the sort of lives they had been living. The submissions poured in. It proved that although until that time other departments and institutions had had some responsibility in that area- they had had it for a long time- they had not done anything about communicating their ability to deal with those problems to women in the community. There had been no communication between those departments and institutions and women in the community. There was obviously a need for a great deal more, and more vital, vital communication. I do not mean just publishing on the notice board of a department the fact that they were able to do this, that and the other thing. I mean actively going out and finding the problems, letting the people with those problems know that they were in a position to assist and that the machinery was there to do something about the problems that existed. Such departments should be actively getting out into the community to participate in the problems.

It was obvious that in many areas there needed to be centres set up, advice given and a little money spent. Nobody could say that $2m spent in 12 months for International Women’s Year in a big country like Australia, a country as wealthy as Australia, is a lot of money. A little more money had to be spent. But at the end of 1 2 months, after so many years of neglect, wc should not just chop off the funds, have everybody turn back into pumpkins, go back to where we were and turn a blind eye to the problems that were uncovered. It was 12 months really spent in discovering what the problems were. Now we want to spend the next 50 or 100 years making sure that those problems are dealt with, that new problems do not arise, that all our citizens participate to the best of their ability and that there is not discrimination against part of our community. Unfortunately, we know that that discrimination still exists. We know now that it exists in areas of which we had not even thought. I am not saying that discrimination does not exist in other areas, but in this instance we will not find out how far discrimination against women goes unless we give women a chance to speak out, to talk about their needs, thoughts, worries, hopes and dreams. We cannot do that by imposing ideas on them or by telling them what they have to do. We can do it by opening up opportunities for them to speak out for themselves. That needs more time, and that is why I want this Government to extend some of the funding that went into International Women’s Year. In 12 months we got articulate women to speak out. In 12 months there were women to whom the idea of speaking out filtered through. This is like the tip of an iceberg. There are some women speaking out, but there are thousands upon thousands of women who do not know that they are oppressed, who do not know that life could be better and who do not realise what society is doing to them. We have to give ourselves a chance to listen and give them a chance to talk to us.

Discrimination against women exists in Australia in many different ways and some of the things that we have found out give us an idea of the direction in which we should go. For instance, in this House some time last year I asked whether there had been any research into the induction of labour, the practice of bringing on labour and having babies bom in office hours. It created some mirth. I am ashamed to say that it created some mirth on the part of our Minister. In the following few weeks I received letters from individual women, groups of women, scientists and doctors saying that no research had been done and that up to that point nobody had thought it terribly important that research like this be done. One got the distinct feeling that, because it was something that was happening to women who, after all, do have babies and always have had babies, and because everybody knows how it happens- although I am not sure that everybody knows how it is brought about- nothing had been done.

Take the pill, for example. Many women around Australia have said for a long time that people do not really know what effect the pill has on some women, women in certain conditions. Because society now is in some ways dependent on the pill and because so many women are pressured into using the pill, one would think that science would investigate very promptly, as it concerns such a large proportion of the community, the effect that the pill has on women ‘s systems and the effect that it has on women mentally, and would take immediate steps to make sure that women were safeguarded against any excesses.

Senator Baume:

– I have a question about midwifery. Do you have any concern about the attitude of some female midwives towards their patients?

Senator MELZER:

– I have a great deal of concern about the attitude of some midwives towards their patients. In some instances one would think that they were at a stud rather than in a hospital where human babies are being born and human mothers are going through suffering. I also think that society has ignored the fact that breast-feeding is going out of popularity. In International Women’s Year there was a group which tried to get funding in order to spread the news about breast-feeding and about how well babies did and how much better they were for it. This is an area that scientists and governments should investigate and one into which science should do some research, because these are very basic things.

We sat back very smugly in the last couple of years and said that equal pay had come in and therefore women were right in that area. We know very much to our sorrow that under equal pay some people are more equal than others and that this is still one area of great discrimination. Because we make institutional changes, that docs not necessarily mean that we change the attitude of society. Because we pass a Bill, that does not mean that the feeling behind that Bill filters down to the lowest level of society. We all know of cases where women are machinists and mcn are technicians. The division of labour is such that, because one sex gets one title and the other sex gets another title, the male sex is entitled to a higher rate of pay. That is discrimination at the lowest level and something has to be done about it. Governments have not done any more about it, unions have not done any more about it and employers have not done any more about it.

This is a basic principle, because in enticing women into the work force in many ways we arc getting them out there as cheap labour. When some of them stagger out of bed at 6 o’clock in the morning, get children off to school, do the chores, go to work, come home, look after the family and then fall into bed, it is time unions, employers and governments looked at what amounts to not much more than slave labour for a great percentage of this community. We accept that cheap labour, that slave labour; but, when those women get put off their jobs, do they get unemployment benefit? Evidently they are not looked upon as a solid part of the community or work force. They are usable, and when we need them we get them out of the house and use them. When their jobs close up, out they go with no compensation of any sort.

Another area of discrimination which appals me, and for which I feel my sex is as much to blame as the other sex, is in superannuation. I had not looked at it very closely before I became a senator. I suppose I had never come upon it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a system should exist where husband and wife are supposedly a team, contribute equally to the wellbeing and finances of home and family and life and out of their joint income the husband pays superannuation and then if the husband dies the wife gets only a percentage of the superannuation entitlement for which they have paid for so long, whereas if the wife dies first the husband receives his full superannuation entitlement. A wife left with a house and children pays the same for rates, electricity, shoes, food, education and living as does the husband who is left. So why should she get only a percentage of what they both in a sense have contributed to the superannuation fund?

I talked about enticing women back to the work force. To make it better, more pleasant and easier for women to go back, in government circles we brought in maternity leave. Perhaps we should think of a new name for it, because I find that in the community there are people who think that women who leave work to have babies get 12 months leave on full pay. We know very well that they get not 12 months leave on full pay but 2 months leave with no pay at all. The object is that their jobs, their promotional opportunities and their places in their department are kept for them. That entitlement has not filtered through to women in industry. They do not get any sort of maternity leave and there is no provision for them to go back to their jobs in industry. That should be done.

We entice women back into industry; but what do we do about retraining them for a proper place in industry? Nothing. We bring them back because so many of them think that some money is better than no money at all and will take the most menial, dreary, dull and underpaid jobs there are. If they were retrained they could come back with a full capacity to contribute. Those who had some training before they left industry need some further training in order to catch up with what has gone on in the meantime. We have paid lip service to that need. In the National Employment and Training scheme we paid lip service to it. It is important that the women who feci that they want to come back into the work force should be able to do so under the best possible conditions, but it is even more important that the women who have to come back into the work force are able to do so under the best possible conditions.

I ask the Government to look at this matter as a matter of great priority: There are women being trained under the NEAT scheme who have lived on the supporting mother’s benefit for a long time or who, if they have not lived on the supporting mother’s benefit, have done menial jobs in the community- scrubbed floors, taken in washing and kept house for other people- to provide the sort of income they need to enable them to keep their children as best they can under the same conditions as those enjoyed by the rest of the community. It is an up and down sort of life. They are in and out of employment. If they were given some training that enabled them to obtain qualifications they would then be able to hold down a job while looking after their families and to stand up in the community as equal citizens and not as ones relying on government handouts. By the same token there are women in the community who because of their domestic circumstances- they may have a husband who is an alcoholic and upon whom they can never depend to bring in a regular income but who brings in some income- should be given the chance to achieve those qualifications that will enable them to look after their families in a solid fashion without, as has been suggested to some of them by some government employees, having to leave their husbands and so entitle themselves to the supporting mother’s benefit. If we are really talking about women coming into the work force and we are not doing more than paying lip service to retraining we ought to look at these things. I would like to quote from a booklet put out by the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labour entitled ‘How to find the job you want’. One knows that it is directed to women because it has a rose on the cover. Amongst the advice it gives is the following:

If you have young children, be able to satisfy the employer that they will not unduly take your attention from your job or make you an unreliable worker; the employer may wish to be assured that you have made adequate arrangements for the care of your children while you are working.

What employer would dare ask a man what arrangements he had made for his children or whether he was being a proper parent before he gave him a job? I once met a young woman with 5 young children whose husband was dying of a debilitating disease. She realised that if she was going to look after those children by herself for the rest of their lives and give them all the care that she and her husband would have otherwise given them she would have to gain some qualifications that would enable her to take up some work that would allow her to do so. She went along and was interviewed about retraining. The gentleman interviewing her said to her: I realise that you need to have qualifications, but you are young and have 5 children now. Do you think that you will have more children?’ She said that she did not think that she would. She said that because of her husband’s condition she did not think that there was any likelihood of that in any case. The interviewer persisted and asked her how she knew that there was no likelihood that she would have more children. Finally she said: ‘I have had an hysterectomy; so I cannot have any more children’. The wretched man had the cheek to ask her the name of the gynaecologist so that he could check on whether that was true. Only men would do that to women. Men would not do it to other men. I think it is time that we took this matter very much to heart.

The conditions under which women in the workforce are employed smack of discrimination to the nth degree. The Metropolitan Board of Works in Melbourne has some rather delightful guidelines for the employment of women. For instance, married female employees have only temporary status and there is no way in which those females who are married can ever become permanent. A female employee who marries is required to resign and apply for reappointment to a temporary position even though she does not need to stop work. How cynical is that? A female employee who marries and has to rejoin the Board as a new employee is not eligible for annual leave until the completion of a further 12 months service, despite the fact that there has been no break in the continuity of her work. Married women, as temporary employees, cannot be members of the Board’s superannuation fund. Married women, as temporary employees, are not eligible for paid study leave. So that puts paid to any thought that the Board really accepts women as a real part of the workforce, as real citizens. They are just there to fill in time and to do odd jobs. Something has to be done about it because they are human beings and they have a lot to contribute.

Women are at some disadvantage in the area of legal aid. This applies especially to women who are at home and who have no income. We went to the extent of establishing legal aid offices because we believed that nobody should be at a disadvantage before the law and that everybody, even women, should be equal. But somebody has to look at the area of the women in the home who have no income and who therefore go along to a legal aid office to get some advice on, say, divorce because of the conduct of their husbands. Their husbands are not going to give them money to go and obtain that advice. If they are in the position of being a part owner of the home, of having a joint bank account with their husbands, it seems that the door is closed to them everywhere in relation to obtaining any sort of legal advice.

In this context I have to raise today the subject of rape. In some quarters rape has become a bit of a giggle, but I am sure that it has never been a giggle to the people who have been the victims of it. Males should stop laughing about the subject of rape. They should stop making jokes about it in bars. They should see it for what it is- the invasion of another person’s privacy, the dragging away of that person’s dignity, and the treating of that person as an animal and not as a human being. The final indignity is that in court that person has to prove her own innocence in the matter. A lot has been said in recent weeks about this matter and there have been articles in the newspapers about it, but is it not time that wc did something about it rather than just talk about it as being something that happens to other people? I cannot help feeling that if more mcn suffered from rape something would be done about it more quickly.

I feel that the present governments and future governments will have to look at how taxation affects women. There is some talk now about various forms of taxation, including death duty and probate, being looked at. At least in this area people pay lip service to the fact that a woman who does not go out to work may still contribute much to the family home, the family property and even the family business and are seeing that she is a partner in or a part of that circumstance. But I think that Treasurers will have to have a look at the tax that working wives pay. As long as husbands and wives are taxed differently, even though in most instances the working wives work twice as hard, there will be many women around who feel that they are being discriminated against. I think that it is the duty of governments to take up those sorts of matters and to come up with some proposals for the relief of what in some ways I think is indiscriminate taxation when it comes to women.

An area of discrimination that governments can do something about is the media. I know that it raises a bit of a giggle among my male colleagues and even my male constituents, but the fact of the matter is that women are depicted on radio and television and in the newspapers as happy little twirps who have no mind of their own and as some sort of a vegetable that has a continual smile on its face, that is never allowed to lose its temper, that is never allowed to be a human being and that is never allowed to have hates and loves of its own. As long as it washes, irons, cleans and does what it is told and pops into bed when it has to then it is well and truly under control. If we are talking about discrimination then let us talk about that sort of discrimination.

Newpapers should treat women as adult human beings. I do not suppose we can legislate to ensure that newspapers present us with the sort of material to read that would broaden our outlook, broaden our minds or give us more information, but at least governments could legislate for women to be treated as whole human beings and not as some sort of cardboard cutout that is propped up either to sell soap powder, trucks, carpets or any other thing that happens to be going at the moment. This puts women under undue pressure to conform to an image that the media cuts out for them. This is not fair to people who are locked up day after day with the radio, television and newspapers. We know the influence that they have on people. If women do not see themselves depicted in that area as real human beings then I feel they are never going to take themselves seriously as human beings.

In the motion which is before us we ask that this Government take steps to ensure that discrimination against women in all parts of the world is brought to an end as quickly as possible. I am very humble about telling other countries what they should do about discrimination when I feel that my own country could do so much more about setting an example. Perhaps the best we can do as far as overseas countries are concerned is to set an example by setting our own house in order first. Surely we could advise our representative on the United Nations to watch out and to encourage movements in other countries towards cutting down discrimination against women. Surely assistance could be offered and sought on a government to government basis in this matter.

I am reminded of an old Chinese proverb which I have quoted before but which appeals to me in discussing this matter. The Chinese say that women hold up half of heaven. If that is so it seems to me that women are entitled to recognition in their own countries as full, well meaning, well disposed intelligent human beings who can contribute so much to the good of their country.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman)- Is the motion seconded?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I second the motion. Mr President.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 823

ADJOURNMENT

Civil Liberties- Australian Broadcasting Commission- Australian Industry Development Corporation Report on the Canned Fruit Industry

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– I rise to state briefly my growing concern at the apparent disregard of some members of the government for civil liberties in the Australian community. Of course, it is natural in any parliament that the extravagances of temperament can lead individuals to make claims which sometimes they later regret and which one can write down at times as being simply a personal expression that does not convey the will of the party to which the speaker belongs. Therefore those views are not taken as indicating any general trend or any dangerous manifestation in the controlling administration. However, an aggregate number of occurrences recently have caused me concern. I am indeed worried that at a time when the Government is concentrating quite rightly on the economic problems which are severe in Australia it might do so to the detriment of the freedoms which we have enjoyed up till now. There are many notable countries in the world which have demonstrated that a magnificent economic recovery can be obtained with, at the same time, the loss of a major amount of the freedoms which the community had enjoyed. We do not want that to happen here.

There are 4 recent occurrences which, amongst others, have caused me concern. The first was the mention made by the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) of a possible charge being laid against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) of sedition. This has received a fairly critical response from the community at large. Some people believe that we would be emulating some of those leaders in darkest Africa if the Leader of the Opposition in a democracy such as ours could be under the threat of legal action and of its consequences for sedition. A second instance I relate is one of recent days when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) criticised the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for not holding down wages in the community and for recommending a national wage increase of 6.4 per cent.

I believe that occurrences of yesterday have invalidated that criticism because General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd awarded a wage rise to certain employees far in excess of the 6.4 per cent increase recommended by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commission therefore cannot be charged with being the economic arbiter in wages. It has the duty of preventing disputes and is the innocent party in this particular wrangle. In fact, the nettle of wage fixation is not a matter for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission but is a matter for the Government. If the Government wants to succeed in that area by way of legislation or force it can only do so on its own initiative. But if there is disorder as a result of that action it will not be the fault of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which is charged with preventing industrial disorder concerning claims for increased remuneration.

I think it was yesterday that the suggestion was put forward and received by our President that an investigation should be conducted into the accreditation of 2 journalists in Parliament House because of criticisms which have arisen which do not concern anything which has been reported from this House. I believe that it is a very substantial departure from the usual type of investigation that one would expect for a journalist who writes about something completely outside the activities of this House to be investigated in this way. As we know, the subject is still a matter of possible debate in this chamber following the President’s statement to the Senate today. If his statement is read correctly I believe that it diplomatically says just what I am saying: It is not the business of this Senate to concern itself with the action that has been suggested.

Yesterday and today we heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate embarking on what appears to be a personal vendetta against the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In all these matters it would seem that in aggregate we have an attempt to demoralise people who are members of commissions or working employees of institutions of very long standing in the community and who at times have been vigorous in their actions. But I believe that these people have operated within the laws of this nation and that now they are being subjected to a type of parliamentary intimidation. Senator Withers in particular has in no way substantiated his wild accusations. This morning in reply to a question asked by Senator Douglas McClelland, Senator Withers was unable or unwilling to state one item which would support the charge which he so recklessly made yesterday. In response to a question to which I did not expect an answer, he would not comment on his view of newspaper journalists and their criticisms of government. He would not place them in any way within the same strictures that he has placed the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He said yesterday when referring to the Australian Broadcasting Commission: ‘You blokes have been leaning on it for years’. He concluded by saying: ‘The sooner it is cleaned up the better as far as I am concerned ‘.

I thought that Senator Withers’ Minister in the Lower House this morning very politely but purposefully repudiated the Leader of the Government in the Senate and said, in answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place: ‘Senator Withers is a very valuable and capable colleague. He speaks with a bluntness which can be refreshing-‘ He then paused and said: ‘on occasions’. The tenor of this reply was not lost on members of the other place nor was it lost on others who were listening. I am pleased that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in another place, Mr Eric Robinson, has taken such a sensible view, and has agreed to an investigation into the ABC which is welcomed by its Acting Chairman and which will be welcomed by all thinking people in the community. I reject the thought that people in the Australian Broadcasting Commission whom I respect and whom I believe a host of members of the publicrespect will feel intimidated that the Leader of the Government in this place, an important Minister in this Administration, can so loosely charge people collectively without any finite instances whatsoever.

It is true. What I am saying cannot be denied. Is it a system of British justice to charge an organisation or an individual loosely without any information? Can we assess the Tightness or wrongness of the Minister’s statement if he will give no example whatsoever? One cannot begin a trial or as assessment when there is no information. Of course the Minister, as any Minister of the Crown other than he would do, should either substantiate his claims or withdraw them. If he will do neither his standard of operation will bc below every other member of the Ministry. His colleagues are exhibiting some honour in this matter.

On Tuesday the Attorney-General made what was a very substantial mistake in answering an important question. On Wednesday he had the ministerial responsibility to correct himself at great embarrassment to himself. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the question and answer may be I believe it is a sign of a very real regard for his ministerial responsibilities for him to do that. We know, despite the public criticisms of the Attorney-General, that he would never involve himself in these loose and collective charges that the Leader of the Government has involved himself in here. I express concern that this subject in aggregate is something which we must guard against.

I end by centring my regard and giving an example of what can happen to our freedoms. There has been talk on the national scene of a Privacy Bill. A Privacy Bill was talked about by the Labor Administration and I understand it is being loosely talked about by the present Liberal Administration. It concerns me that the people to whom I referred in these 4 instances may have a hand in drafting and implementing a Privacy Bill in the national Parliament. I wish to refer to the Privacy Bill which was passed through the lower House of the South Australian Parliament, controlled by a Labor administration, in 1974 and to indicate to the House briefly how our freedoms can easily disappear if an administration believes that it is being pursued by the media, as it would appear at least Senator Withers believes he is so pursued. At this late hour I shall refer only to the relevant clause on how our freedoms would have disappeared in South Australia had the Legislative Council passed the Bill. The extract to which I refer reads:

  1. . ‘rightofprivacy’meanstherightofapersontobe free from a substantial and unreasonable intrusion upon himself, his relationships or communications with others, his property or his business affairs, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such an intrusion by -

A number of quite proper exclusions are then listed. The caption is that the person has to be free. The clause continues:

  1. e ) the use or disclosure of
  2. confidential information; or -

I emphasise this point-

  1. facts, including his name, identity or likeness, likely to cause him distress, annoyance or embarrassment . . .

I think all honourable senators would know on upon thinking about it the implication of making it an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment if someone publishes a fact which is likely to embarrass. That is the extent to which a State parliament, with government instigation through its Lower House, went to suppress the rights of individuals in the South Australia community. I expressed at that time my great concern and took some little hand in having that Bill defeated. 1 expressed concern when the Labor Party talked in office of a Privacy Bill because of the actions of it colleagues in South Australia. I express my concern now that a Liberal administration talks of a Privacy Bill at a time when it members can involve themselves as I have listed at the beginning of my remarks. It would be a very strange and sorry thing if the left and right were to combine so vigorously- I refer to the South Australian Parliament and to the Liberal Administration here- in suppressing individual freedom.

I would call on the Leader of the Government in the Senate to either substantiate his charges which I believe have embarrassed his own leader and have worried the public, particularly the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s employees, or properly to withdraw them. By so doing he will be upholding the standards which his colleagues have set and which he so far has not upheld in this House.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I crave the indulgence of the Senate for just one moment. I draw the attention of the Senate, and in particular the attention of Senator Cotton who represents the Minister for Primary Industry in this place, to the daily coalition administrative statement of 25 March which contains a Press release of 24 March concerned with the canned deciduous fruit industry report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. At the outset let me say that it would have been much more helpful to the Senate had we had the summary of this report yesterday when we were debating the State Grants (Fruit Canneries) Bill 1976.I am concerned with the last paragraph of the Press release put out by Mr Sinclair, which states:

He had therefore arranged for distribution of copies of the report to all parties who had an interest in the matter so that they may examine the report in detail. The Minister said he was appreciative of the efforts of the AIDC in producing Unreport, which should provide the basis for in-depth consideration of ways of resolving some ofthe industry’s fundamental problems.

Of course they were the problems we were talking about yesterday. Attached to the statement is a summary of the report. I ask Senator Cotton whether he will undertake to provide a copy for all members of Parliament. If this is not possible, because of the inadequacies of the Government Printing Office to publish enough copies, will the

Minister undertake to rectify the inadequacies that possibly exist?

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– I note the remarks of the honourable senator. I will look into the matter for him.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– in reply- It is regrettable that I know a lot of honourable senators have aeroplanes to catch or I might have taken some time in answering Senator Hall. I was interested to note that Senator Hall never complained about the treatment a journalist got here the other day for taking a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). I suppose his speech was pitched at this hour of this day so that it will no doubt be reported on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s programs at some great length tonight. After all, we know the honourable senator owes a great deal to the ABC because for some reason which totally escapes most of us he has had a lot of exposure on it.

Senator Sheil:

– Not lately.

Senator WITHERS:

– Well, not lately. After all I think he was the tenth elected senator in South Australia and he was elected on Labor preferences. I suppose he has an obligation to help the Labor Party which sent him here. After all he has done a lot for the Labor Party. He made Mr Dunstan Premier of South Australia and in return for that, I suppose, the Labor Party helped him to become the tenth elected senator from South Australia.

He referred to a number of my colleagues. He referred to what the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) said about the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. He makes no criticism, of course, about what the Leader of the Opposition in the other place has been saying about the Governor-General. He talks about the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his comments on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is rather a strange sort of situation when the Prime Minister or any member of this Parliament cannot criticise in proper terms the courts of the land. In any case I suppose the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is not a court in a true sense. Senator Hall talked about what I said about the ABC. My colleague, Mr Eric Robinson in the other place, and I have a very close and long personal relationship. In no way was he attempting to set me up or to send me up this morning.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It sounded like it.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is what the honourable senator does not understand. Senator Cavanagh and Senator Hall are in similar positions. Senator Cavanagh is still a member of his Party, which is riddled with divisions and dissension. They are used to colleagues knifing one another. Senator Hall did it so well in South Australia that he wrecked his own Party. Therefore, they rather imagine that that happens within our Party. Merely because my colleague in the other place makes some jocular remark, they draw all sorts of inferences. Mr Deputy President, I suppose that is about all Senator Hall’s remarks are worth. But I will bet you this much: He will get a good run on the Australian Broadcasting Commission tonight because it owes him a lot.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5.6 p.m.

page 827

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Smuggling of Birds (Question No. 142)

SenatorColstonaskedtheMinisterrepresent- ing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

A Day of Rage’ Program (Question No. 34)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Did commentators on Radio Station 2JJ in Sydney on Saturday, 25 October 1975 call for ‘A Day of Rage’ for listeners to call in to support the Whitlam Labor Government.
  2. Did Station 2JJ advertise on 23 October 1975 details of the rallies to be held by the Australian Labor Party in Sydney on the following weekend and also give incorrect information about the details of the Liberal Party rally on 26 October 1975.
  3. Did the commentators make a series of very specific, personally offensive remarks about the then Leader of the Opposition.
  4. Were all callers required to notify the switchboard of who they were and what comments they wished to make.
  5. Were several Liberal supporters, when they told the switchboard that they wished to comment in favour of the Liberal Party position, not put through to air.
  6. Was there any person who did make some comment unfavourable to the previous Government cut off the air in mid-sentence.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answers:

  1. 1 ) No. ‘A Day of Rage’ was a program which invited listeners to comment on the current political situation from any point of view.
  2. (i) Yes. (ii) Incorrect information about a Liberal Party rally was inadvertently given in one instance, buta correction was broadcast from the station as soon as the error was discovered.
  3. Some people expressed views which were critical of the then Leader of the Opposition while others were critical of the then Government and its leaders.
  4. Yes.
  5. Yes, as were many callers wishing to put a pro-Labor viewpoint.
  6. Yes. This happened, in accordance with standard talkback procedures, when a caller, whatever his political allegiances, became offensive.

Fisheries (Question No. 71)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that doubt exists as to the ability of the South Australian State authorities to enforce regulations made under that State’s Fisheries Act, which deal with such subjects as permits to take prawns, and crayfish from waters previously under State jurisdiction.
  2. Will the Minister give details of any arrangement made between the Commonwealth and South Australiato ensure that sufficient legal safeguards exist to properly manage the fisheries industry.
  3. Does any existing Commonwealth legislation contain a provision which would enable State authorities to operate under the State Fisheries Act and to exercise the powers therein provided in such areas as, the granting of (a) licences and permits, (b) restricting use of equipment, (c) bag limits, (d) prohibitions in certain areas, (e) minimum size limits, (0 protecting rare species, (g) suspending licences, (h) confiscating equipment and restricting zoning of off-shore fisheries.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The question of the limits within which a State Fisheries Act applies is at present being considered by the High Court. In the meantime, however, the position of the Commonwealth, is that the administration of fisheries legislation within territorial limits continues to be a State responsibility in the absence of Commonwealth legislation applying to waters within those limits.

Mercenaries (Question No. 86)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is the Government examining ways to prevent Australians from going overseas to fight as mercenaries in Angola and other foreign wars.
  2. Is the Attorney-General’s Department preparing legislation which will include provisions that will deprive such people of their passports
  3. If such legislation is being prepared, will it be introduced in this Parliamentary session.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government does not approve the service of Australian citizens as mercenaries in other countries. The Government is strongly opposed to the recruitment of Australians for this purpose and is considering what action should be taken to deal with this problem.

Telephone Charges: Repatriation Calls (Question No. 124)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation:

Does the Department of Repatriation accept reverse charge telephone calls from clients of the Department living in isolated areas of Australia.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As a general rule reverse charge telephone calls are not accepted by the Department from clients, irrespective of the place of their residence. However, at the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner in each State, reverse charge calls may be accepted in emergency situations e.g. where urgent treatment is sought or where hardship has been caused by the non-arrival of a pension cheque.

King and Queen of Jordan: Visit to Australia (Question No. 156)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the King and Queen of Jordan pay a State visit to Australia from 2 March to 9 March this year.
  2. ) What is the estimated cost of the visit.
  3. Who will meet the cost.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The Commonwealth Government will meet the costs of the visit within Australia. These costs are estimated at $74,750.

Meat Exports (Question No. 251)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has recent severe flooding in Queensland and resultant transport dislocation meant that the southern States are rapidly filling the United States meat import quotas, while Queensland waits for fine weather to allow meatworks’ kills to restart.
  2. Will Australia have shipped almost half its 1976 quota entitlement to the United States by the end of March, leaving only a small share for Queensland.
  3. ) Is the Australian Meat Board taking any action to slow down shipments so as to allow Queensland works a share of the quota; if not, is the Government intending to take any other action to assist the Queensland beef industry through its difficulties.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) to (3) There were large shipments of Australian meat to the United States market in January and February 1 976. If shipments had continued at the same rate the expected 1976 entitlement in that market would have been filled well before the end of the year.

On 24 February 1976 the Australian Meat Board took action to slow down the flow of beef to the United States of America for the balance of 1976. The action taken will ensure a continuous flow of meat to the United States market while at the same time providing all areas of Australia reasonable access to the market.

The permissable tonnages for the second half of the year should be regarded as notional at this stage since the total amount of Australian meat which will be permitted entry into the United States during 1976 has not yet been determined.

CSIRO Executive: Staff Representative (Question No. 249)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Was an announcement made on 23 October 1975, by the former Minister for Science, that a pan-time representative WOuld oe elected oy start m m»- CommonMiami Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to the Organisation’s governing executive.
  2. Did nominations for the election close on 30 December 1975; if so, why was the election suspended.
  3. At whose direction was the election suspended.
  4. What has been the cost incurred in the election process to date by (a) the Australian Government and (b) the 30 candidates nominated for the election.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– I am advised that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. A matter of Government policy was involved.
  3. 3 ) The Minister for Science.

  4. –

    1. No cash outlay other than travel etc. costs associated with a meeting between representatives of CSIRO management and Staff Associations.
    2. Not known, but at the date on which the election was suspended, the eligibility of candidates had not been confirmed by the Chief Electoral Officer, and any serious campaigning would have been premature.

Adelaide Telephone Services

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 25 February 1976, Senator Messner asked me the following question, without notice:

Does the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications appreciate that in some areas of Adelaide within 4 miles of the General Post Office, Telecom Australia cannot provide new telephone services- even for urgent business purposes- within a period of one year or more? Does he consider that this is probably the worst record for connections in Australia? Can he ask his colleague in another place to take urgent steps to provide emergency support for Telecom ‘s operations in South Australia- from other States, if necessary?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Telecom Australia has advised that it is true that some applicants in relatively close suburbs of Adelaide have been waiting for a long time for telephone services. Urgent business services take a higher priority than non-business services but in areas where existing plant is fully occupied and requires large scale extension the priority allotted a particular application sometimes does not have significant effect. There are at present 3268 deferred applications in the Adelaide Telephone District. This results from record levels of demand in recent years and although there have been corresponding record levels of services provided, it has been impracticable to avoid the present large build-up of applications awaiting service. Very special measures are in train to recover the position including transfer of technical staff from Victoria and Tasmania and the allocation of additional funds for extra plant. It is planned to progressively eliminate currently deferred applications in the Adelaide suburbs and all those existing in December, 1975 will be cleared this year.

Pushbutton Telephones

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 26 February 1976, Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications yet able to say when or whether pushbutton telephones will be made available in Australia?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Telecom Australia expects that the first supply of pushbutton telephones will be available for installation on a limited basis late in September 1976, with further supplies coming forward early in 1977.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 23 March 1976 the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) asked me to list the persons or organisations to which broadcasting licences were issued by the previous Government under the Wireless Telegraphy Act by direct decision of the Minister and without being the subject of investigation and objective recommendation. I can now provide the Senator with the information he has requested. It is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Music Broadcasting Society of Victoria.
  2. The Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales.
  3. The University of Adelaide.
  4. Mr J. Bayutti, Chairman, Ethnic Radio Experimental Committee (2 licences each expiring 30 September 1 975 ).
  5. Mr J. Kaldis, Chairman of i!:e Sydney Ethnic Radio Experimental Committee.
  6. Mr A. Toumborou Chairman of the Melbourne Ethnic Radio Experimental Committee. (The licences issued to Messrs Kaldis and Toumborou replaced those issued to Mr Bayutti and both will expire on I April 1976).

In addition, the then Minister for the Media, Dr Cass, announced on 20 August 1975 after consultation with his colleagues the Minister for Education, Mr Beazley, and the Postmaster-General, Senator Bishop, that he had made offers of twelve additional licences to educational institutions which were selected by Dr Cass. These twelve licences were also to be issued under the Wireless Telegraphy Act by the then Postmaster-General who sought an opinion from the Attorney-General’s Department before framing the special provisions of the licences.

These offers were made to the following institutions:

  1. Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education. Toowoomba, Qld.
  2. Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. Churchill, Victoria.
  3. Mitchell College of Advanced Education, Bathurst. N.S.W.
  4. Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Lismore, N.S.W.
  5. University of Queensland Union, Brisbane, Qld.
  6. Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, Hobart and Launceston, Tasmania.
  7. The University of W.A., Perth, Western Australia.
  8. W.A. Institute of Technology, Perth, Western Australia.
  9. Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T.
  10. University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W.
  11. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria.
  12. 12) University of Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W.

Commonwealth Expenditure in the States

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 18 February 1976 Senator Harradine asked me as Minister representing the Prime Minister a question without notice about the share of Commonwealth Government expenditure being directed to the smaller States. The honourable senator referred in particular to expenditure in relation to contracts and administrative services, and asked whether the Administrative Review Committee will be examining the matter. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The letting of contracts by the Commonwealth generally follows a procedure of tendering, open on an Australia-wide basis. In relation to administrative services it is relevant that, on the Commonwealth’s initiative, it is proposed to establish in Tasmania the Council for Inter-governmental Relations and the Australian Maritime College.

The Administrative Review Committee’s role is to report on means of improving Commonwealth/State administrative arrangements and the avoidance of unnecessary supervision, duplication and overlapping of activities, lt will he apparent, therefore, that the particular issues raised by the honourable senator are not central to the Committee ‘s tusk. I will nonetheless see that the Administrative Review Committee is aware of the honourable senator’s comments so that where practicable they can take them into account in their work.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 March 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760325_senate_30_s67/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant