Senate
3 June 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2281

PETITIONS

Health Insurance Commission

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I present the following petition from 1014 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Health Insurance Commission be empowered to offer medical insurance cover at the level currently offered, and hospital cover for accommodation in standard, intermediate and private wards of recognised hospitals and approved private hospitals with no financial disadvantages to members of the public who wish to exercise a true freedom of choice by staying with Medibank as their chosen method of health insurance.

Under the proposed Health Insurance Scheme starting on 1 October those members of the public who wish to stay with Medibank and take out additional hospital insurance are to be disadvantaged financially by $85 per annum compared to members of the public who wish to insure solely with a private health insurance fund for medical and hospital cover, and your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will empower the Health Insurance Commission to offer all forms of hospital insurance cover.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Planning

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 204 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Family Planning Association and similar organisations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and wellbeing of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, give urgent consideration to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisations to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Proposed Development of Medium Density Housing

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 62 residents of Lyneham, Australian Capital Territory:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of De Burgh, Murdock, Goodwin and Oliver

Streets, Lyneham, A.C.T. respectfully showeth thai they object most strongly to the proposed development of medium density housing of 150 flats and 50 town houses in four-storey blocks between Owen Flats. Northbourne Avenue, and the Barton Highway.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should note that their main objections are:

1 ) the resultant traffic congestion and noise, and the inadequate off-street parking which would be exacerbated by this action.

the air pollution already existing in the area would he greatly increased.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray

Petition received and read.

Family Planning

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, from 206 and 1036 citizens of Australia respectively, as follows:

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

That the Family Planning Association and similar organisations thoughout Australia contribute to the welfare and well being of a great proportion of the Australian people, both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisations to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged Ibr presentation as follows:

Australian Heritage Commission

To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition ofthe mulct - signed members of community organisations respectfully showeth that:

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures hy powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community ‘s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Government program of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1975-76.

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

Petition received.

Milk Substitutes

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the . Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That reduction of the age limit from six years to eighteen months for patients eligible to receive cows’ milk substitutes as a Pharmaceutical benefit under the schedules of the National Health Act will cause serious financial hardship to many families;
  2. That the Government’s action is responsible for a severe increase in the cost of cows milk substitutes which penalise parents of children aged eighteen months and over who have a medical need for these substitutes.
  3. That there is an urgent, humane need to restore cows’ milk substitutes to children up to six years of age to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that cows milk substitutes be restored to the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for children up to the age of six years as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Colston. Petition received.

Social Security Matters

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen, and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less, and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit, when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week, or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

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

Petition received.

page 2282

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION ACT

Notice of Motion

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to repeal the Social Welfare Commission Act 1973 and for related purposes.

page 2282

BROADCAST OF SENATE PROCEEDINGS

The PRESIDENT:

– I refer to the breakdown in the Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast and in the sound reinforcement system which occurred yesterday evening. The ABC advises that the breakdown could not be anticipated by preventive maintenance because the kind of transistorised equipment in use does not give any advance indication of likely failure. Immediately the breakdown occurred technical staff began to try to locate the fault and also called senior technical staff from their homes to assist.

Emergency arrangements were made to bypass the fault and the broadcast was resumed after a break of 34 minutes. In the circumstances the ABC considers this to be the shortest possible time to correct the matter. The Canberra Director of Engineering is investigating the need for an alternative emergency system but first indications are that it could be quite expensive and it might require space which is not available in the announcer’s booth. The faulty equipment is being repaired and no further trouble is anticipated. The ABC has been requested to report to me on the need for an emergency system. It has undertaken to do so as soon as possible.

page 2282

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2282

QUESTION

TRADE WITH RUSSIA

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the Soviet Union is currently seeking a very large sum on the international money market to finance further purchases of beef and wheat. Is he also aware that the Australian beef industry desperately needs an order similar in quantity to that obtained from the Soviet Union last year? In view of the paucity of orders on the world beef market and of the Prime Minister’s antagonistic statement on Tuesday evening towards the USSR, does the Minister believe that Australia’s chances of obtaining a prospective Russian order have been enhanced?

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

-I am not aware that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is seeking money to buy both beef and wheat on the world market. I am very much aware that the Australian beef market needs a purchasing injection. I hope that if we are to sell beef to Russia we will do so on far better terms than the previous Government obtained. As I recall the situation the Government has had to come in and bail out the Australian Meat Board- I think I am correct on this- because some losses occurred due to government interference in the last beef contract. I do not think that contract was a very good commercial venture. Irrespective of what the Prime Minister said I think that, whatever else might be said about the Russians, they will buy where they get best value for money. If Australian beef is of the right quality at the right price Russia will still buy Australian beef no matter what may be the content of the Prime Minister’s foreign affairs statement.

page 2283

QUESTION

TELEGRAM TO SENATORS

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Administrative Services to a telegram received by Government senators yesterday relating to Medibank and signed ‘Citizens Chisholm’. I understand that inquiries made of Telecom in Melbourne indicate that the telegram was sent from the telephone of Senator Melzer in Melbourne, number 29 3020. 1 ask the Minister whether this is correct. Can he advise who will pay for the telegram sent to Government senators advising them that they should oppose Medibank?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I understand the facts as alleged by Senator Chaney to be true. But it has been my general stance, as Minister for Administrative Services, that I do not want to become involved in the private affairs of senators and members. As the Senate may recall, I showed great reluctance in answering a question which Senator Walsh asked concerning certain travel of Senator Knight. I do not really wish to become involved in how senators and members use their parliamentary entitlements. We work basically on an honour system in this place. There are certain rules. One is that those facilities which are paid for from the public purse are to be used for parliamentary purposes. Normally it is expected that they should not be used for party political purposes. Basically, we work on an honour system in relation to this matter and it is not for me to pass judgment on whether -

Senator Georges:

– If you want to bring politics into this -

Senator WITHERS:

-I ask Senator Georges to contain himself for a moment. It is not for me to make a judgment as to what any senator or member believes to be parliamentary -

Senator Grimes:

– This goes on on both sides, and if you want to bring it up we will bring it up too.

Senator WITHERS:

-A11 right. All I am saying is that I have no desire to start making judgments as to what senators and members believe to be parliamentary duties. I just mention that Senater Walsh started all this when he asked me a question concerning Senator Knight. I was very resistant to answering it. If honourable senators look at my answer they will see my general view. That is why I am saying, in relation to the question asked by Senator Chaney, that it is a matter for senators and members and they must make up their minds on it. I have no desire to attempt to play policeman or judge on what is parliamentary or non-parliamentary work. That is a matter for members and senators to work out for themselves. It is not for the Executive, except in the most unusual circumstances, to police the activities of senators and members. As to the particular instance, whether the cost of those telegrams is claimed as part of the honourable senator’s telephone bill for which she is entitled to reimbursement I leave to the honourable senator concerned.

page 2283

QUESTION

TRADE WITH RUSSIA

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a further question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in response to his answer to my previous question concerning trade with Russia. Is he aware that the last negotiation of a meat sale by the Australian Meat Board to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics last year was done entirely by the Australian Meat Board without any commercial interference on the part of the Australian Government? Is he also aware that it was the Labor Government that underwrote that sale to the extent of $3m, without interference by the Government in any of the price arrangements?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-It seems rather contradictory that one moment the Leader of the Opposition is saying in his first question, in effect, that because the Prime Minister makes a statement on foreign affairs and defence, this will affect our commercial relations, including the sale of beef, with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and then in the question he has asked just now he is saying in effect, as I was trying to say, that the sale of beef is a matter of commercial arrangements between the Australian Meat Board and the U.S.S.R. I just wish that the honourable senator would make up his mind on what he wants.

page 2284

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. On Tuesday, 1 June 1976, 1 asked a question about the availability of the British environmental impact study in regard to the use of the Concorde aircraft. Is the Minister able to advise the Senate now as to the availability of that report?

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

– I ascertained from the Minister concerned that the draft report by the British Government on the Concorde aircraft was made available in Australia in November and has been available for quite some time in the Parliamentary Library. So, honourable senators have access to it now in the Parliamentary Library. I have asked the Minister to see whether he can obtain further copies that can be taken away. He has asked that they be sent from Melbourne. My advice is that the draft report and the final report are essentially the same, except for some editing differences.

page 2284

QUESTION

PORT DEVELOPMENT AT CAIRNS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Can the Minister indicate whether large tracts of mangrove swamps have been destroyed in the Cairns Inlet area in northern Queensland by the building of a retainer wall to prevent the entry of salt water. I ask the Minister whether an environmental impact study was carried out by those concerned and, if so, whether the results were made available to the public? Does the land belong to the Colonial Sugar Refining Co.? Can the Minister advise the Parliament as to the proposed uses of the land? If the company concerned intends to use or sell the land for the purpose of industrial harbour development, what conditions will the company be obliged to meet?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Since, obviously, all the facts requested are not available to me immediately, I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice and I will get the information.

page 2284

QUESTION

PASSPORT PROCEDURES

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs whether she has seen a letter to the editor in today’s edition ofthe Australian from a Mr J. H. Abel of Sydney claiming that an application from his wife for a passport, together with particular documents, was taken to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Sydney and that the Department refused to receive the documents by hand and said that they must be posted? Is it true that this is the policy of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and, if so, why?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did not see the letter and I am unable to give information as to the procedure adopted by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on receipt of applications for passports. I will make an inquiry of the Department and see that the honourable senator is advised.

page 2284

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator GRIMES:

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: In view of the Government’s expressed wish that State governments should now take responsibility for the funding of the Australian Assistance Plan, does the Government intend to apply this policy in its own Territories? In particular, has the Minister had discussions with her colleague, the Minister for the Northern Territory, regarding the future of the Regional District Councils of Social Development in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine, and the essential projects to which they are committed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Minister for the Northern Territory and the Minister for the Australian Capital Territory were at the meeting in Darwin where this matter was discussed with State Ministers. They were aware of the Government’s decision with regard to future funding. A member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was present also at that meeting and I suggested to him that he make strong representations to the Minister for the Northern Territory to ensure that he in turn made representations to the Treasurer for funds for the continuation of the Australian Assistance Plan. The Minister has had discussions, I believe, with Northern Territory representatives and it is now in the hands of the Minister for the Northern Territory to secure whatever funds he believes are desirable for the continuation of the Plan.

page 2284

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT POLICY

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I refer to the guidelines on foreign investment in Australia which have been put down by the Government and to comments on them in the Parliament by the Minister for National Resources and the Leader of the

Government in the Senate. I ask: Is the Government aware that there are doubts among potential overseas investors in Australia as to the attitude of this Government to foreign investment in Australia? Is the Government taking any steps to make known to potential foreign investors that, unlike the previous Government, it does not discourage overseas investment in Australia but in fact welcomes such investment on the terms of the guidelines which have been laid down?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-It would be most unfortunate if there were any feeling either at home or overseas that the disastrous policies of the last Government, particularly as enunciated by Mr Connor, had any lingering place in this Government’s overseas investment policy. I would hope that whilst we were in opposition, during the election campaign, and since we have been in government, overseas investors would have been quite aware of our policies on foreign investment in Australia.

Within the guidelines as announced by the Treasurer a month or so back Australia does in fact welcome overseas investment. We do not take the quite peculiar view that in a resource starved world we should keep our resources in the ground so that the world cannot have access to them. I would have hoped that the statement which I put down in this place on Tuesday night on behalf of the Prime Minister, in which he talked of resource sharing in the world, would have also dispelled any notion that we had the same attitude as the previous Government.

Within the guidelines that have been laid down by the Treasurer, which are quite clear, and subject to its being processed through the Foreign Investment Board, which I think is the name of the body that now looks after these things, Australia does welcome overseas investment. It is recognised that overseas investment is needed to get Australia off the ground and to make Australia the sort of country we want it to be and not the sort of stagnating country that it has been for the last 3 years.

page 2285

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. It relates to what purports to be an authoritative statement about the Australian Assistance Plan which was published in this week’s issue of the RingwoodCroydon Mail, a newspaper with which I am sure the honourable senator would be familiar. The newspaper article reads:

Allocations for subsequent years will flow from federal reimbursements directed to the State Government for the Australian Assistance Plan.

I ask: Did the Minister announce recently that federal funding for the Australian Assistance Plan would end on 30 June? Accordingly, which of those 2 statements is correct? Will she clarify the matter?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not yet seen the article in the Ringwood-Croydon Mail, but I would be interested in reading it in some detail. With regard to clarification of the matter, I did announce previously that future Federal Government funding would not be undertaken directly, as it had in the past, after a transition period of 12 months, from the Commonwealth Government to the State governments. As far as the other statement is concerned, it is consistent with the statement that I made that when the States are negotiating with the Commonwealth this year in the first stage of our federalism program the Australian Assistance Plan is specifically to be listed as one of the items for absorption by the States. In those terms the States will have before them a list of programs which will be the subject of consideration financially. The Australian Assistance Plan is one of them. That means that the statement that the honourable senator has mentioned with regard to allocations for subsequent years flowing from federal reimbursements directed to the States is consistent with our understanding that it will be one that is listed for absorption, and in those terms the financial consideration will be made.

page 2285

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE MAIL

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I preface it by telling the Minister that at approximately 9 o’clock this morning before entering Parliament House I was standing on the steps and noticed that the mail van had arrived. It is quite a large van and was stacked from floor to ceiling with quite large mail bags. I watched the postman carrying those bags, which were quite heavy, two at a time into Parliament House. It would have taken him approximately 20 to 30 minutes to do so. I ask: Will the Minister investigate the possibility of having a ramp built at the House of Representatives side or the Senate side of Parliament House so that the mail bags can be transported into the Parliament House post office on a trolley to save time and to save the postmen from having to do this kind of bullock work?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question which Senator Bonner raises merits investigation. If, for humane reasons to assist the mailmen and relieve them of unduly heavy burdens and also to speed the time of mail delivery, something can be done about this matter it ought to be done. I will draw the attention of the Minister in the other place to this question and ask him to investigate the matter.

page 2286

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RECORD

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Administrative Services whether he is yet in a position to answer the question that I directed to him on Tuesday and again yesterday concerning the report that the Government intends using the Australian Information Service to produce a weekly digest setting out Government policy decisions and other announcements.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I said yesterday to the honourable senator that I would see whether somebody could find the newspaper article. Apparently it appeared in the Australian of Thursday, 27 May.

Senator Georges:

– You are 5 days behind.

Senator WITHERS:

-I saw the article somewhere but I could not remember what was contained in it. However, it has been found for me. As the honourable senator will be aware, the Government established the Ministerial Document Service to ensure that all senators and members were given speedy provision of Press statements by Ministers and the Opposition office bearers. It is the intention of the Government to supplement this service by publishing a weekly compilation of the statements circulated by the Ministerial Document Service. This compilation will be known as the Commonwealth Record-not the Federal Record, as the article claims. It will be available to all interested groups at a subscription rate sufficient to cover its costs. It is not planned to be an attempt to publicise the Government because the Government does not believe in misusing public funds in the way the Labor Government misused funds to publicise itself. The former Government Digest was a deliberate attempt to propagandise Labor’s so-called achievements.

The Commonwealth Record will merely ensure that there is adequate access to ministerial statements and a permanent record kept of those statements. It is hoped to make limited copies available to all senators and members. The publication will not be edited. It will not be prepared by the Australian Information Service. Thousands upon thousands of free copies of the publication will not be scattered willy-nilly around the country. It is merely designed to put into a weekly format those documents which presently are circulated to senators and members. I repeat that the Press statements of Ministers and Opposition office bearers who have a right to seek the use of the Ministerial Document Service will be put into a weekly format.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That happened with ours too, you know.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, that is not quite right. In fact, the previous Government’s digest was edited by certain people within the Australian Government Liaison Service. There was an enormous free list. There will be no free list for our publication. Those who want it will have to pay for it. As far as my Department is concerned, anybody who wants it -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What will be the fee?

Senator WITHERS:

-That has not been accurately costed but it is anticipated that with the cost of postage included the subscription will be in excess of $60 a year. As honourable senators will know, the postage content of any subscription is quite high. The cost will largely depend upon the number of subscribers who seek the publication. All we are doing is putting into print, on a weekly basis, what is presently being issued on a daily basis.

page 2286

QUESTION

PARKING AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator SIR MAGNUS CORMACK:
VICTORIA

-I would be grateful if you would permit me to address this question without notice to you, Mr President. It deals with a domestic and housekeeping matter. In order to make my question clear I preface it with the observation that in the country from which I come there is a well known story of an old Victorian bullock driver who, it was alleged, would put his bullocks in your bedroom if he thought there was any grass there. As generations change it seems that Canberra motor car drivers would put their cars in the Committee rooms of this Parliament House if they could get them through the windows. I know that Senator Keeffe is interested in this matter. I therefore ask you, Sir, whether you are willing to see if it is possible to enforce the parking restrictions around the environs of Parliament House to enable Government drivers and the drivers of commercial vehicles who have to service Parliament House to park their cars in the designated areas without finding these parking places occupied by the modern day bullock drivers.

The PRESIDENT:

– I most certainly will take up this matter with a view to ensuring that parking spaces are used as they are allotted to be used and that there is no wrongful parking around Parliament House.

page 2287

QUESTION

MR PETER CLYNE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. At a time when the Australian Government is seeking the extradition of the Bartons from Paraguay, does the Government intend to condone the overseas actions of Peter Clyne- the disbarred, bankrupt Sydney barrister- particularly his latest exploit of absconding from the United States before his taxation evasion charges were finalised?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator was good enought to alert me to this question. I have the advantage of having had my attention drawn to an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, I think, of today’s date. Whilst that is an interesting newspaper story, until there are allegations of the law being broken I do not see why the Government should move. If Mr Peter Clyne has done something which is contrary to the law either of this country or of any other country, the Government will expect the law to take its normal course.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Like you got the Bartons.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not know about the Bartons. I am not particularly familiar with what happens in the honourable senator’s State. If Mr Clyne has breached a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a friendly country and the proper processes are put into being, the law will take its normal course.

Senator MULVIHILL:

- Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I preface it by saying that the reports vary according to what newspaper is read. Since I served notice on the Minister that I would ask this question, I understand that the Sydney Morning Herald has carried a story that law officers of the Commonwealth have indicated to Mr Clyne that he cannot leave Australia due to some problems here. I thought that the Minister might have checked with the Attorney-General to see whether the other report has any semblance of truth in it.

Senator WITHERS:

-I will have that checked out for the honourable senator. As I say, I knew about the article in the Daily Telegraph only because of the honourable senator’s kind efforts in drawing my attention to it. I have not seen the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. What it goes to show, if the honourable senator is correct, is the danger of reading newspapers in an attempt to seek information.

page 2287

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR SPORTING PROJECTS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the claim of the Leader of the Opposition that funds for sporting projects in South Australia will be cut off even where enforceable contracts have been completed and work has been commenced? Can the Minister say whether these reports are accurate, in the light of Senator Greenwood’s letter in April to the State Minister responsible to the effect that all obligations on the Federal Government in respect of projects in course would be honoured?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the statement by the Leader of the Opposition; so I am not aware of the claim. Because I want to be precise on this matter, I will refer it to the Acting Minister and get the information in precise form.

page 2287

QUESTION

LEGAL AID

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs seen reports suggesting that the Australian Government is to transfer the responsibility for legal aid from the Commonwealth to the States? Does this transfer involve acceptance of financial responsibility by the States or will the Commonwealth still fund the States to continue this important community facility? Is this move to be regarded as a pan of the federalism policy? Has it been discussed with the States? Can the Minister advise what other Federal initiatives it is contemplated will be transferred to the States? Will these create financial burdens for the States?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There have been a number of quite unsubstantiated reports about legal aid and other matters being handed over to the States. That is specifically a question that ought to be directed to the Attorney-General since legal aid and its future is a matter which falls within his portfolio. I shall certainly draw his attention to the question. As to the other matters, it has been announced- and was announced at the Premiers Conference, both in February and April- that individual specific purpose grants from the Commonwealth to the States will be examined one by one in great detail. Where it is decided that a State might perform the function better than anyone else arrangements will be made for the absorption of an equivalent amount of Federal money, which would have a growth factor to it, on the clear guarantee from the State that it will maintain and, indeed, expand the function in terms of financing for the future. So there will not be a passing of an extra burden to the States. The reverse would be true. The whole principle of federalism in such matters, where we are looking at individual section 96 specific purpose grants, is to find out who can perform the function best, but where the functions are of significance in an enduring fashion to have them maintained in quality and quantity.

page 2288

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security: Seeing the community at large is still this morning being told that the Government has broken an election promise and is disbanding Medibank, could she inform the chamber of the Prime Minister’s promise during the time of the general election that Medibank would be looked at and that minor changes would take place?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Senate dealt yesterday with the Medibank Bills and they were passed through the Senate last night. I think it was clear to all honourable senators what the Government’s proposals were with regard to Medibank and that the Government’s plan was to enable those who wished to remain in Medibank to do so and those who wished to have access to private health fund insurance to have an opportunity to do just that. Replying specifically to the question, I think that the Press reports tins morning have dealt with the debates which have been held with regard to the Medibank proposals. I hope that as the Government proceeds with its education program on Medibank between now and 1 October there will be no doubt in the minds of the Australian people as to what decisions are available to them.

page 2288

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION: TRANSIT FACILITIES

Senator GEORGES:

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs inform the Senate whether transit facilities have been refused to Fijians, Indians and Pakistanis in Australia in recent weeks and whether a similar decision is imminent in respect of Chileans desiring to travel to another country through Australia? Can the Minister give any reason for such an arbitrary ruling which, on the evidence available, seems to indicate blatant racism? Is the Minister able to confirm that the Department of Foreign Affairs is attempting to bring some pressure to bear on the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on this issue, realising, of course, that such discrimination in the application of our immigration laws must bring Australia into disrepute in our own region?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Some of the statements that have been made are very serious indeed, particularly those that related to racism and discrimination in our immigration policy. As far as transit facilities being refused to Fijians, Indians and others is concerned, I am unaware of any new procedures that have been adopted with regard to transit facilities. I shall refer the matter to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and obtain whatever information I can for the honourable senator.

page 2288

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In directing my question to the Minister for Education, I refer to the Minister’s statement on financial grants to universities and in particular to the following statement:

For the second and third years of the triennium, each Commission should plan on the basis of a minimum growth of 2 per cent in real terms on the level of expenditure in the preceding year.

Can the Minister give any indication of what this will mean approximately in monetary terms? Can the Minister say also what are the further guidelines referred to in his statement? If he cannot do so at this stage, when will he be in a position to give an indication of those guidelines?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The aim of the guidelines, of course, is to ensure 2 things: first, that universities, along with colleges, technical institutions and schools, will have an assurance of real growth, not only for the year ahead but for the 3 years ahead; and secondly, that the institutions will be able to plan ahead. There is a third factor. In order to provide minimum growth in years 2 and 3, the guidelines ensure that the government of the day will be able to expand upon that growth year by year as the economy widens. The meaning of the guidelines is clear. We are dealing in terms of constant prices, or the real purchasing power of money, and what we are saying is that next year universities will have 2 per cent more real purchasing power with which to undertake their recurrent and capital expenditure, together, incidentally, with a further $2m earmarked for capital in universities. We are saying also that for years 2 and 3 of the rolling triennium they may plan on the assurance that in terms of real purchasing power they will get no less than 2 per cent extra growth in each year. That, I think, is being thoroughly welcomed throughout Australia. It is a combination of growth and ability to plan in a triennial sense. As to the 2 per cent, it is 2 per cent for the year 1977. Having achieved that, there will be a further 2 per cent real purchasing power growth for 1978, and on top of that a similar further growth in 1979, as well as the ability, if and when the economy expands, to add more to it.

page 2289

QUESTION

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Senator COLEMAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and relates to the new arrangements whereby an office of child care has been substituted for the Interim Committee of the Children’s Commission. I ask the Minister whether this office will administer and fund only child care or whether it will also comprehend, as did the Interim Committee, other children’s services such as toy libraries, services for handicapped children, pre-school centres and activities centres for before and after school.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The short answer to the question is yes. The office of child care will deal with the development of children’s services throughout Australia. As the honourable senator mentioned, those services which have already been developed will be comprehended in the programs to be undertaken in the future. It is hoped that more emphasis can be placed on the development of child care facilities, in particular those which are required urgently for the children of sole parents, invalid parents, or other groups who urgently require the provision of services for children in the near future.

page 2289

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Education whether he proposes to review the tertiary education allowance scheme? Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed by the university students’ association that the current level of assistance is below the subsistence level described in the Henderson report? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that absenteeism has occurred at the Roseworthy Agricultural College in South Australia due to the fact that students have been forced to undertake casual employment such as fruit picking and pruning in order to continue their courses? Has the Minister studied the Williams report and, if so, is he able to say whether he will adopt the recommendations with respect to the tertiary allowance and other matters? Does the Minister intend to reintroduce tertiary fees, and can he also say what his attitude is to fee’s for students who are engaged in post-graduate degree studies.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Jessop ‘s question contains some 5 sub-questions. In the first place, he asked whether the Government proposes to review the tertiary education assistance scheme allowances. This will be a matter for review in the Budget. He then asked whether I was aware of the concern of students. Indeed I am. I am concerned too. The basic situation is that the tertiary education assistance scheme allowances were devised as a worthwhile supplement to students who could further supplement their incomes by working in the Christmas vacation and at weekends and earning in this way some $ 1 ,600 a year without means test. The unemployment that has been created around this country in the past 2 years has robbed students of their ability to supplement their incomes and this has caused great hardship. In addition, their families have suffered hardship through unemployment and erosion of income through inflation. I did hear the assertion that Roseworthy Agricultural College was suffering absenteeism and I have had representations from principals of various universities and colleges regarding hardship.

I am aware also of the Williams Committee report which was presented in the time of the previous Government but not acted upon. It contains a number of recommendations which are under study now and they will, of course, be taken into consideration at the time of the preparation of the Budget.

I am also asked whether there is an intention to reintroduce tuition fees. I repeat that for primary degrees, combined degrees, end on degrees and diplomas there will be no reintroduction of tuition fees. The Government has decided in principle that it will consider the reintroduction of fees for second degrees. I remind the Senate that in this field some two-thirds of the 18 000 students in that area are part-time students and are gainfully employed, having a source of income. There is also the possibility of employers, whether government or private, providing their fees and the majority of others being sustained by post graduate awards. Nevertheless, we are having a hard look at this area because we do not want to impose any hardship. We will be announcing in the weeks ahead whatever fees might be introduced at that level.

page 2289

QUESTION

INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Is he in a position to tell the Senate the current estimate of the percentage of personal income tax collections which will be paid in 1976-77 to the States as a whole and to local government as a whole?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am in a position to answer the second part of Senator James McClelland ‘s question. The amount to be paid to local government as a whole by way of untied grants -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Ha, ha! Tell us the whole.

Senator CARRICK:

– This information must be related to personal income tax because that is what Senator James McClelland sought in his question. Out of personal income tax there are no tied grants, so the ‘ha, ha’ was entirely gratuitous. I am able to indicate that there will be $140m provided in the coming year, that being 75 per cent more than was provided the previous year and representing 1.6 per cent of personal income tax. I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the fact that later next week there will be a Premiers Conference in Canberra. The public has been freely informed that the Premiers Conference will be discussing the final details of stage one of revenue sharing. I cannot express in percentage terms exactly what will be the share of personal income tax paid to the States but I repeat to the Senate, should there be any anxiety on the part of the States, that after all adjustments are made, including full tax indexation and other matters, the States will not get less in the coming year or 2 subsequent years than would have been projected by the Whitlam Government’s formula. I assure the honourable senator that the States have these 2 alternatives: Either to get as an absolute minimum what the Whitlam Government would have given them or, as we grow into more full employment and prosperity, to gain more by tax snaring in personal income tax. So the States are prospectively considerably better off in the knowledge that tax indexation and its abatement of inflation will reduce the wages bill of the States and therefore give them more real purchasing power.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand from the Minister’s answer that he is either unwilling or unable to answer the first arm of my question, that is, as to the percentage of personal income tax collections which will be paid to the States as a whole.

Senator CARRICK:

– What Senator James McClelland is able to understand is not within my province to divine. I said that the Premiers Conference was meeting in a week’s time. It will be a matter for final determination by the Premiers Conference. Clearly, as the matter has not been decided at all- I presume the Australian Labor Party does not want me to pre-empt the rights of Premiers to discuss the matter- I cannot and will not make a statement ahead of decisions by the Premiers Conference.

page 2290

QUESTION

FAMILY COURT IN TASMANIA

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether it is fact that the Government has decided not to appoint a second Family Court judge in Tasmania. Has the Minister received complaints that the present judge has an excessive work load and that because of this family law proceedings in northern Tasmania are being delayed? Will the Minister consider the appointment of a second judge, as was intended by the previous Government, to avoid unnecessary delays and distress in this important jurisdiction?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall have to seek that information from the Attorney-General.

page 2290

QUESTION

GOATS’ MILK

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the problems of the survival of the goats’ milk producing industry in Victoria occasioned in part by the reduction in the age limit applicable to infants eligible to receive a powdered goats’ milk product known as Caprilac under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and also occasioned by the importation of powdered goats’ milk products from the United States of America and New Zealand? Will the Minister investigate the position to see whether some form of protection or assistance can be given to this small but important industry, particularly as it could offer a viable alternative land use for the depressed dairy and fruit growing industries in Victoria?

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

-I do not think I could fairly regard myself as the leading authority on goats’ milk in this country. I had a lot of association with the animals in the early years in the far west of New South Wales. It is the only animal I know which can produce milk on a diet of galvanised iron. Seriously, this matter has a couple of facets which are worth referring to. Goats’ milk is very useful as a diet for certain small children and babies who suffer from eczema and those sorts of problems.

Senator Georges:

– It makes good cheese.

Senator COTTON:

-It is said to make good cheese. I am not an expert on that. Senator Georges might well have a better knowledge than I on that matter. The goat is also a fairly valuable animal in certain arid parts of Australia. In Western Australia one can purchase, at a very great price, suitable bucks which can be used with ordinary rough style Western Australian goats to produce a much improved quality mohair if one wants to do that. Many things are open to honourable senators in the goat world.

Specifically, I shall take up with the Minister the question which has been asked.

page 2291

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, by stating that in 1975-76 the Labor Government set aside an amount of $230m for payments to or for local government which did not include funds for sewerage or roads. Can the Minister assure the Senate that payments to or for local government in 1976-77, excluding funds for sewerage and roads, will not be less than those provided by the Labor Government in 1975-76?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As the honourable senator must know, discussions are still current between the Commonwealth and the States and, indeed, with local government as to the total quantum of funds that will be available for the coming year. Just as the previous Government did, this Government will unfold its program in its Budget. So, if the honourable senator will contain his impatience for the months ahead, he will find out the answer to the question he asks.

page 2291

QUESTION

SURVEILLANCE OF TERRITORIAL WATERS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. The Australian Government has announced that it is now considering the extension of Australian territorial waters to 200 miles off the Australian coast. As this extra area of territorial waters is highly desirable in regard to the control of fishing, defence and other off-shore surveillance requirements and as our ships and aircraft are few in number and obviously re-equipping is required in order to carry out the Government’s intention, what action is contemplated by the Government to build up an air and sea reconnaissance service, particularly in respect of our thousands of miles of northern coastline which has been neglected considerably in recent years? Will the Minister have a paper on the subject tabled in the Senate?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator will know, if he has read the statement I put down in the Senate last week on behalf of the Minister for Defence, that there is a program to spend $ 12,000m in real terms over the next 5 years. A lot of that money will be spent on hardware. The Government is quite conscious of the fact that if the Law of the Sea Conference extends Australia’s territorial boundaries to 200 miles off the coastline there will be an enormous task in surveillance both for the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. This is a matter which is currently under consideration by the Government. I understand that the Minister for Defence hopes to table a White Paper during the Budget session. No doubt, these matters will be alluded to in that Paper.

page 2291

QUESTION

CHILD CARE: CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES

Senator MELZER:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Under the new arrangements that have put child care under the control of the Department of Social Security, can the Minister indicate the role that will be played by the State consultative committees which worked with the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission? Will the same degree of participation and co-operation be sought from these committees, volunteer groups of mothers and community workers who gave ungrudgingly a great deal of their free time to establish projects for working and non-working families?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It would be recognised that the transfer of administrative responsibility was announced only yesterday. So far as future arrangements are concerned, I would see great value in continuing consultative committees at State level in whatever we develop in the future. I can say only that I have been interested in the way in which these committees have been representative of the community itself and have worked with government in the planning that needs to be undertaken. With that assurance, I can see no reason for suggesting that that style of work would not be undertaken in the future. At this stage it is a very new responsibility and one which I have not yet styled so far as the administrative and consultative processes are concerned.

page 2291

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator KNIGHT:

– I address a question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to her recent announcement concerning the future of the Australian Assistance Plan. In a subsequent statement on 26 May she said that the AAP will be listed as an item at the forthcoming FederalState financial relations discussions as one of the programs for absorption by the States against which future financial arrangements will be discussed. With respect to the Territories, the Minister said that contact will be maintained with the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and the Minister for the Capital Territory in relation to the operation of the AAP in the

Territory. What action has been taken to initiate contact on this matter with the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and the Minister for the Capital Territory? Can the Minister indicate how the announcement of 26 May, with respect to the AAP, will affect arrangements in the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The announcement in May with regard to the future of the Australian Assistance Plan means that all funds which have been available during the past year will be continued for a further year. This means that there is a transitional stage from the Commonwealth Government to the State governments. As far as the Territories are concerned, as I mentioned earlier this morning, the Ministers responsible for matters in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory were also at the meeting at which this matter was discussed. I am hopeful that they will take the initiative to ensure that whatever needs to be done- that is, consult with my departmental officers, with me and ultimately with the Treasurer to obtain the funds that they believe are required- will be done by them. I have not at this stage instituted any direct connections with the Legislative Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory. I am prepared to do that. I would welcome the opportunity for my officers to work with anyone who is desirous of seeking consultation so that what has been developed will not be dissipated through lack of consultation with or assistance from my Department. These matters will be put in hand to enable the Australian Capital Territory to have as much assistance as has been offered to the State governments.

page 2292

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, by remarking that on 26 May citizens of Rockhampton read in their morning newspaper that the Minister for Health had said that there was no dangerous shortage of influenza vaccine in Australia. I have been informed that the people of Rockhampton are still experiencing difficulty in obtaining the vaccine. Will the Minister undertake to have investigations made to see what the situation is in Rockhampton, whether it can be rectified if such an investigation reveals that rectification is necessary, and to see that the vaccine is allocated to pharmacists in that area on an equitable basis?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have dealt with several questions in the past with regard to the availability of influenza vaccine. I have made the point from time to time that there have been shortages due to the unprecedented demand that has been made on available resources. I am unaware of the position specifically with regard to Rockhampton, but I am able to say that it takes approximately 10 weeks for a batch of the vaccine to pass through the full cycle of production. At present, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is working at maximum effort 7 days a week on influenza vaccine production. The production target is 2 million doses by 30 June 1976. The commissioning of the virus production laboratory stage 2 ofthe Commonwealth Serum Laboratories later this year should double the Laboratories’ production capacity. As the vaccine becomes available, it is being dispatched from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to wholesalers on a State basis in proportion to the total unfilled wholesalers ‘ orders for each State. I will have inquiries made with regard to Rockhampton to see what undue strains there are upon the supplies which are available and to do whatever I can to ensure that adequate supplies reach Rockhampton as soon as is practicable.

page 2292

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question follows on that asked by Senator Colston. It is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and it relates to influenza vaccine. Would the Minister not agree that there is now widespread opinion amongst doctors that places doubt upon the wholesale use of flu vaccine in Australia? Would the Minister agree that the demand for flu vaccine in Australia at present is probably excessive and unwarranted? Would she agree that the value of flu vaccine is probably confined to particular groups in the community, including the aged and those with certain heart and lung diseases? Would she agree that there is considerable doubt in Australia as to the place of mass vaccination of the Australian Community against influenza?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Far be it from me to disagree with the honourable medical senator with regard to the advice that he has just given in the question that he has directed. But I am able to say as Minister representing the Minister for Health that it is a fact that the very heavy public demand for flu vaccine this year is attributed to the publicity in the Press on influenza epidemics in the northern hemisphere earlier this year. This has resulted in many healthy adults requesting supplies of the vaccine where its use by these persons is on medical grounds of a lower order of priority than its use by persons in the more vulnerable groups. The vulnerable groups were designated as being elderly people and people with chronic heart disease or other serious debilitating diseases, and children over the age of one and under the age of five. Those vulnerable groups, as a result of the undue demand, have been experiencing delays.

I think that the true level of the demand for influenza vaccine is often difficult to assess because of the practice of some members of the public of placing their order for the vaccine with a number of pharmacies after the first pharmacy approached has been unable to fill the order. Those are matters of serious consequence when people are seeking a vaccine that is in short supply and is subject to excessive demand. I believe that implicit in the honourable senator’s question is also the guidance that sometimes an undue demand has been made as far as requests for the vaccine this year are concerned. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Health to the question and to the opinion that seems to be implicit within it. But, as I said earlier, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are working at maximum effort 7 days a week to overtake the requirements for the vaccine.

page 2293

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. I refer to his earlier reply to a question by Senator James McClelland in which he stated that the $140m untied grant to local government comprised 1.6 per cent of the total personal income tax collections. Bearing in mind that $140m is 1.6 per cent of $8.75 billion, I ask: To which year’s personal income tax collections does that 1 .6 per cent figure refer?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-By decision at the Premiers Conference, to the current year- 1 975-76.

page 2293

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. I refer to the Minister’s recent statement that an amount of $2.2m will be saved by admitting repatriation patients to nondepartmental hospitals as hospital service patients. How is that $2.2m to be saved? Does the saving mean that the States will now have to bear half the costs of the patients when they are in State hospitals? If so, have the States been advised that they are now financially responsible for the repatriation cases? What has been the response of the States to the transfer of financial responsibility?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I do not have at hand the answers to the specific questions raised with regard to repatriation hospital patients, but I will obtain them for the honourable senator.

page 2293

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Commonwealth Grants Commission Bill 1976.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1976.

Customs Amendment Bill 1976.

Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1 976.

Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1976.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill 1976.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Amendment Bill 1976.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Amendment Bill 1976.

page 2293

NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western Australia · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of the Territory of Norfolk Island for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 2293

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs for 1975.

page 2293

AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators and pursuant to section 9(1) of the Education Research Act 1970, I present the annual reports of the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education for 1973-74 and 1974-75.

page 2293

SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report on the National Committee on Social Science Teaching Research and Development Grants 1 973-74 and 1974-75 administered under the Education Research Act 1970.

page 2293

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION) ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the States Grants (Technical and Further

Education) Act 1974, 1 present a statement relating to financial assistance granted to the States in respect of that Act in the financial year 1974-75.

page 2294

ABORIGINAL SECONDARY GRANTS SCHEME

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled Access to Education- an Evaluation of the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme. I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to that report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

– This report is the culmination of the evaluation study of the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme which my Department commissioned in June 1973 to Professor Betty H. Watts of the University of Queensland. Professor Watts has conducted an in-depth study ofthe recipients of the grant in order to assess the educational effectiveness of the scheme in achieving its main objective of encouraging Aboriginal and Islander students to remain at school and, if possible, complete a secondary education. Consequences of the scheme as they affect the families of the grantees and the community were also examined. The study also included an evaluation of the administration of the scheme and the report presents recommendations for courses of action which may contribute towards the achievement of the scheme’s objectives. The report contains much valuable data on the educational situation and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander secondary grant holders, and on parental attitudes and aspirations concerning their children’s educational and occupational futures.

The main recommendations relate to the continuation of the scheme, the appointment of specialised personnel in addition to the education officers already involved, adjustment of the level of the allowance, and the convening of a national workshop on Aboriginal secondary education. Discussion on the implementation of these recommendations took place among officers of the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and Education, Professor Watts and members of the Aboriginal Consultative Group to the Schools Commission in February 1976, and appropriate action is proceeding.

This has been the first major evaluation study to be directed to current educational programs administered by the Department of Education. In accordance with the Government’s policy, we will be proceeding with the evaluation of other programs in the area of education to assess their efficiency and effectiveness. I commend the report as a sensitive and objective approach to the evaluation of educational programs designed to improve access to education among disadvantaged groups.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

– I move:

Mr President, I also seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

– The report is very comprehensive. At the outset I would like to pay a personal tribute to Professor Betty Watts who has worked in this field over a long period of years. I think the research that has gone into the compilation of this report and the recommendations contained in it are a tribute to the capacity of Professor Watts to the feelings of the Aboriginal people and, in particular, the requirements of their children.

I point out to the Senate that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) mentioned in the first paragraph of his statement that the report was the culmination of the evaluation study of the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme which his Department commissioned in June 1 973. 1 do not think there was any inference to be drawn from this statement, but I would like to say that the report was commissioned by the previous Labor Government. I think that a tribute should be paid to the initiative that was taken in that area by the previous Government.

Senator Carrick:

– That is fully accepted.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the Minister. The secondary grants scheme was introduced a number of years ago, first of all on a very limited scale. It has opened up opportunities for many Aboriginal and Island children to go on to higher studies. There are still many problems with the scheme that have to be overcome. One hopes that the recommendations made by Professor Watts, if they are properly evaluated and taken note of by the Government, will overcome some of these problems. I remember when the scheme was first introduced. There was some resistance on the part of parents, sometimes Aboriginal parents. There was a fair pocket of resistance on the part of the parents of white children attending schools against fully implementing the scheme. Also there was the odd headmaster who did not properly assess the children as to whether they ought to go on to secondary studies. Many of these things are now disappearing; but throughout the secondary school area and in the late years of primary school there are still pockets where parents themselves are not being made fully aware of the fact that their children are entitled to obtain assistance through the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme. I hope that when the Government is putting some of these recommendations into legislation or practice it will be aware of that.

We have a big problem in Queensland and in fact in some other parts of Australia- but particularly in the Torres Strait area of Queensland- where children have to receive their education through teachers who are not properly qualified. I believe that it is a responsibility of the Federal Government to see that all children are given the opportunity to be taught by fully qualified teachers. I am not casting any aspersions on the sincerity of the teachers who do the job. The fault lay, first of all, with the Queensland Department of Education, and probably still lies there. There should be an overseeing ability of the Government to ensure that this sort of thing does not continue. Bi-lingual programs ought to be encouraged. Professor Watts, some time earlier, spent a considerable time looking at this aspect of teaching Aboriginal children. I know that very little of this teaching is done, except in those areas of the Northern Territory where the. initiative has been taken. There is a shortage of fully qualified teachers and of teaching aids. These areas, I think, ought to be examined very closely.

Recently we have had the unfortunate experience of hearing that the Government intends to cut out the $200,000 for supplementary diets for the 6000 Northern Territory children. Kiddies who, in their early years, are deprived of protein and other valuable additives to their food supplies do not become good students. This also carries across to the pregnant mother who does not get the right diet so that her children will be born healthy and well. Probably this is not quite in the education field, but it does have a long term bearing on education and I hope that the Government will review its decision.

I want to refer quickly to a number of recommendations, and then I will conclude, knowing that we are anxious to bring the session to an end. The report contains a summary of recommendations. Recommendation 1.1 states:

That, in view of its effects, the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme should continue to be offered to Aboriginal and Islander students, with certain modifications, as indicated in other recommendations.

Those modifications, of course, are set out in detail further on in the summary of recommendations. Recommendation 3.1 (a) states:

That, subject to the wish of State education authorities, Federal financial support be provided for the establishment of a teacher with special responsibilities on the staff of schools with high Aboriginal and Islander enrolment;

I suggest that that recommendation should be taken into consideration by the Minister and the Government. Even though this Government does not like centralism, this very sensitive area basically ought to be its responsibility and not necessarily referred to the States. Recommendation 3.2 states:

That the Australian Department of Education convene a national workshop of Aboriginal/Islander secondary education so that senior officers of State and Australian Departments of Education and the Aboriginal Consultative Group might consider possible future developments and priorities in this field.

This is an area in which there has not been enough consultation to date and I am glad that Professor Watts has given emphasis to it in her recommendations. I would like to refer to some other short recommendations. Recommendation 7. 1 states:

That the Public Service Board give approval to the Australian Department of Education^ application for the creation of the positions of Aboriginal Students’ Officers.

Recommendation 8.1 states:

That, should the Government decide to introduce legislation and associated regulations for the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme, these regulations be simple, flexible and discretionary.

I add to that recommendation that Aborigines and Islanders ought to be consulted in the making of those regulations. Finally I refer to Recommendation 1 1.1 (a), which states:

That the Australian Department of Education, in collaboration with the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs and in consultation with Aboriginal people, keep the question of application of a means test to the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme under constant review;

The report goes on to recommend that the information be collected and so on. I hope that there will come a time in the history of this nation when all people who are underprivileged will be able to ensure that their children have every opportunity to achieve a first class education and that the foundation being set in the field of Aboriginal secondary school grants may lay the guidelines by which this can be applied to the whole community. I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debated adjourned.

page 2296

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO POVERTY

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-For the information of honourable senators I present the third main report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty entitled Social-Medical Aspects of Poverty in Australia’. Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Senate records office and the Parliamentary Library. Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to that report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– As honourable senators will recall an independent, nonparliamentary Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in Australia was announced on 29 August 1972 by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable William McMahon. Professor R. F. Henderson was appointed to undertake the inquiry. Subsequently, on 6 March 1973, the previous Government announced the broadening of the Commission by the appointment of the following four Commissioners: Dr R. T. Fitzgerald, Professor R. C. Gates, The Rev. G. S. Martin and Professor R. Sackville. Each Commissioner is concentrating on a particular area, with regular meetings and liaison on issues of common concern. I seek leave to incorporate the specific terms of reference for the Commissioners concentrating on specialist areas.

The PRESIDENT:

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

SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR COMMISSIONERS CONCENTRATING ON SPECIALIST AREAS

Dr R. T. Fitzgerald: Education

Investigate:

The nature and extent or educational and cultural disadvantage among the poor and the ways in which it leads to poverty in successive generations, (ii) Existing educational and cultural services to ascertain:

their adequacy in meeting the needs of the poor;

how they might best be improved in order to overcome educational and cultural disadvantages. (in) Any associated matters relevant to the above and to the general objectives of the inquiry.

Rev. G. S. Martin: Social /Medical Aspects

Investigate social /medical aspects of poverty including:

Community services where persons involved in health and social welfare meet to work together, e.g. health/welfare centres, mental health, rehabilitation, and family planning services.

Relationship between poverty and major illnesses in the community of a social/medical nature.

Any associated matters relevant to the above and to the general objectives of the Inquiry.

Professor R. Sackville: Law

Investigate the effect ofthe law and the legal system upon the poor and other disadvantaged groups and individuals in the Australian community and in particular examine:

Those areas of substantive law, whether Federal or State, that are of special significance to the poor.

The delivery of legal services to the poor, including:

the nature and scope of existing legal aid and referral services, whether administered through the legal profession or not, and their effectiveness in meeting the perceived needs of the poor,

barriers to the effective use of legal aid services and methods of overcoming those barriers; and

alternative forms of legal advice and assistance including those offered in connection with nonlegal services.

The administration of the system of criminalband civil justice in so far as it affects the poor and other vulnerable groups such as migrants and children appearing in Children’s Courts.

The legal rights of recipients of special welfare assistance.

Any associated matters relevant to the above and to the general objectives of the Inquiry.

Professor R. C. Gates: Selected Economic Issues

Professor Gates is investigating a number of economic issues covered by the general terms of reference. These include aspects of the economic circumstances of the poor, of the role of local government in the provision of welfare services, and of consumer protection.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The poverty inquiry has been the most comprehensive and significant social inquiry in Australian history. Government has acted on one of the principal recommendations in the first main report. I refer, of course, to the new family allowances that will be paid from later this month and which will be of direct help in the areas where financial help is most needed. The present report provides additional support for the Government’s decisions on family allowances.

Mr Martin states that ‘child endowment is the best means of channelling assistance while avoiding problems of take-up and stigma’. Mr Martin was appointed to inquire into the socialmedical aspects of poverty. Mr Martin is superintendent of the Port Adelaide Methodist Mission, South Australia. He was asked to investigate social-medical aspects of poverty including the community services where persons involved in health and social welfare meet to work together, for example, health and welfare centres, mental health, rehabilitation and family planning services; the relationship between poverty and major illnesses in the community of a socialmedical nature; and any associated matters relevant to the above and to the general objectives of the inquiry.

This report is the third in a series of 5 main reports of the poverty inquiry. Honourable senators will recall that both volumes of Professor Henderson’s report on poverty in Australia-the first main report- have already been tabled, along with the second main report on law and poverty by Professor Sackville. In addition a large number of research reports have been tabled or published. I seek leave to incorporate a list of these research reports in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The fourth main report by Professor Gates on selected economic issues and the fifth main report by Dr Fitzgerald on poverty and education are expected to be completed shortly. I will be tabling them as soon as they become available. The Commonwealth Government regards this third report on socialmedical aspects of poverty as an important document and will ensure it is given detailed study. I am tabling the report in manuscript form. The report is with the Australian Government Publishing Service and printed copies will be available in due course. I have arranged for manuscript copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library, each State library, and in the Australian National Library. The report can be seen at offices of the Commission in Melbourne. I have also arranged for a copy of the recommendations to be given to all members and senators later today.

The Government endorses the principle spelt out in each report to date, namely, that need and degree of need should be the primary test by which help given to a person, group or community should be determined. Failure to observe this principle must mean the diversion of resources to people who cannot be said to need them, at the expense of other people and programs from which the resources have, in fact, been taken. Our approach in social welfare will be to concentrate support on the disadvantaged, to adopt general policies which will add greatly to the security of the weaker sections of the community. Mr Martin’s report deals with the more important community services at the health and social welfare interface and covers such major issues as community health services, mental health services, disability and poverty, alcoholism and drug dependence, the health of newborn children and infants, family planning, and dental health services. Wide-ranging recommendations are made in these fields.

The Commission found that disadvantage associated with poverty in the social /health field is heightened for minority groups culturally different from the mainstream of Australian society. The report gives particular attention to the situation of migrants and Aborigines. In view of its wide coverage, the report will be of direct concern to a number of Ministers and departments at the Commonwealth level, as well as to State governments. Of particular interest to the Department of Social Security are recommendations dealing with the Australian Government Rehabilitation Service, fringe benefits of a health nature for social security pensioners and beneficiaries, and the particular needs of migrant and ethnic minorities. I move:

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-In supporting the motion that the Senate take note of the paper, the Opposition welcomes the tabling and the production of this very important report by the Reverend George Martin. My only concern is that, as the report is in excess of 500 closely typed pages with 143 recommendations, I am uncertain when any of us will get the time to study it closely in the recess. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2301

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I present a report from the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on its inquiry into the reference involving the ordinary annual services of the Government.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MISSEN:

– I seek leave to move a motion. ii.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MISSEN:

-I move:

While this report is relatively short, it concerns a matter of great importance to the Senate, that is, the powers our appropriation Bills conferred on the Senate by the Constitution. In the report the Committee has examined briefly the development of these powers from the first Federal Parliament in 1901 to the present time. One significant event was the announcement in 1965 by the then Treasurer, Mr Holt, of the policy to be followed in the preparation and presentation of future appropriation legislation. That policy was based on the recommendations made shortly before that time by a committee of Government senators. There were apparent variations from these policies in 1973 and 1974 which led to the matter being referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

The Committee has received an assurance from the present Treasurer, Mr Phillip Lynch, that the Government intends to adhere to the policy laid down in 1965. In the report the Committee recommends that the Senate continue to be vigilant in scrutinising all appropriation legislation to ensure the preservation of the Senate’s powers. The Committee also recommends that the Senate should re-affirm by resolution the terms of the 1965 policy. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2301

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I present the report from the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on its review of the report of the Select Committee on Air Pollution.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator JESSOP:

– I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator JESSOP:

-I move:

The report reviews the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution in 1969 and examines the degree to which they have been implemented. The Committee’s review has shown a pleasing, though by no means completely satisfactory, reduction in industrial pollution in our cities. The review reveals continuing severe pollution of our air by the motor vehicle and at the same time highlights the welcome introduction of certain national controls on motor car exhaust emissions. The report also makes mention of a recently recognised threat to our environment, the possible weakening of the earth’s ozone layer by chemical reaction with fluorocarbon propellant from the common aerosol can and the exhausts of high flying aircraft.

The Committee feels very strongly that research into this possible threat should be supported and that the results of studies now under way here and overseas should be given the most careful consideration. Failure to exercise caution in the treatment of our air may have unforseen severe global consequences. The Committee hopes that, to some extent, the report will encourage the various authorities in Australia with responsibility for curbing air pollution to continue their efforts, and in particular to work towards improved inter State co-operation. The Committee sees the growth of co-ordinated Commonwealth-State bodies in this field as a welcome step in this direction. It also urges the promptest possible integration of standards and the greatest possible use of monitoring information on air quality on a nation-wide basis within the overall framework of a soundly based national policy for science.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Debate (on motion by Senator Jessop) adjourned.

page 2302

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I seek leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McLAREN:

– I claim to have been misrepresented in yesterday’s Australian in an article headed ‘Bid for NT Goods Link’. The article claims that yesterday I asked the Government to subsidise a private company to carry freight between Darwin and Larrimah in the Northern Territory after closing the existing rail link. From a reading of my speech in the Senate on 1 June, recorded at page 21 17 of Hansard, it can be clearly seen that far from asking the Government to subsidise a private road company to carry freight I was objecting strongly to the closure of the rail line and to the use of private transport. I will quote what I said on that occasion. I referred to a question I had asked Senator Carrick in these terms:

Is it the intention of the Government to operate its own road transport system in the Northern Territory in lieu of rail transport, or is the entire carriage of freight to be handed over to private enterprise with a large Government subsidy.

Later I said:

That is why I posed the question. Is the Government going to operate its own road transport or is it intending to hand the entire carriage of freight over to private enterprise, a course which invariably will cost the taxpayer of Australia much more money?

If the reporter had read my speech or had listened to it carefully he would have seen that far from asking the Government to subsidise road transport I was seeking the opposite. I hope that the Australian will see fit to correct that report because I am very much afraid that when next I go to the Northern Territory I will have the railway employees down on my neck like a ton of bricks for asking for a subsidy for road transport when I did not.

page 2302

QUESTION

THE ARTS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Honourable senators will understand that I am making this statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and that where I speak in the first person I am referring to the Prime Minister. The statement reads:

I should like to inform the Senate of measures the Government is taking in the area of the arts. The Government will be providing next year $33.8m, exclusive of Australia Council administrative costs, for support for the arts. This continued high level of support emphasises the Government’s firm commitment to support and encourage the development of the arts throughout the Australian community. In line with economies elsewhere we have aimed at eliminating unnecessary expenditure, but equally we have sought to ensure that no important or worthwhile programs suffer. Providing a national stimulus to the arts is in accordance with our philosophy of freedom of individual expression. We believe in freedom for the artist and patron alike. For this reason we do not see the Government as the only or necessarily the major source of art patronage.

Ideally, the arts through individual and community patronage should be self-supporting, but there are few if any places where this happens. Even in the United States, the Federal Government has in recent years had to play a part, and government support for the arts is an accepted fact in the cultural life of Western Europe. It is one of the Commonwealth Government’s tasks to see how best the arts programs of all levels of Government in Australia might complement and support each other, to minimise duplication and overlap and to provide the greatest measure of fulfilment for artists and audiences.

We believe a genuinely vigorous and stimulating artistic climate will emerge only when governments, individuals and private enterprises and corporations are actively and co-operatively offering decentralised and diversified patronage for the arts in our community. A diversity and plurality of support can only strengthen the arts to the general common good. Let me emphasise that our aim is to broaden support for the arts, to have more funds flowing from different sources. We are not seeking to find substitutes for government assistance, but to expand on that necessary base. In this connection, the Government is having examined the possibility of taxation concessions or other incentives for the arts, and ways and means of encouraging individual and private enterprise and corporate patronage.

Internationally, the Government will continue to foster cultural exchanges. We will support programs to bring arts and artists from abroad. We will also support the promotion of Australian arts and artists overseas. Of the latter, one example among many is our program of activities in connection with the American Bicentennial Celebrations which includes the forthcoming tour of the Australian Ballet.

Turning to specific issues, in December last year we established the Administrative Review Committee to review government expenditure and recommmend on ways of eliminating waste and duplication within and between government departments and agencies, and between Commonwealth and State government bodies. As one of its first tasks the Committee undertook an examination of the operations of the Australia Council, the Film and Television School, and the Australian Film Commission. The Australia Council had itself recognised management and other organisational difficulties. It had separately commissioned an inquiry into its operations by McKinsey and Company Inc. Both this report and the Council’s views on it were available to the Committee. The Government has reached a number of decisions on the structure and future of its arts organisations.

Australia Council

The operations of the Australia Council and its expenditure on the arts have been reported on by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. They have been the subject of questions in Parliament and debate in the media. The Council has attracted criticism, particularly from artists and the arts’ community, concerning extravagance and excessive administrative expenses. The Administrative Review Committee, in its examination of the Council, noted, among other things: Unsatisfactory arrangements between the Council and Boards; high turnover of members; excessive attention to the making of small grants, and at considerable cost; insufficient account was taken of blossoming State cultural authorities and their possible use as agents for the Council; enthusiastic arts amateurs and the dilettante seemed to receive more attention than was probably deserved.

The changes to be made are designed to correct identified problems and deficiences, to make administrative and financial arrangements more efficient, to reduce administrative costs so that more funds will be available for the arts themselves, to enter on new and improved arrangements which might lead to greater involvement of State and local governments and other enterprises. The Australian Council Act is to be amended to formally give the Council the role of the Government’s advisory agency on all matters falling within the area of its responsibilities. The Council was not previously charged with this specific responsibility. Council control of the activities of the Boards will be increased for reasons of administrative effectiveness, but not so as to interfere with essential flexibility for running day to day affairs. In future, Boards will be responsible to the Council and function under its direction and guidelines. They will have clearly defined advisory and recommendatory roles, and such executive powers as the Council may delegate to them.

Changes are proposed to the structure and size of the Council and Boards to increase effectiveness and generally reduce costs but at the same time ensure continuity and diversity of advice. The Council will be reduced in size from a range of 18 to 24 members to a range of 15 to 19 members. Public Service members will be reduced from three to two. Two new positions will be created: One of Deputy Chairman of the Council- a part-time office- to assist the Chairman and generally facilitate the Council’s operations; and one of General Manager- a full-time office- to be the chief executive of the Council. This will give greater weight to the chief executive office, and generally provide a better scheme of administrative responsibility. The office of General Manager will be a statutory one. The General Manager will be an ex-officio member of the Council. To reduce excessive turnover, the terms of appointment of Council and Board members will be extended from 3 to 4 years. Members’ appointments may be renewed for a further term of 2 years. After this reappointment will not be considered until 2 more years expire.

The Australia Council’s film, radio and television responsibilities will be transferred to the Australian Film Commission. The Film, Radio and Television Board will be abolished. This change is being made on the basis of drawing all film and television activities together as a step in rationalisation, and so that creative film makers might now link up with the mainstream of commercial film making. The number and responsibilities of the other Boards will remain the same. Membership ofthe Boards will be reduced from a range of 7 to 10, excepting Aboriginal Arts which is 9 to 14 plus the chairman, to a range of 5 to 7. Aboriginal Arts will be 7 to 9 plus the chairman. As a further step to rationalise and reduce administration, the Council will assume responsibility for and administer the Australian Authors Fund which is presently with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Aboriginal arts activities presently with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

To increase the involvement of State, Territory and local governments, and other appropriate regional organisations, the Council will consult with appropriate authorities to begin a program of devolution of grant giving activities. Community arts activities and small grants to individuals or groups are areas where the program of devolution might begin. In line with the Government’s view that the Council should retain overall responsibility for Commonwealth programs for the arts, funds will remain part of the Council’s budget and be channelled through it to the States and other bodies. In any programs of devolution the Council may specify the broad purposes for which the funds might be used. It may also expect reports from the grant giving agencies on how moneys have been spent and on the operation of the programs. The pace and scope ofthe programs and transitional and other arrangements necessary will be matters for determination by the Council. The costs of many small individual grants programs have been out of proportion to the assistance offered. Accordingly, while I would expect the Council to continue to offer individual grants, I would hope that in future the emphasis would be on assisting the most talented with the highest promise of excellence.

The Council aims to widen involvement in the arts, and encourage more support from other areas. In line with this object the Council will be asked to seek to establish arrangements whereby support for national organisations, for example, the Arts Council of Australia, the Crafts Council of Australia and performing arts companies in the States would be on a matching basis with either the organisations or the States. Matching arrangements should be a Council objective. It is not our intention, however, that it should be an inflexible rule which might impede the development of any arts activities. Precise matching arrangements would be a matter for determination by the Council. Training in the arts is essentially an educational matter. In future the Council will not engage in this activity. I have in mind in particular the National Institute of Dramatic Art and the Australian Ballet School. It is proposed that in the future the appropriate Commonwealth and State education authorities should be responsible for these institutions.

After due consideration of all the issues, it has been decided that the Commonwealth Government will not provide direct or indirect assistance for capital arts projects outside of its responsibilities in Commonwealth Territories. The Government regards this as essentially a State function. There are other matters largely internal to the Council aimed at establishing improved criteria for grants, guidelines and controls, better administrative and financial arrangements, and reduced costs. I shall be taking these up with the Council.

The changes that are proposed should not be allowed to reflect on the greater part of the Council’s very fine work and its many excellent initiatives. The arts by their very nature are an area for controversy and differences of judgment and opinion. Criticisms need, therefore, to be kept in perspective. Among the many very worthy projects the Council has currently in hand is the proposed Chinese Archaeological Exhibition scheduled for early next year. This is almost certainly the most important exhibition ever to come to Australia, and is a landmark of its kind.

Film and Television

The Government will continue to encourage film and television in partnership with the industry, the ultimate aim being self-sufficiency. Recent experience has made us all aware of the potential of our film and television industry and of the ready interest of Australian audiences. Once again the changes to be made are intended to rationalise and draw like activities together to make for more effective operation and the best use of available resources.

In this area, the Government has taken the following decisions:

The Australian Film Commission will take over responsibility for independent radio and audio-visual production activities- areas largely neglected in the past.

The film, radio and television functions of the Australia Council will go to the Commission. A joint working party will be set up to effect the most satisfactory transfer and to ensure that proper account is taken of the interests ofthe staff involved.

The Commission will also take over the staff and resources of the Audio-Visual Branch of the Post and Telecommunications Departmentthese resources will complement and expand those of the Commission’s Film Australia Branch.

The Film and Television School will assume responsibility for training in radio and audiovisual communications- again, areas previously neglected.

Changes in both the Australia Council and the Australian Film Commission will involve amendments to legislation and these will be introduced as soon as practicable.

Australian National Gallery

The Government is committed to the concept of the National Gallery, and the broad objectives of the National Gallery Act passed by Parliament last year. The Act has been proclaimed with effect from 3 June 1 976, and I am pleased to announce the appointment of the following members of the first permanent Council, each of whom will hold office for a term of 3 years: Mr Richard Crebbin (Chairman), Mr Fred Williams, Mr James T. Gleeson, A.M., Mr Murray Bail, Professor Patrick Mccaughey, Miss Pamela Bell, Mr James O. Fairfax, Mr David Wynn, Mr John D. Davies, and Mr Donald J. Munro, O.B.E. The Council will assume immediate responsibility for on-going arrangements and advice to the Government on all Gallery affairs. As I have stated elsewhere, we believe that the Gallery should hold the very finest work of Australian artists of all periods and we shall support the policy of giving priority to the acquisition of Australian art.

This will not preclude the Gallery acquiring important works of art in other areas, and continuing to develop a national collection taking in the arts of other countries and cultures. In addition, we shall through the Australian Council seek to encourage more high quality exhibitions from abroad so that as many Australians as possible may see a greater number ofthe finest works of art from other regions and periods. I believe that the active pursuit of my Government’s aims towards the arts will be, ultimately, to the greater benefit of the whole Australian community. I seek leave to propose a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I rise to speak briefly to the motion and the statement presented by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). I should say on behalf of the Opposition that we welcome this statement on the arts from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for several reasons. First of all, it ends a great deal of the speculationperhaps it does not prevent it from occurring a little further in the immediate future- about the Government’s attitude to the arts and about various developments in the Australia Council and elsewhere which have been the subject of public discussion and Press comment in the past few months. To that extent, we welcome the statement. We welcome it also because it has outlined the Government’s commitment to continued financial support for the arts at a pretty high level. Of course, we welcome it also because of the express statements of commitment to certain areas of the arts, particularly the National Gallery and the Australia Council.

I wish to make one or two comments in relation to areas to which we hope the Government will give further consideration and which are, I believe, of some concern to people interested in the development of the arts in Australia. I make one personal comment about the proposal, which is mentioned early in the statement, in relation to tax incentives. It is stated that the Government is examining these as a possible means of sponsoring the private patronage of the arts in Australia. I am one of those people who have a very suspicious view of taxation incentives as a means of sponsoring patronage of the arts. I hope that the Government will give consideration to some other possibilities which might be investigated as means of encouraging support for the creative arts. For example, in this country we have not considered seriously the possibility of artists, particularly painters, working to a pattern which assures them that certain patrons will buy their paintings over a period. We have always been obsessed with the idea of giving grants to artists which enable them to go away and paint but with no specific purpose and without necessarily any particular return to the community. I hope that the Government might give consideration to encouraging a system whereby artists are commissioned to do a series of paintings for a particular patron. Of course, that form of commissioning gives an artist a guaranteed income over a period and benefits the community because the patron, whether it be the government, a private company or an individual, gains the benefit of the finished work of art. I think it is a system which brings benefit to all parties involved.

Insofar as the statement deals with the question of the Australia Council, as an Opposition we will want to wait and see the contents of the legislation which must follow from the statement which has been made. Many of the criticisms which have been made about the Australia

Council in the last few months probably fail to take account of the fact that artists are, by their very nature, individuals.

Senator Georges:

-Why should they be different in the use of public money?

Senator BUTTON:

-There is, of course, as I hope Senator Georges will understand, a high degree of individualism amongst artists and a high degree of difference of opinion about the role of the arts and the role of artists in the community. A lot of the criticisms and controversy must be seen in this light. Of course, the statement pays a tribute to the significant work of the Australia Council. I would ask honourable senators who are interested in this matter to look at the report of the Australia Council which was tabled in the Senate only a week or two ago. It sets out in considerable detail some of the work which the Council has performed over the last year. The statement suggests that there should be a tightening up of many of the administrative arrangements of the Australia Council and the relationship between the Council itself and the Australia Council boards.

Of course, it is inevitable, when a government embarks, as the Labor Government did embark, on a very large program of financial assistance to the arts through the medium of a body such as the Australia Council, that changes will have to be made to the structure which is laid down at the commencement. Insofar as the statement suggests that many of these matters can be resolved by making the boards smaller in size and by making their responsibilities to the Council more explicit and at the same time preserving their independence in matters of artistic judgment, this seems to us to be totally unobjectionable. It may be a change which a government of any complexion would have brought about at this period of the history of the Australia Council. I think it is somewhat naive to assume that turnovers in the personnel of the Council and the boards will be limited in any way by changing the period of appointment. I think this is perhaps a slightly naive solution in response to the reasons for which turnovers of personnel have occurred.

There is one matter of which we are critical. That is the proposal to abolish the Film, Radio and Television Board and to transfer the responsibilities of that Board to the Australian Film Commission. It is intended to do this, as so many things have been done by this Government, because of the obsession with what is sometimes called good housekeeping and with what I think psychologists call anal eroticism which seems to posses this Government to a very high degree. The statement goes to some lengths to explain that this is being done because it is felt that all the film activities which the Commonwealth Government supports should be put into one basket and that a nice neat basket to put them into is the Australian Film Commission.

I think that it totally misses the point about the work and function of the Film, Radio and Television Board which is not only that of producing films of a classic nature but also that of engaging in experimental film work. That is not the work of the Australian Film Commission. The Australian Film Commission is, by its very nature, subject to commercial criteria. Experimental film making cannot be subject to commercial criteria if it is to be a success. Accordingly, we regret the Government’s decision to transfer the functions of the Film, Radio and Television Board to the Australian Film Commission. On the other hand, there seems to us to be considerable point in transferring the audio-visual functions of the Postal and Telecommunications Department to the Australian Film Commission, particularly as those audio-visual functions have a particular relationship to education and an increasing use in the education area.

There is a lot of waffle in this statement about devolution of decision making and grant making to State governments and local government. It is difficult to make any comment about it because we do not know whether it is the same sort of waffle as we have heard in other areas of Government pronouncements on this question of devolution of whether it means something different in these circumstances. Once again we will await with interest the legislation which is proposed to deal with this question of devolution. I make one other comment about the Australia Council. It concerns the proposal to appoint a general manager as a statutory officer and to appoint a deputy chairman of the Council. We understand that this was recommended to the Government by the Australia Council itself.

Senator Georges:

– We should have a close look at it.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Georges says that we should have a close look at it. Of course, we will do that when the legislation comes before the Senate. But the proposal is in line with recommendations made by the Australia Council itself and perhaps it is a correct solution to a difficult problem. We are not sure. We again await with interest the presentation of the legislation and, of course, the appointment which will be made to the position of General Manager. We welcome the fact that the General Manager, whoever he or she is, will be an ex officio member of the Council and not a remote servant of the Council as the present Executive Officer has in a sense had to be.

There are 2 other matters dealt with in the statement which we note with interest. Let me mention first that we note that Senator Withers has been successful in his lobbying to retain the Historic Memorials Committee within the province of his own portfolio. I do not know what the Historic Memorials Committee is, I am not particularly interested; but I am always pleased to see a Minister succeed in retaining something within his own bailiwick. Senator Withers has done that and the statement was altered this morning to comply with that wish of the Senator’s.

The other 2 aspects with which the statement deals are ‘Film and Television’ and the ‘Australian National Gallery’. Insofar as the film and television aspect of the statement is concerned, I have already commented on the proposal to abolish the Board. There are one or two other matters in the specific section on film and television upon which I wish to make some comments at this stage. For example, at page 9 of the printed statement it is said:

The Film and Television School will assume responsibility for training in radio and audio-visual communicationsagain, areas previously neglected.

It is only a fortnight since the Government made very substantial cuts in the allocation to the Film and Television School. They were cuts of the order of $200,000. Those cuts on the Film and Television School will mean that the School will not be able to carry on its outside programs, that is to say, its programs of courses for people who come to the School to do specific courses, parttime students as distinct from full-time students of the Film and Television School. Those consequences have already followed for the Film and Television School from the cuts already made by the Government. To impose this additional burden on the School without any consequent promise of additional finance to enable it to discharge this burden is something which I hope the Government will examine very closely.

Finally, on the question of the Australian National Gallery, again we welcome the Government’s statement of support for and its commitment to that Gallery. Might I say that we also, as far as we are able to do so, welcome the appointments which have been made to the first permanent Council of the Australian National Gallery. I cannot speak about all the appointees, but I would have been hopeful that if we had been in office at least six or seven of the people who have been appointed by this Government would have been appointed by our Government too. It is quite clear that they have been carefully chosen on the basis of the contribution which they have to make to a council such as that of the Australian National Gallery. From my own State of Victoria, I particularly note the appointment of Mr Fred Williams and Professor Patrick Mccaughey and from the State of South Australia Mr David Wynn, all of whom have made quite outstanding contributions to the arts in Australia and are highly appropriate persons to be on the Council of the National Gallery. I cannot speak of many of the others but I am hopeful that the quality of appointees to the Gallery is consistent throughout; I believe it to be so.

Might I make one comment about that aspect? The arts is an area in which, I would hope, the Senate and this Parliament as a whole would be slowly working towards a bipartisan policy. I have just made the statement that we would have made, I believe, appointments similar to the ones which this Government has made to the Australian National Gallery. It seems quite silly that these sorts of things should be done as a matter of ideological difference between Government and Opposition, having regard to the major content of the statement which the Prime Minister has now made. I hope that in the future a more bipartisan approach can be developed towards these matters and, indeed, that we might develop some of the sophistication of the British Parliament, where appointments of this kind are discussed between the Prime Minister of the day and the Leader of the Opposition of the day and agreement reached on them before the appointments are announced. I hope that in years to come we will arrive at this point of sophistication in Australia because I believe it would be in the interests of the community, particularly the community of creative arts in Australia, and for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not my intention to speak at length on the statement that has been introduced by Senator Withers. Because of the great volume of business to be transacted by the Senate, I will deliberately restrict my remarks to certain aspects of the statement, as much as I should like to speak in detail about it. Because I was the Minister for the Media in the Labor Government and also the Minister responsible for the establishment of the Australian Film Commission, I want particularly to make a few comments on those matters in statement relating to film and television.

Firstly, my colleague, Senator Button said that the presentation of a statement of this nature was welcomed by the Opposition. I certainly agree with his remarks in that regard. He went on to say that such a statement will probably end speculation on the part of those engaged or interested in the cultural life of Australia as to the future of the Australia Council. I would disagree with my colleague there. Knowing the volatile nature of that industry, I have no doubt there will always be speculation and consternation expressed. Someone said to me during the time when I was Minister for the Media that this was the ‘bitch industry’ of all industries. I do not necessarily agree with that, but certainly it is a most volatile industry. If anyone in the industry developed a cough one day it would be all around the town the next day that that person had pneumonia. It is a rumor-based industry.

I note that in the second paragraph of the statement the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) says:

The Government will be providing next year, $33.8m exclusive of Australia Council administrative costs, for support for the arts.

But I note also in the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) a fortnight ago on economic restrictions that next there will be a cut of some $38m next financial year in the amounts of money made available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Of course, a great deal of the work carried out by the Australia Council is interwoven with the activities and programs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is not without significance to note that the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Mr Talbot Duckmanton, was a member of the Australia Council.

Certainly there has been a lot of disquiet within the cultural sector of the community about the administration of the Australia Council. It is commonly known that the Australian Clerical Officers Association, a trade union responsible for the industrial protection of a great number of members of the Public Service, has made complaints to the Auditor-General about certain things taking place at the Australia Council. I made reference in the Senate a fortnight ago at the time of the presentation to Parliament of the last annual report of the Australia Council that it was the annual report for the year ended 1974 that was being presented in this year 1976. I am now told that it was the second edition of a report that had been prepared. The first report had been prepared and distributed in certain areas before the Council considered it and ordered its destruction. I understand that the printing and destruction of the first edition of that report cost some $70,000. Cables had to be sent to various parts of the world, particularly to Teheran, for the return of the first edition. Having said that I say that I, along with my colleague Senator Button, welcome the presentation of this report to the Parliament.

I want now to say something about the film and television industry in particular. I note that the Government has decided that the Australia Council’s film, radio and television responsibilities will be transferred to the Australian Film Commission and that the Film, Radio and Television Board of the Australia Council will be abolished. Firstly, let me pay tribute to a former Prime Minister of Australia, the Rt Hon. John Gorton, for his interest in the initial provision of government assistance towards the development of an Australian film and television industry. It was the Gorton Government that established the Australian Film Development Corporation. For interest shown before Mr Gorton, I pay tribute to a highly respected member of this Parliament, the late Senator Vincent, who as long ago as 1962 or 1963, as the chairman of a Senate select committee that was established to inquire into what assistance should be given to the establishment of a film and television industry in Australia, really spread out the blueprint for the viable development that is now taking place. But it has been the establishment of the Australian Film Commission by the Labor Government that has given the real impetus to the Australian film industry.

I wish now publicly to record- it is the first opportunity that I have had to do so- the great work performed by the former Secretary of the Department of the Media, Mr James Oswin, in the development of legislation to put to the Parliament for the establishment of the Australian Film Commission. Incidentally, honourable senators will not forget that the members of the present Government rejected the Australian Film Commission legislation when it first came before the Parliament. Mr Oswin was the Secretary of the Department of the Media for some 2 1/2 years. He was also a member of the Australia Council at that time. He is now the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. He was subjected to a great deal of unjust and uninformed criticism. He was subjected to unfair criticism by some workers in the industry. He was criticised by employers in the industry for not bowing to their various demands. Mr Oswin and

I know that. But without his dedication there would not have been established today the highly efficient and praised Film Commission.

It was Mr Oswin who persuaded me, after the Labor Government had received the report of the Tariff Board on the development of a film commission, that an interim film commission body should straight away be appointed. The members of that interim body really laid the groundwork for the development of the Film Commission as it is now. Mr Oswin worked night and day in consultation with the industry and the various other bodies within the Public Service. Only recently a very senior public servant said to me that the work of Mr Oswin as Secretary of the Department of the Media had not been appreciated by a large section of the Australian public because they just could never understand the complexities involved in his job.

I think that it is fair to say that I, as the Minister for the Media, took a lot of bagging from a section of the industry about the way in which the commission was established. One of my greatest critics was the then Chairman of the Film and Television Board, Mr Phillip Adams. I decided that I should ignore most of the criticism because we had a constructive job to do for the Labor Government. It was, as it were, like water off a duck’s back to me. I let it go at the time so that we could get on with the job. I often now regret that I did. But only last month I was interested to read an article published by Mr Adams in the March-April issue of Cinema Papers concerning the state of the industry. I wish to quote just 2 excerpts from the article that he wrote. Firstly, concerning the presentation of the Boyer tariff report, he wrote:

I argued that we were all victims of a sinister multinational conspiracy, that we were being kept off our own screens by the dreaded Americans. With the wisdom of hindsight, however, I don’t believe that that was true. At best it was a half-truth. And now that a succession of governments have done everything that was asked of them I think it is safe to say so.

Towards the end of his article he said:

Isn’t it funny! For years Australia was one of the hardest places to make a film but now it would have to be the easiest place on earth- that goes for the experimental film maker and the feature producer. Yet in some strange, unaccountable way all that government help could turn out to be counter-productive. One thing is for sure. The local film maker has long since run out of excuses. He can no longer blame any lack of achievement on an American conspiracy or a disinterested government- as one could in the 1950s and 1960s. If you fail in the 1970s that is your fault, not Jack Valenti’s

I read only yesterday that the Australian film Picnic At Hanging Rock is receiving accolades at Cannes. When the Labor Government decided to send entries to Cannes in 1 975 it was accused by the Opposition and the Press of wasting public moneys. It is now acknowledged by the industry that our decision to assist Australian film productions to be exhibited internationally at Cannes is one of the great things that has made the Australian film industry what it is today. I hope Mr Oswin can go there and see the results of his work. I welcome the statement that has been made by the Government. Like my colleague Senator Button, I do have criticisms to offer of it, but I particularly wanted to place on record those points that I have just made insofar as the development of the film industry in Australia is concerned.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I enter briefly into this discussion, particularly in my capacity as the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts and to welcome the statement that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) has put down in this place today on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The statement is comprehensive and gives an indication of the Government’s attitude to the whole area ofthe arts. Indeed, it calls upon the Australian community at large to share with it in stimulating interests in the arts and developing an appreciation of the arts. It invites the community at large to become involved so that those whose chosen vocation it is to provide artistic material receive not only encouragement but also response. The statement will be received with a great deal of interest by the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. They will undoubtedly study it and place it alongside the reference which has been put before it by the Senate and which asks the Committee to examine the measures necessary to ensure that the Council for the Arts and its boards carry out their tasks of overall promotion of the arts in Australia.

One of the many features of interest within the statement appears on page 2 of the circulated copy, which points out that a stimulating artistic climate can be achieved in a community when governments, individuals and various enterprises and corporations are actively and co-operatively involved. I speak with a little experience, but only a little experience, in this area. There is in Adelaide today a group called the South Western Symphony Orchestra. It is quite different, of course, from other orchestras that are in Adelaide, which, as everyone in this chamber knows, is the home of the Adelaide Festival of Arts, of international fame and repute. This group of people, which is made up of some 80 or 90 players, is drawn from people who want to play for the sheer pleasure of making music and to improve their own skills. The orchestra, of which I have the privilege to be the patron, already has embarked upon programs whereby it will provide opportunities for a great range of players to go on to other experiences. More particularly, it is involving local government bodies and various community activities by inviting their interest, support and response. This means that this one section of the artistic world in one city already is promoting what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has called a genuinely vigorous and stimulating climate in the area of orchestral music, simply because it is drawing together individuals, enterprises, corporations and local government authorities.

Therefore, 1 take a great deal of encouragement from the paragraph in the statement which talks about the possibility of providing taxation concessions or other incentives for the arts. If we are to develop in Australia a good artistic climate which will provide interest and satisfaction for the Australian community, I believe that what the Prime Minister has outlined in the beginning of the statement should be encouraged. As honourable senators know, the orchestral world in Australia is going through a period of anxiety, with rumours concerning the possible elimination of certain orchestras which come under the auspices of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That may be another argument and I certainly do not want to develop it now, but I take some encouragement from the Prime Minister’s statement that there is to be a general encouragement of the arts by the Government. The statement which has been brought down today will be of considerable interest to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, which deals with this area.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The statement which has been tabled is of such importance that it needs to be examined and thoroughly debated. I do not doubt that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber would like the opportunity to do so. The statement means that certain procedures which will alter the administration of the whole area of the arts will now be put into effect. I do not say that this is not necessary. As a member and a former Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, the Committee which is now chaired by Senator Davidson, I was very much concerned about the misuse and mismanagement which was becoming evident at regular periods in the administration ofthe funds which the Australian Parliament made available to the people of Australia for their cultural advancement and benefit. What makes me angry is that the abuse of this great concept has now led to its re-examination.

It has been a matter of concern to me that certain persons within the Australia Council, as it is now called, were responsible for mismanagement, nepotism and patronage which brought the way in which funds in this area were used into disrepute. When that happens the danger from above is that the availability and expenditure of moneys for the whole area of the arts becomes limited. My view is that this Parliament must bring to account those people who misuse public moneys in this way and bring the whole area of the arts into discredit. It is my experience that members of the Australia Council have been active lobbyists of members of this Parliament and I resent this. I resented it when I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. I also resented it when, as a member of an Estimates Committee, people representing the arts area- whether they represented the National Gallery or the Australia Council- held the view that we were here merely to sign the cheques and that we had no further understanding of or needed to take any further interest or participation in the arts.

I wish to make it clear that on the various committees of which I will be a member I will be looking very closely at the past extravagances of bodies such as the Australia Council to make certain that they do not occur in the future. The members of the Australia Council do not realise the damage which they have caused through their extravagances. It seems to me to be quite wrong that the Australia Council could set itself up in magnificent and luxurious offices in the very centre of Sydney and expend such large sums of money in distributing the funds made available to it to those who needed those funds for the cultural advancement of Australia. For that reason I believe that some improvements are provided for in this statement. I agree with my colleague Senator Button when he says that we should deal with this area without any party divisions in a bipartisan way, to ensure that what is intended by the expenditure of these funds is carried out. No person should use the funds for his own personal advancement or for the advancement of his friends.

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

– I want to say one or two things prior to moving the adjournment of the debate. This is an area in which we all have a great interest. I have a great interest in this area quite outside my parliamentary life. I was very impressed when listening to the contributions made by honourable senators to this debate. I thought their contributions were both thoughtful and reflective and contained a very great degree of wisdom. There is a huge problem in a society like this when the Government becomes the patron of the arts in the same way as in previous centuries the princes of the lordly houses were the patrons of the arts. The Government then has the patronage of the arts at its disposal. If the Government takes the most immense care not to put itself in the position of being flattered or fawned upon because of its patronage capacity and, in effect, seeks to pass the responsibility to a body where people will be more detached, it is, as Senator Georges very properly said, more than critical that that body should be totally above reproach. Whatever that body does in the expenditure of moneys should be totally inspectable and totally under control so that in no sense can it be accused of favouring one group as against another or trading off one group against another. It is important that people who are not entitled to privileges do not receive them.

This is a very critical and tricky area because the art world consists of a great number of individualists who all do their own thing in their own way. They very often feel that because somebody else is selected as an artist, he necessarily has the edge although he may not be any better. That will always be a problem. I am arguing for strong controls and clear lines of responsibility for the Parliament over the public revenues that are disbursed in this area and, as far as possible, for a great amount of voluntary activity in all the board areas so that we have the services of people who are more detached and more genuinely interested and have no career opportunities at stake. This may well be a subject on which the Senate would like to spend more time, if not now then perhaps later. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2311

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH GRANTS SCHEME

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Honourable senators may recall that the Australian Research Grants scheme- -ARGS- was established in 1965 by the then Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies. In presenting the report of the Committee on the

Future of Tertiary Education in Australia. Sir Robert indicated that his Government recognised the need to stimulate and support high quality research and accordingly proposed to allocate $4m for distribution in 1 966. He entrusted the task of advising on the allocation of that sum to a committee of 10 distinguished academics under the chairmanship of Professor- now Sir Rutherford- R. N. Robertson of the Australian National University. The Australian Research Grants Committee- ARGC- was given specificterms of reference which included the provision that it might establish its own rules of procedure. Since that time the Committee has been free to operate autonomously within those terms of reference. It was provided with administrative support by the then Department of Education and Science and latterly by my department.

Basis for the Scheme

I think it is important for honourable senators to be aware of the basis of the scheme and the reason for its establishment. At the time considerable concern was being expressed about the brain drain’ from Australia. Our brightest and best qualified scientists were leaving Australia to find stimulating and rewarding work in overseas research institutions. The benefits of their skills and research were thus being lost to Australia. Hence a major stimulus for the scheme was the desire to create opportunities for high quality research in Australia so that the products of that work might flow to the Australian community. This was a major initiative in the field of science policy by a Liberal-Country Party coalition Government. When he introduced the scheme, Sir Robert stressed that unlike many other schemes for assistance it was not intended to provide scholarships to obtain higher degrees. Its aim was to provide opportunities for the stimulation of high quality research by individuals or teams. In addition it would encompass the whole spectrum of academic disciplines and would not be confined to the natural sciences.

Method of Operation

In operation, applications for grants are invited from research workers each year. These are then referred for assessment to recognised experts both in Australia and overseas; subcommittees of experts in each discipline then consider the applications in the light of those assessments. They then recommend the best projects and workers for grants. In this way, the proposals are subject to ‘peer group’ assessment and we can be sure that our workers and their projects are of international standard.

The Committee

The ARGC now comprises 18 members who work in 6 sub-committees. The chairman is Professor R. Street, Director of the Research School of Physical Sciences at the Australian National University. He is supported by a most distinguished group of academics and a senior research worker from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I believe it is appropriate for me to pay a tribute to the work of the Committee. It involves considerable effort on the part of the members and the many meetings necessary make major calls on their time. The community owes a debt of gratitude to the members for their loyal and unstinting service. As part of its assessment Committee members visit all universities to meet research workers and to discuss their projects. The Committee makes a special point of meeting young workers receiving their first grants. The Committee is always well received on these visits and has won the respect of applicants for its fairminded approach and the quality of its recommendations.

Record of Achievement

I am sure honourable senators will wish to be assured that the substantial investment of funds over the years has been worthwhile. I can assure them that it has been and I would like to give some examples both in the broad and in particular. In general terms there is no doubt that the scheme has stopped the ‘brain drain’. Whilst some workers still go overseas, many return and we benefit from the exchange of knowledge and experience which results. More importantly, the scheme has developed a pool of highly skilled workers who are available to study the many complex problems which confront society today. It has also fostered the development of ‘centres of excellence’ which attract high quality workers from all over the world and by the resulting cross-fertilisation of ideas are most fruitful in advancing our knowledge of the world.

I would like to mention very briefly one or two projects of immediate importance, and in doing so let me hasten to add that my selection is quite arbitrary and must inevitably omit the many hundreds of excellent projects being supported: Professor Cavil of the University of New South Wales is leading a team to develop lures to trap the Argentine ant which causes so much damage to property; Professor W. W. S. Charters of the University of Melbourne is working on one of many projects to design and evaluate new forms of solar energy collectors; Professor A. W. Meats of the University of Sydney has made important progress in studying the factors limiting the abundance of insects such as the Queensland fruit fly through the release of sterile males; and Professors Christiansen and Mills of the University of Sydney are recognised world leaders in the field of radio astronomy.

Grants for 1977

I now turn to the future of the scheme and honourable senators will I am sure be pleased to know that the Government will provide $9.3m for 1977 for high quality research programs which are supported through the Australian research grants scheme. This is about 30 per cent above last year’s allocation. I am very pleased with the outcome of negotiations that finalised these figures. The figure of $9.3m should be compared with the 1976 assured figure of $7.2m which the Whitlam Government provided. That sum included an amount of $2.1m which had been borrowed from universities and is left as an outstanding debt to be repaid by the present Government in the 1976-77 financial year. In truth the Whitlam Government provided only $6.3m in the 1975-76 year. Research workers throughout Australia will recall that in 1975 the previous Government severely reduced support for research. That was an impossible assessment of the level required to support high quality research in this country and following a major public outcry the Whitlam Government was forced to reconsider the situation and proposed the unsatisfactory arrangements that I have discussed.

The Government has done everything that it could reasonably do, within the unavoidable constraints of its overall policy of reducing public spending, to restore the ARGC program in real terms to the position that held before the cuts imposed in the 1975-76 Budget. I wish to tell honourable senators that the Government is also introducing a 3-year rolling program in its allocation of funds for research. A similar program has been introduced for university funds. Under this scheme the Committee will have $9.3m available to it in 1977, plus any later adjustment for salary cost increases. And it will be able to plan for the 2 calendar years 1978 and 1979 on the basis of the Government’s objective of maintaining the 1977 level of activity through those years. This will eliminate the stop-go situations in future and give the Committee a degree of flexibility in its operation. Nevertheless, the ARGC will be free to recommend to the Government each year changes in the real level of activity of the scheme if that action is appropriate and as economic circumstances permit. I shall be putting out a Press statement this day which expands upon the comments I have made. I move:

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I realise that undoubtedly my request will be refused, but we on this side of the chamber would like to hear and to have tabled in this place, if possible, the Press statement which is to be put out this afternoon. On looking at this highly political document which the Minister for Science, Senator Webster, has just tabled, I invite the Senate to compare the statements made in this document with the statements made by the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, on 20 May 1976 during his fiscal policy decisions statement. We cannot look at research grants in one isolated little group like this. Mr Lynch looked at the overall position of science research grants when making his statement.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A fortnight ago.

Senator GRIMES:

-That is right-a fortnight ago. Page 1803 of House of Representatives Hansard records Mr Lynch ‘s statement, as it refers to science, as follows:

Budget outlays on research activities through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other bodies- including the provision for research grants under the aegis of the Australian Research Grants Committeein 1976-77 are to be held to broadly the same real levels of spending as in 197S-76. This nonetheless represents a reduction of about $20m on the projected levels of expenditure for these programs.

I invite the Senate to compare that statement with the statement made by Senator Webster this afternoon. The statement of Senator Webster deliberately refers to the Australian Research Grants Committee projects but does not look at what the Government is spending overall on science research. The Government’s overall expenditure on science research is the reason for the complaints by the scientists in this country that there will be a brain drain and gives a very different picture from the nonsense that we read in Senator Webster’s statement this afternoon. I assume that the same sorts of statements will be made in Senator Webster’s Press report and they should be treated in the same way. I shall leave my remarks at that as I understand that some other people want to speak on this matter.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I want to refer briefly to another important statement that has been put down in the dying stages of this session, which makes it impossible for honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to contribute to the debate to the extent that this statement deserves. However, I should like to draw a matter to the attention ofthe Minister for Science (Senator Webster). There have been 3 very worthwhile projects of research mentioned in the Minister’s statement but nowhere does the statement mention another area of very worthwhile research that is necessary for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, that is the starfish research program. Honourable senators will remember that the Government disbanded the joint committee which was inquiring into the starfish problem- the committee that was established to allocate research grants to scholars for the investigation of some means by which the starfish problem could be brought under control or solved. That committee has been disbanded. This was an area of research that was most necessary and we argued that insufficient moneys were being made available under the previous scheme, possibly because of the reluctance of the Queensland Government, which said that there was no problem and therefore no money ought to be spent on it.

That committee no longer exists. With the disbandment of that committee allocations for research in that very necessary area have disappeared also. I ask the Minister to take into consideration, now that that scheme has been disbanded, taking up that research under the program outlined in his statement. We have withheld debate on the rather questionable report that the starfish committee brought down. There has been no debate. I know that the Minister has sought advice from experts in the field and possibly will be making a statement. 1 am merely making an appeal at this point that research in the starfish area should come under this allocation and that the scientists who are responsible for the allocation of funds should direct their attention to the problems that face that huge and unique eco-system off the north-west coast of Australia.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

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

- Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to respond to what has been said without closing the debate.

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

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Grimes suggested that I would not table the Press report that I am putting out today. I have the greatest pleasure in tabling that paper. The very words that the Opposition senators have used demonstrate their ignorance in this matter. I do not blame them for it because it is rather an involved matter. I have made a statement in the Senate today which relates particularly to one matter of research, that is, the Australian Research Grants Scheme. Anyone associated with the academic community knows that an outline of this scheme has been sought since the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, made predictions for the forthcoming year.

The scheme really has nothing to do with the matters that were mentioned by Senator Grimes. The overall view of science is much wider than this particular scheme. I did mention, as the honourable senator would know if he had been listening, that this scheme was devoted purely to the granting of support for excellence in research. It had nothing to do with that vast area of research that perhaps is embraced by the $130m-odd that will be required for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and perhaps was included in the predictions of what they may have desired in funds for this coming year. The money that they received indicates that the amounts mentioned by the Treasurer could not be provided for them.

Far be it from the Opposition to criticise in this instance. What has been achieved for the Australian Research Grants Scheme is an increase of 30 per cent on the amount that was available last year. Instead of the Opposition’s criticising or attempting to make some point I believe that those of them who have any intelligence on this matter should be delighted with the outcome.

Senator Georges brought up the matter of the crown of thorns starfish. Indeed that was a specialised research project which had been supported not only by the coalition Government previously but by the Opposition when in government last year. It was predicted that on the submission of the report the Committee would disperse, and the Committee has dispersed. The Committee was in the process of doing that when the Labor Government went out of office. That report, which was brought down during the time of the Labor Government, advocated that no particular research body should conduct research on the crown of thorns starfish but that further development and research should be undertaken by the Queensland Government. Indeed, some research is currently being conducted at the James Cook University, as I have seen in the past month or so. The honourable senator said that Dr Endean had raised some question as to whether or not the official report was correct. I say to the Senate and to the honourable senator that I doubt that any report will ever be brought down in this House which has the agreement of everybody.

Senator Georges:

-But not as poor as that one.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I would not like to criticise one way or another what is proposed without greater knowledge. The Labor Government received a report which has now come to this Government, and honourable senators opposite did not raise any objection in those earlier days. The Australian Research Grants Scheme has been funding the James Cook University for work being done in this field and if the research committee feels that further assistance should be requested, I do not doubt that such assistance will be granted. The fact is that in this coming year more money will be granted by the present coalition Government than was ever envisaged by the previous Government, and I suggest that we should all be delighted at the prospect.

Motion (by Senator Cotton) agreed to:

That the resumption ofthe debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2314

WINE MAKING AND GRAPE GROWING INDUSTRIES

Reference to the Trade and Commerce Committee

Motion (by Senator Sheil) agreed to:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce for inquiry and report: The effect on the wine making and grape growing industries of variations in the tax structure.

page 2314

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: MEMBERSHIP OF DELEGATION

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate agreed to on 1 June 1976, the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating Senators Withers, Greenwood and Webster and Senators Brown, Button and Cavanagh to be members of the delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament to attend the Constitutional Convention established to review the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.

Motion (by Senator Cotton)- by leaveagreed to:

That the Senators nominated be appointed members of the delegation.

page 2314

MARITIME COLLEGE BILL 1976

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2314

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT 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:

Perhaps it might be appropriate, the matter having been raised in the other chamber and the second reading speech being a long one, that I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

The Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 made available some $28m for assistance to the dairy industry through the dairy adjustment program. The program came into operation late in 1974 and by mid-August 1975 the funds were almost fully committed by the States. No further applications for assistance were accepted after 3 1 August last year. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Act, to appropriate a further $3.5m for the purposes of the dairy adjustment program and to give effect to the Government’s decision to extend the forms of assistance available to dairy farmers. The additional $3.5m includes an amount of $2m specifically for selected short term adjustment measures to alleviate the critical financial difficulties of many dairy farmers. The remaining $1.5m meets a commitment to the States by the previous Government to help fund applications for assistance received between 15 and 31 August 1975.

When the Government took office the Australian dairying industry was facing serious problems, in particular the difficulties that have followed the collapse of the world skim milk powder market. After discussions with industry leaders the Commonwealth entered into negotiations with State governments to reach agreement on proposals to give immediate relief and to provide an opportunity, with the co-operation of the States, to develop longer term integrated measures to achieve a viable and stable industry. The short term measures to be available under the dairy adjustment program are relocation, diversification, farm amalgamation and development and carry-on loans. The 1974 Act already authorises relocation and farm amalgamation and development assistance. The Bill authorises the new measure of carry-on loans and extends the provision for diversification assistance.

Carry-on loans are intended to be available to producers affected by the decline in prices of manufactured dairy products and of directly associated sidelines. Many of these dairy farmers have a sound asset structure, and would be viable on recovery of the market to longer term trend levels. Yet frequently they lack the finance to carry them through the present trough and are unable to obtain credit on reasonable terms from normal sources- in other words, for cases where the dairy farm is for the dme being uneconomic but would be economic if satisfactory market conditions were restored. Dairy farmers eligible for carry-on loans would thus be those judged by the State administering authority to be potentially viable. It would be contrary to the intent and practice of the dairy adjustment program for loans to be provided without reasonable prospects of viability. For such cases the program provides other forms of assistance. The terms and conditions on which carry-on loans are to be made have been agreed with the States. In general the maximum loan in any individual case will be $4,000; the term will be up to 7 years; the rate of interest will be 4 per cent per annum; and there will be a repayment holiday of 12 months during which interest will be capitalised. The States have also agreed to contribute equally with the Commonwealth in financing carry-on assistance.

Diversification assistance under the existing provisions of the Dairy Adjustment Act is available to producers willing to diversify where dairying is no longer the most practicable and economic use of the land and where there are prospects of viability in some other form of rural production. The Bill extends diversification assistance in relation to compensation for redundant dairying assets to two classes of producers not previously eligible. Firstly there is the small scale producer with no real prospects of long term viability either in dairying or other farm production. Many of these small scale producers would prefer to stay on the land and seek a living from off-farm work. Secondly there is the producer who is dairying as part of a mixed farming enterprise. In most cases the returns from dairying for both these classes of producers do not warrant the capital and labour involved. By giving up dairying altogether, such producers would become entitled to recover part of their investment. The range of assets qualifying for diversification compensation has been extended to include all assets directly associated with dairying. Previously it was limited to milking plant and dairy bails.

The assistance available for relocation purposes will also be liberalised. The maximum assistance is specified in the agreement with the States. Presently the maximum loan is $3,000. The amount will be increased to $5,000. The 1 974 Act stipulates that applications for instance under the dairy adjustment program must be lodged with and approved by a State authority before 1 July 1976. It is necessary to extend this time limit and Section 17 ofthe Act is amended so that applications may be approved beyond that point in time to such later date, if necessary, as may be fixed by proclamation. Section 1 8 of the 1974 Act is amended to increase the total amount payable to the States to $46.5m or such further amounts that are appropriated by Parliament. Section 22 is amended to increase the present appropriation to $46.5m. State governments have agreed to continue administering the dairy adjustment program and I am pleased to acknowledge their assistance in this respect. The States have been operating under the Dairy Adjustment Agreements 1974-1975 and these will be amended in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.

The assistance provided for in this Bill forms part of a series of measures giving immediate short term help to the dairying industry. Other interim measures include the underwriting of the skim milk powder equalisation value for the 1975-76 season at $300 per tonne and an increase in the rate of Government advances from 80 per cent to 100 per cent. In addition the Commonwealth has varied the conditions of eligibility for unemployment benefits to enable dairy farmers and other primary producers who are suffering financial hardship to qualify for assistance. Discussions have been held with the States about longer term arrangements for dairying industry stability. As already announced certain guidelines have been agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. The issue of new dairy licences will be suspended during the coming financial year other than in exceptional cases and no licences would be issued to replace those for dairy farms which cease production. In addition, quota systems for market milk will be amended so that farmers will no longer be required to fill individual quotas during the off season. There will be also an urgent examination of additional ways of assisting dairy farmers to leave the industry through extension of existing forms of dairy adjustment.

As part of the approach to develop longer term measures for the dairy industry, the Government has already initiated an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry headed by Sir John Crawford to advise on the subject of future marketing arrangements. This report will be available by 3 1 August 1976. Pending the receipt and consideration by governments of that report, the Commonwealth and State Governments will examine the alternatives which are available so that the position of dairy farmers might be protected until a final decision can be taken on the longer term future of the industry. The dairy industry is facing a period of acute difficulties. The States have joined with the Commonwealth in accepting responsibility for providing financial relief to help farmers weather this crisis or facilitate their exit from dairying where this seems to be the more prudent course. The range of measures now proposed will assist the industry to contract production to a level that should ensure more adequate incomes to efficient farmers. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 2316

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY 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 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairying Research Levy Act 1972-73 to impose a levy on whole milk or on butter fat, as the case may be, to provide a more equitable and effective form of” financing the administration and promotion activities of the Australian Dairy Corporation. The Bill, in effect, provides for the existing levy, which contributes towards the cost of financing the dairy industry research program, to be extended to finance the operations of the Corporation. The main source of finance for the operations of the former Australian Dairy Products Board and now the Australian Dairy Corporation has been a levy under the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-72 on butter fat used in the production of butter, butter oil, butter powder, cheese and ghee. However, the revenue obtained over the last 2 years from the maximum rate of levy imposed under the legislation has been insufficient and the Corporation’s finances have now reached a serious position. This situation is the result of a fall-off in the production of some butter fat products coupled with rising operational costs and requirements for promotional funds which have risen along with the general cost increases that have occurred.

In the last Parliament legislation was introduced to provide for a levy on the butter fat content in all milk and cream used for manufacturing purposes, to enable the Corporation to obtain the necessary additional finances for its operations. The changes then proposed followed a review of the existing legislation and were approved by the major dairy industry organisations. As the operations of the Australian Dairy Corporation benefit all sections of the dairy industry the Government considered it would be more equitable for the levy to be imposed on all whole milk. The present levy falls almost exclusively on the butter and cheese sectors of the industry. This matter was initially discussed with State governments at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council on 1 April in the context of a number of proposals advanced by the Government to assist the industry with its present problems. I outlined these measures in my second reading speech on the Dairy Adjustment Amendment Bill 1976. The proposed levy on whole milk has since received the endorsement of State governments. While there have been some reservations expressed within the market milk sector, the Government considers that as the Corporation’s activities are of benefit to the industry as a whole it should receive wider support from the industry.

In presenting this Bill, the rates of the research levy have been converted from imperial to metric terms. The maximum rates are 25 cents per 100 kilograms of butter fat and 1 cent per 100 litres of whole milk. These levels, which are marginally higher than the former maximum rates, were recommended some time ago by the Dairying Research Committee, with the approval of the representatives of the Milk Producers Association of Australia and New

Zealand and the Australian Dairy Farmers ‘ Federation. The actual rates payable, which are prescribed in regulations under the Dairy Research Levy Act, will also be converted to metrics. These operative rates are at present 20 per cent below the maximum rates and will continue to be so. The legislation also provides for the maximum rate of levy for the Corporation’s domestic sales promotion activities to be either $1.50 per 100 kilograms of butter fat or 6 cents per 100 litres of whole milk produced and sold, and $1.50 per 100 kilograms or 6 cents per 100 litres for the Corporation’s administration and overseas market promotion activities. The maximum rate of levy proposed to be applied to whole milk is equivalent to the maximum rate applicable to butter fat. Conversion is the same as that used in the research levy and is based on a 3.6 per cent butter fat content in whole milk, the level which is being met by all fluid milk producers in all States.

The operative rates of levy for the purposes of the Corporation will be less than the maximum rates laid down in the Bill. The initial operative rate will be 85 cents per 100 kilograms of butter fat or 3.4 cents per 100 litres of whole milk for the Corporation’s domestic sales promotion activities, and $1 per 100 kilograms or 4 cents per 100 litres for the Corporation’s administration and overseas market promotion activities. These operative rates will be prescribed by regulation and may be varied by regulation after taking into account any recommendations made to the Minister by the Australian Dairy Corporation after consultation with the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation and any other organisations that the Minister considers appropriate. As with the existing research levy, the new levy will be payable by the producer on either a butter fat or litre basis.

For the purpose of facilitating the collection of the new levy, provision has been made in the accompanying Bill to extend the provisions of the existing Dairy Research Levy Collection Act 1972-73. Levy collections will be payable initially by the purchaser of the milk or cream concerned and will be recoverable from the producer of the milk or cream. As I mentioned in my second reading speech on the Dairy Adjustment Amendment Bill 1976, the dairying industry is experiencing serious problems which do not appear capable of being resolved in the short term. The Australian Dairy Corporation has an important role to play in assisting to overcome these problems. The Government believes that the proposals embodied in this Bill will give the Corporation a firm financial basis to enable it to carry out its functions in a manner which will meet the future needs and circumstances of the industry. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 2318

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) 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 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

The purpose of this Bill, which is supplementary to the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Bill is to repeal the existing butter fat levy legislation and to make a number of consequential technical amendments that have been made necessary by that Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill repeals the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-1972. The clause also provides for the provisions of the Butter Fat Levy Act and the regulations under that Act to continue to apply to butter fat produced before the commencement of the proposed new legislation whether the butter fat was used in the manufacture of dairy produce before or after the commencement of the new legislation. Clause 4 of the Bill extends the provisions of the Dairying Industry Research Levy Collection Act 1972-73 to include the collection of the proposed new levy for the operations of the Australian Dairy Corporation. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 amend the Dairying Research Act 1972, the Dairy Produce Act 1924-75, and the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958-1975 respectively to provide for the disbursement of that portion of the levy which relates to the particular funds or accounts established under those Acts. The Bill also provides for a number of amendments to the abovementioned Acts which are of a machinery nature only. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 2318

STATES GRANTS (HOSPITAL OPERATING COSTS) 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 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

The Bill before the Senate is designed to authorise grants to the States to assist with the financing of operating costs of public hospitals as an interim measure following the Government’s discovery that the hospitals agreements with the States are not valid. As the Prime Minister has already announced, the Government has found that the agreements, which were negotiated by the previous Government, are in a form that is not authorised by the Health Insurance Act 1973-1975. Under section 30 of that Act, an agreement must be substantially in accordance with the heads of agreement specified in Schedule 2 to the Act. In particular, the Government has been advised that clause 4 of the agreements differs substantially from head 3 of the Schedule.

As the Commonwealth cannot properly continue to make payments that are not authorised by law, payments under the agreements have been stopped. Even before the invalidity of the agreements was known to the Government, we had announced our intention to have discussions with the States on the replacement of the costsharing arrangements under the agreements with a system of block grants. The situation that has now arisen makes it urgent for new arrangements to be made with the States and the Government proposes to proceed with negotiations as quickly as practicable. It is envisaged that legislation for new arrangments will be introduced in the Budget session. However, the Government is concerned that the continued operation of public hospitals should not be imperilled during the period while new arrangements are being negotiated.

This Bill provides authority for payments to be made to the States to assist with the financing of operating costs of public hospitals before 1 October 1976. Payments will be made as block grants to the States and on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer determines after consultation with the Minister for Health. Payments will not be made directly to public hospitals, as was the case with the daily bed payments of $16 per day made under the agreements. However it will be a condition for the payment of grants that information at present provided to the Health Insurance Commission in relation to claims for daily bed payments will continue to be provided. Payments made will also be subject to conditions to ensure that no double payment will occur in the event of moneys being at any time payable to a State under a hospitals agreement.

The Government is conscious of the cash flow problems that an abrupt cessation of payments may cause to State governments. The Government therefore intends that this Bill should come into operation as quickly as possible so that payments can be resumed at the earliest practicable opportunity. Under the Bill, the payments that may be made to the States are limited to $3 1 5m. This amount has been calculated from estimates provided by the States ofthe net operating costs of recognised public hospitals over the period from the commencement of the agreements and before 1 October 1976, less payments, including daily bed payments, that have already been made under the agreements.

The invalidity of the hospitals agreements also affects the daily bed payments made to private hospitals. Under sections 33 and 34 of the Health Insurance Act, these payments are limited to private hospitals in States that are parties to hospitals agreements. The Government is concerned that private hospitals in the States should not be disadvantaged by the invalidity of the agreements, and the Bill includes a provision which will validate payments made to private hospitals in the States and provide for them to continue in the future.

This legislation does not validate past payments to the States because we came to the view that it would be better to discuss these matters with the States to make sure that when validating legislation is introduced, it is done in a way which will not be challenged. I also understand that there are some detailed matters of procedures which the States wish to have changed.

We hope to encompass such matters in discussions before permanent and continuing legislation is introduced. The Government has acted promptly to take corrective action following our discovery that the agreements negotiated by the previous Government are invalid. As I have said, we intend to proceed to negotiate the new arrangements with States which will provide a sound and fair basis for future Commonwealth support for public hospitals. The present Bill will ensure that Commonwealth financial assistance for these hospitals will be maintained in the meantime. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2319

ROAD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY (REPEAL) 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:
Minister for Education · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

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

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

This Bill is quite straightforward. As we have already announced, the Government has decided to reverse the previous Government’s decision to establish a Road Safety and Standards Authority as a separate entity. This Bill will give effect to that decision by repealing the original Act. Senators will recall there were a number of comments on this decision during the recent debate in the other place on the re-appointment of the Standing Committee on Road Safety. I would like to repeat the assurances given on that occasion by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). This move to have the functions and activities of the Authority carried out by the Department of Transport does not in any way signify a lessening of our commitment to road safety. The decision has been taken as part ofthe Government’s drive to achieve savings in administrative costs. Honourable senators will no doubt recall that at the same time as the decision with regard to the Road Safety Authority was announced, similar moves were also announced in relation to a number of other authorities and commissions of inquiry. Overall, we intend to achieve substantial savings and increased efficiency from these moves.

The re-incorporation of the Authority into the Department of Transport will save substantial amounts. It also allows administrative savings within the Department. We simply cannot pass up such opportunities if we are to achieve our aim of reducing the Budget deficit and clearing up the very difficult economic circumstances bequeathed to us by our predecessors. Despite the fears expressed by the Opposition, this decision does not mean that we will be saving expenditure at the cost of our road safety activities. All we are doing is avoiding unnecessary duplication.

I would also remind honourable senators that the establishment ofthe Authority was only in its very early stages when our decision was taken. The functions of the Authority were carried out by staff virtually all of whom had been transferred from the Department of Transport. In fact those officers have always been located in the Department’s Melbourne office. They have simply been returned to the Departmental strength by normal administrative process under the Public Service Act. This transfer occurred on 27 May 1976. The efficient use of staff is of course the key to the whole situation and the rationale for the decision. It is intended that the staff involved be maintained as a complete unit within the Department of Transport and thus retain all the advantages claimed for the separate organisation. At the same time unnecessary costs which would have to be at the expense of the actual work on road safety are avoided.

I would also like to stress that the budgetary savings I referred to do not mean that the intention of providing the road safety facilities originally proposed to be established for the Authority at Albury-Wodonga has been given up. Of course, we will not be outlaying funds during this financial year on these facilities. This is simply because the possible scheduling of these works is being re-examined to see how best the required facilities can be provided bearing in mind that it is essential for us to make the maximum use of those facilities which are already in existence.

The final point I wish to make is to repeat the undertakings given by the Minister for Transport on the occasion of the re-appointment of the Standing Committee on Road Safety in the other place. These were to continue our support for research, to continue our work through the Australian Transport Advisory Council and its advisory committees and to continue our program for progressive improvements to our roads and highways.

I now put a brief outline of the Bill. As already indicated, the existing legislation- that is, the Road Safety and Standards Authority Act 1975- is to be repealed. This is provided for in clause 3. Clauses 5 and 7 to 10 set out the necessary consequential administrative provisions involving return of funds and transfer of obligations to the Commonwealth. The funds will be available to the Department of Transport for discharging liabilities incurred by the Authority making payments under any contracts, etc. entered into by the Authority and meeting the costs and expenses that would have been incurred by the Authority in the performance of its functions. Clause 6 meets the technical requirement arising from the Officers Rights Declaration Act with regard to the Authority Chairman who is an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service. The clause deems the Chairman to have resigned on the last day ofthe Authority’s existence thus safeguarding his rights as a public servant. The remaining clauses provide for citation, definitions and so on and provide for the Bill to come into operation on the date it receives Royal Assent. Finally, clause 1 1 places upon the Minister for Transport the obligation to report to the Parliament on the operations and finances of the Authority. The financial report will of course be subject to the usual certification by the Auditor-General.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2320

CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS’ LIABILITY) 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 · LP

– I move:

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

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

This Bill is primarily designed to amend the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959-1973 so as to increase the limit of liability of airline and charter operators in respect of the death or injury of passengers carried on domestic air services. The Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act gives the force of law in Australia to the Warsaw Convention, made in 1929, and the Hague Protocol to that Convention, made in 1955. These international agreements are the primary means of regulation of the right to recover damages arising from travel on international flights. Part IV of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act applies similar conditions to airline and charter operators in domestic services, and it is in this regard that the Government proposes the amendments incorporated in this Bill.

The basic Warsaw principle, as applied to Australian domestic operations under Part IV of the Act, is that a carrier is liable for assessed damages sustained by reason of the death or personal injury of a passenger resulting from an aircraft accident. The legislation makes the carrier liable for damages without the need for the injured party to prove negligence on the part of the carrier, but the damages payable may be adjusted if it is proved that the passenger caused or contributed to the damages. The Act limits the liability of the carrier in respect of each passenger to $30,000. This limit was fixed in 1970, the previous limit having been $ 1 5,000.

Subsequent to the Warsaw Convention and Hague Protocol, under an arrangement, initiated by the United States Government and the International Air Transport Association, and known as the Montreal Agreement, a large majority of international airlines, including Qantas Airways Ltd, now accept higher liability limits for each passenger carried on an international flight starting, ending or stopping at a point in the United States. Qantas in fact now accepts the higher liability limit of approximately $45,000 for all its international flights. The British Government has directed all British operators to apply world wide a new limit of liability of approximately $45,000. Other European Governments are contemplating similar action, each in respect of its national airlines. Therefore to ensure that passengers carried on domestic services in Australia receive the same cover as those on international flights, and having regard to a level of compensation in real terms, I consider it would be appropriate to increase the liability limit of domestic air carriers from the present level of $30,000 to $45,000.

The maximum amount of compensation specified by the Act, as well as by the international agreements, is not an automatic entitlement. An injured passenger, or the dependants of the deceased passenger, claiming compensation from an airline whose aircraft is involved in an accident, must prove that damage has been suffered by reason of the accident, and the amount of damages is assessed in accordance with the ordinary principles of law. When the assessed damages are less than the maximum amount mentioned in the Act, they are recoverable in full. Otherwise, the carrier’s liability is limited to that amount.

I should add that these arrangements and limits refer only to the liability of the air carrier to the passenger or his dependant. Naturally they do not preclude a passenger from insuring his life or person quite independently for any amount he chooses. The airlines and the representative organisation of the charter operators accept that it is appropriate to increase the limit of liability as now proposed, and they are prepared to pay the modest increase in insurance costs involved.

As will be seen from a perusal of Part IV of the Act, for Constitutional reasons its provisions are not applicable to intrastate services, except in the case of those operated by Trans-Australia Airlines. However, with the exception of Western Australia, the States’ legislations are amended correspondingly with Part IV of the Commonwealth Act as it is amended from time to time. The Premier of Western Australia has been invited by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to take complementary legislative action in regard to increasing the limit of liability.

The Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act is a significant legislative measure in the functioning of the air transport industry in Australia. It is based on principles recognised throughout the world. The proposal now submitted for consideration by the Parliament is designed to up-date the Act by increasing the limit of liability to $45,000, thereby fixing a more appropriate level of compensation having regard to current international arrangements and current money value. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 2322

AIR ACCIDENTS (COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT LIABILITY) 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 · LP

– I move:

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

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

The Bill complements the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Bill 1976. It amends the title of the Principal Act from the Air Accidents (Australian Government Liability) Act to the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Act. This is consistent with the general policy of the Government as announced earlier this year. The Bill further provides that the maximum amount of the Commonwealth’s liability in respect of death or injury resulting from air accidents be increased from $30,000 to $45,000. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2322

QUESTION

RETIREMENT AGE OF COMMONWEALTH COURT JUDGES

Reference to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report:

Whether the Constitution should be amended to provide that judges of Commonwealth Courts should be required to vacate their office upon the attainment of a fixed age.

  1. The Committee report to the Senate as soon as possible but not later than the first sitting day in November 1976.

I desire to make some brief remarks in support of that motion which I move as a member of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I hope that such an inquiry will be undertaken on the resolution of the Senate. As honourable senators will know, section 72 of the Constitution provides that Commonwealth judges will be removed only on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. In other words, the judges generally have a lifetime tenure.

This is a situation which has a long history. It was designed originally to ensure that judges did have security of tenure, were not subject to control by the Executive and, therefore, could go about their proper duties without any pressure being brought to bear on them.

Senator Devitt:

– Does that apply to the family law courts as well?

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, it does. It applies to judges appointed to the Family Court because they have to be appointed for life under the Constitution. That has been one of the problems which, when the Family Law Bill was considered by the Senate Committee and by the Senate this was recognised as one of the difficulties and was one of the reasons the provision for State courts was inserted. It was thought that judges could then be appointed to a State court until a fixed age. This was generally satisfactory. I had intended to deal with that matter in any event.

Questions have been raised in relation to this area and the problem has passed through the minds of members of the Senate but has not been subject to any specific resolution. One should realise, at the same time, that, in the States judges are not subjected to this lifetime tenure. In five States the age of 70 years is fixed and in Victoria it is 72 years. It can be said that the fact that there are fixed ages has not shown, in those courts, any lesser degree of independent judgment by judges. Perhaps the arguments that were raised originally for life appointments do not now apply in such a way that we may not need to retain this lifetime tenure. This is the question which has to be considered.

Judges in the courts of the Territories are not subject to that restriction because they are appointed under Section 122 of the Constitution relating to Territories. So one might say that we have a certain inconsistency even between judges who operate in the Commonwealth sphere.

We need to consider the arguments that may be advanced by both sides of opinion on this proposition. There may be some suggestion that the life terms lead to judges of advanced years sitting in Court and to difficulties because of an inability to continue to operate as actively as they might. It might be argued also that judges who are there for a very long time inhibit the appointment of other judges who in the best years of their life do not get the opportunity to serve on the bench.

All these arguments need to be weighed up and considered by the Committee. Any decision would be a matter involving constitutional amendment but that is a matter for further consideration. I put to the Senate that it is high time this matter was given careful consideration by the Senate and this Senate Committee.

It is a matter on which this Committee would expect to have brought before it the ideas and suggestions of persons both inside and outside the Senate. Law societies and other bodies who wish to make representations would be welcomed by the Senate Committee.

I have been speaking in general terms but it is with these matters in mind that I suggest this motion be agreed to so that the reference can be sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and enable a full examination of the problem. Any recommendations that appeal to the Committee as being practical and sensible can be considered by the full Senate at a later date.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is the motion seconded?

Senator Cotton:

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2323

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR MUSICIANS

Reference to Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts

Motion (by Senator Harradine) proposed:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts the following matter for inquiry and report- The maintenance of levels of employment for musicians by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, with particular reference to: (a) the continuance and growth of symphony and other orchestras; (b) the extension of training facilities for musicians; and (c) the need for the creation of employment opportunities for music graduates of Conservators and Colleges of Advanced Education.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Yes, I second the motion. In so doing I make one comment. This is an important matter to be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts particularly in the current climate when the employment of musicians is of great concern to people involved in the whole area of public performance. It is a source of regret to me that the Government has not seen fit to support an enlargement of this reference to embrace artists of other kinds such as actors and persons whose livelihood is dependent upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial television and radio stations as well. However, that being so the Committee can at least deliberate more quickly on this matter as it is a relatively narrow reference. Perhaps the Committee can deal with the other matter in another context. I have pleasure in seconding the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2323

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-Late last night I was about to conclude my remarks on the Social Services Amendment Bill (No. 2). I pointed out that the Bill was primarily aimed at assisting low income families, 300 000 of whom will benefit greatly from the Bill. I add that in the future full time students will be treated as dependent children with a minimum of assistance to the mother of $ 1 4 a month if those children happen to be the only children. The dependent age of a full time student has been increased from 2 1 to 25 years. New claims will need to be lodged for those whose claims for a student of 2 1 years have expired. General publicity will be given to the new conditions of eligibility. This is a magnificent Bill. It is a pity that honourable senators opposite have not been lavish in their praise. I am proud to belong to a Government which has had the sensitivity to bring the Bill before the chamber. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to support the Social Services Amendment Bill (No. 2). We on this side of the chamber recognise that the Bill will make certain improvements in the financial situation of some very poor women and some very poor families. Whilst I agree with the provisions in the Bill and recognise them as a modest advance, I cannot possibly agree with some of the extravagant claims which have been made by honourable senators on the Government side about the importance of the measure. The Bill simply increases the child endowment payment to a higher level which is more in keeping with the cost of living these days than was the old child endowment provision. The updating of this provision was long overdue, and we recognise that.

But that is nothing more than an adjustment to payments already established.

There is no question of the provisions of this Bill providing independence for women, as some speakers on the Government side have claimed. In fact, by its very nature child endowment will benefit only women who are dependent on their husband’s income or on a government benefit. If a mother is a wage earner she will get no benefit because she will lose her tax deduction. If a mother has a spouse who is a middle income to high income earner that family will get no benefit because, once again, they will lose their tax deduction.

I am not criticising this measure but I am criticising the claim that this improvement in the child endowment payment, by itself, constitutes some sort of independence for women. It does not. Poor women, particularly poor women with large families, are still oppressed and powerless in this society. I think there has been something of a misdirected moralism from some speakers on the Government side of the chamber which has appealed to the prejudice of some sections of the community towards the belief that somehow being a poor mother is a better position to be in than any other position a women can be in in society. I bring this matter up in this debate because this kind of division of women into the deserving poor mothers and the other kinds of women who have jobs or who think they may like to train or study to get jobs is very mischievous. It causes hostility between different groups of women who should be supporting each other because, after all, they do have common objectives.

The situation in Australian society today- it has been the situation for a long time- is that all women work at some stage of their lives. There are very few women now who do not work at some stage. Virtually all girls on leaving school or tertiary studies go into the work force and remain there for some time. The majority of them drop out ofthe work force while they have their families. Some return to the work force when the children are older. Some have babies and cannot afford to drop out of the work force at all. So working is an experience which virtually all women in our society have. I think it is very mischievous for some spokesmen and spokeswomen for the conservative elements in our community to talk as though there were some contradiction between working women and women who say at home- as though there were some serious conflict of interest. There is not.

Just as most working women have children and are therefore aware of the needs of families, particularly poor families, and are happy to support an increase in child endowment, so I think we should encourage women who are at present at home with their children to think in terms of supporting policies for women who need or wish to work. There is no point in setting women in different life styles up against each other for the purpose of appealing to certain prejudices in the community.

The extent of discrimination against women in the work force is still very great. I hope that the Government in making this admirable small measure towards helping the position of poor women at home will not feel that it has done enough for women and will not ignore the extent of discrimination which is still suffered by women in the work force. I refer briefly to a report which I received today and which, I think, was tabled yesterday and which is entitled Equality in Employment: The Second Annual Report of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation 1974-75. On pages 6 and 7 of this report there is evidence to show that discrimination against women in the work force on the basis of sex is still extremely widespread and extremely disadvantageous to those women. I will not read the findings of this Committee but I recommend the report, particularly to those members of the Government who may be tempted to feel that the Government has done enough for women by increasing the child endowment benefit.

If we are to talk about giving independence and real choice to women, there is much more a responsible government needs to do. The Labor Government, which was a responsible government, started to do many things in the areas of improving educational opportunities for women, in providing training opportunities for women so that when they went into the work force they could take skilled and rewarding employment, and in such things as removing tertiary fees which allowed women who had never had the opportunity to undertake tertiary studies to do so. Perhaps the most important thing done by the Labor Government in relation to giving women real choice and independence was the formulation of a national child care program. This was a radical departure from what had been the attitude of previous governments towards the care and education of young children.

I was quite amazed last night to hear Senator Baume, speaking for the Government, claim that this Bill, which increases child endowment payments, represented some sort of radical program for a genuine redistribution of wealth throughout the community, that it was innovative and that nothing like this had ever been done for women or families before. These claims are totally exaggerated and inaccurate. I suggest that programs started under the Labor Government, such as the National Employment and Training scheme which for the first time gave women and men an opportunity to train for employment on an allowance comparable to average weekly earnings, were a much more radical step. The setting up of a national child care program, which I am pleased to see this Government will continue in some way, was much more radical. Of course, the removal of discrimination within the Public Service gave more opportunities to women, as did the introduction of maternity leave and, to a lesser extent, paternity leave for government employees.

The other claim that has been made during the course of this debate is that women now will have a choice to stay at home and not work and that this is a choice which most women want. I have pointed out that, by offering $8.50 to a woman with 2 children and a little more to a woman with 3 children, the Government really is not offering something comparable to a wage. One could have gained the impression, from listening to some of the speakers last night, that this child endowment provision was intended to be some sort of mother’s wage on the cheap. I think that is a quite insulting suggestion. I also found Senator Baume ‘s suggestion that this Bill recognised the productivity of women in the home to be rather insulting. If we are to look for some sort of financial recognition of the productivity of the woman in the home, I hope that it would measure something more than $8.50 for the work involved in caring for 2 children. I hope that Senator Baume is listening to these remarks and that he will reconsider the absurdity of some ofthe claims he made last night.

I return to the question of choice for women to enter the work force. I think that we in the Australian Labor Party have always considered it desirable that women have a genuine choice as to whether they go to work or stay at home; but we recognised that for many women there was no such choice. We tried to institute government funded programs through which such a choice could be exercised. Many of these, like the National Employment and Training scheme, have been wound down almost to a standstill by the present Government, thus actually reducing the genuine choice available to women in this circumstance. There is another claim that has been made, I think by Senator Walters. She said that the high proportion of women in the work force in the last couple of years came about somehow as the result of a Labor Government. This is patently absurd. I wish to cite the figures in a table taken from the Schools Commission report entitled Girls, Schools and Society. The table itself was prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It gives some indication of the fact that the participation of married women and mothers in the work force has been increasing steadily since 1947. It increased most dramatically during the period of the former Liberal-National Country Party Government. For example, in 1 947 the proportion of all working women who were married was 15.3 per cent. In 1971, when we still had a Liberal-National Country Party Government, it was 56.8 per cent. That figure increased by 1974 to 63.8 per cent. Similarly, the proportion of all married women who were in paid employment in 1947 was 6.5 per cent; in 1 97 1 , again still during the period of a Liberal-National Country Party Government, it was 32.8 per cent; and in 1974 it was 40.5 per cent.

I hope that my reference to those figures will prevent from being made yet again in the Senate the claim that somehow the high participation of mothers and married women in the work force was a phenomenon that came about only as a result of the Labor Government and somehow as a result of pressures put on families by the Labor Government. Clearly, this increased participation in the work force has been going on ever since the end of the Second World War and is to be explained by a number of complex sociological factors, not the least of which, I suggest, is the consumerism and materialism in Australian society, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s, which were encouraged, aided and abetted by a Liberal business-orientated government which set fairly unrealistic standards of consumerism for the average family. It was these sorts of pressures that caused women to go out to work.

Other sorts of pressures that caused women to go out to work in the 1 950s and particularly in the 1960s included the fact that Federal funding of education was so low that women felt they had to go to work to be able to improve the educational opportunities of their children by sending them to private schools, which they considered at that time to be better, or by supplementing their children’s educational resources through the purchase of books, extra lessons, tutoring and things of that kind. Another factor was the neglect of housing policy by the Liberal-National Country Party Government during that period. This placed a great deal of pressure on people. I suggest that, if we really want to understand why married women went into the work force in such large numbers during that period, we can gain enlightenment on the subject from the sorts of policies pursued by the Liberal-National Country Party Government during that time. It is totally inaccurate to try to look at such a complex social change as the change in life style of married women and families in terms of anything that might have happened during the 5 years of the Labor Government. I hope that we will not hear those assertions in the Senate again, because they are inaccurate and ill-founded. They would be extremely confusing to whoever might be listening to the debates.

There is one provision of the Bill itself about which I have heard some criticism, and I draw it to the attention of the Government. I am glad that Senator Carrick, the Minister for Education, is here while I am speaking because it bears some relationship to a matter on which he spoke this morning in the Senate. I refer to the question of tertiary allowances for students. The situation of students on tertiary allowances, particularly students from poorer families or middle income families, is very grim at the moment. I think Senator Carrick acknowledged that this morning. There are a number of problems for these students, one of which is that if they wish to take the full living away from home allowance, which in itself is a fairly small amount of money to try to live on while studying, they need to be independent of their parents for 2 years. I think that is unsatisfactory. I do not see why a student aged 18 years cannot claim independence and the full allowance straight away. Nevertheless, that is something for future consideration. I am a little worried, and some of the students who were lobbying here last night in respect of the tertiary allowances were worried, that by extending, in terms of the definition, the period of childhood to 25 years for the purpose of allowing a mother to claim the child endowment benefit the legislation may be jeopardising the possibility of those students gaining full living away from home allowances or full tertiary education allowances. I draw that matter to the attention of the Government for further consideration. I am not quite sure whether the conclusions I am suggesting are sound. I have not had enough time to work through the matter. I hope that the Government will give some attention to it.

The other suggestion that has been made in respect of this child endowment provision is that somehow or other it is achieving the objective of a guaranteed minimum income. We have heard quite a lot of quotations from the relevant Henderson reports on poor families and quite a lot of references to the fact that the Government now is adopting Professor Henderson’s recommendations in respect of child endowment. In order to put this series of claims into perspective, I point out that a number of reports relating to poverty came from the Henderson inquiry. There were a number of recommendations, of which that for increases in child endowment- that is, increases in cash payments to poor families- was only one. They were not the complete answer to poverty; they were never intended to be. My understanding of the overall views of the Henderson report with respect to a guaranteed minimum income was that increased cash payments to families by way of child endowment payments would be only one of the steps necessary to establish a guaranteed minimum income. I have not detected so far from statements that have come from the Government any other measures which it intends to introduce as a move towards what I would consider to be a desirable position, and that is a guaranteed minimum income for all non-wage earning adults.

The other aspect which concerns me about the tenor of the debate and some of the claims which have been made is that the Government may find justification in this legislation for cutting down on other kinds of public services such as the provision of health services, education services, community facilities and housing, to name a few. While it is true that the Henderson report recommended increasing cash payments to families I do not think the findings oppose the provision of services to poor families. After all, with the $ 10 or even $20 a week that a mother will receive by way of child endowment, she cannot buy good education for her children; she cannot purchase housing; she cannot get access to community facilities. There will still be a need for the Government to pour a great deal of money into public services if the opportunities of poor families are to be improved. Money alone will not improve the opportunities of poor families. Access to good education and good health care and the availability of reasonably priced housing will also improve, perhaps even more significantly improve, opportunities for poor families.

I think either the last speaker for the Government, or perhaps it was Senator Baume last night, said in conclusion that there would be many more measures to assist poor families. I will wait with interest to see what these measures are. I sincerely hope that they will come soon. Although we all acknowledge that an advance has been made in respect of child endowment payments, we on this side ofthe chamber recognise that it is a very small advance and that there are many more actions that a responsible government can take if it is genuine about improving opportunities in life for poor families. There are certainly many more steps that this Government can take if it is at all interested in improving opportunities for women. I support the Bill.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak briefly on this measure. I do so for 2 reasons. One is that the previous speaker referred to the question of discrimination, and the other is to point out to the Senate a little bit of the history of child endowment payments. As to my first reason for speaking, I agree with Senator Ryan that part of the reason why women were forced into the work force was the development of consumerism and materialism to the extent that there were socially created wants instead of needs. These forced women out into the work force.

Senator Ryan mentioned also the problem of housing, which is still with us, and the problems related to the education of children. There was another factor, however, particularly in the 1960s. That factor was the combination of forces resulting from employers and the Department of Labour and National Service seeking to attract women into the labour force as a source of cheap labour prior to the introduction of equal pay. That was one of the very reasons why the trade union movement fought to achieve equal pay. The trade union movement was conscious of the fact that if the employers and the Department of Labour and National Service were allowed to get away with their campaign to attract a large number of women into the work force as a source of cheap labour, obviously that would have a most disastrous effect on employment opportunities and wage standards of breadwinners. In addition, and most importantly, the trade union movement sought to achieve equality- that is, equal pay for work of equal value- for women as of right.

I speak with some experience about the question of discrimination because I was a member of the Tasmanian Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. We did have a large number of complaints whilst I was a member of that Committee from women because they were discriminated against in their employment and occupation. To emphasise the point that I made on a previous occasion that many women at home are discriminated against in their occupation, I wish to quote from a letter that was written to the Tasmanian Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation by a Mrs H. M. Speden. I am able to quote this letter because she sent a copy of it to me in my then capacity as Secretary ofthe Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council. I, in my capacity as a union secretary now have a copy of that letter. The letter states in part:

I wish to make submissions to the Tasmanian Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation that I am being discriminated against by the Federal Government of Australia in my occupation as a Mother. I claim that I am being discriminated against socially, financially and in terms of equality of treatment, opportunity for advancement, conditions of work and job satisfaction, as outlined below.

Then she lists in quite a degree of detail the reasons to support her claim of discrimination. Her claim is really made on behalf of all mothers who are in the situation of being faced with the choice of staying home and looking after the children or of being forced into employment. To save time, I ask for leave to incorporate this letter in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- 28 Tilyard Street, Montrose 7010.

The Tasmanian Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, P.O.Box 585F Hobart 7001.

SUBMISSION ON DISCRIMINATION IN OCCUPATION

I wish to make submission to the Tasmanian Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation that I am being discriminated against by the Federal Government of Australia in my occupation as a Mother. 1 claim that I am being discriminated against socially, financially and in terms of equality of treatment, opportunity for advancement, conditions of work and job satisfaction, as outlined below.

Socially, I am discriminated against by being denied the status of a worker. This puts me at a disadvantage to other workers in the community using similar skills, such as teachers, welfare workers, nurses, etc. Despite the fact that my work as a mother, in producing and rearing healthy citizens, is of fundamental value to the community, I am relegated to the lowest level ofthe social scale- a ‘dependant -and my work denigrated as ‘non-productive’. On what terms? Why, for example, should a school teacher whose livelihood is entirely dependent on the productivity of mothers and who may, therefore, legitimately be said to lead a parasitic existence, yet be held in higher esteem than a mother? This is not to begrudge the teaching profession its status, but to emphasise the anomoly of my lack of status as a mother.

As a result of this discriminatory attitude I am not only denied official representation to make my needs known, but I cannot even claim the title ‘Mother’ as a legitimate occupation. (Are only illegitimate mothers recognised by the Officialdom?). This basic act of social injustice causes a flow-on’ of other injustices. Because my occupation is not officially recognised as pan ofthe work-force, no value is put on it and I am denied the right of an equitable financial reward. In a society where the value of work is measured by a monetary yardstick, this puts me at a disadvantage to the lowliest paid member of the work-force occupied in the most trivial task. Despite the general acceptance of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value’ the work value of mothers has been ignored and they remain the unpaid servants ofthe community. 1 am discriminated against in terms of equality of treatment and opportunity for advancement in my work. Despite the fact that motherhood is the most responsible job that I have undertaken, my professional skills and knowledge gain no accreditation from any educational or professional body. There is no specific training available to mothers, yet to become a competent mother I have found it necessary to study child psychology and education, elementary nursing and human physiology, cookery and nutrition, general housekeeping and domestic economy. Furthermore, it is an ongoing process. As my children grow and their needs change, so I have to acquire the additional skills to fulfill those needs. Although I have to do this at my own expense (or that of my husband) I am ineligible to claim a tax allowance for textbooks, educational courses or ancillary aids and equipment necessary for my work (nor may my husband claim on my behalf although I am classified as his dependant! ). The final depressing insult is that no matter how well qualified I become I receive neither recognition nor regard for my labours, nor will my skills and experience be credited towards future employment in any allied field. How many other professional workers, tradesmen or labourers would feel the incentive to do a good job if they received this treatment?

I am discriminated against in terms of conditions of work and job satisfaction. As a mother I work seven days a week, all year, every year, with occasional help from my husband. I am ‘on call ‘ every night and it is rare for me to get an undisturbed night’s sleep. It is five years since I had a holiday (by which I mean a ‘break’ of more than a few hours from my home and children). Despite the many ancillary duties involved in motherhood I am denied assistance because of the cost of engaging even minimal help (are teachers, nurses, or even shop assistants expected to clean up the premises in addition to their other duties?). The same applies during periods of sickness- it is frequently impossible to find a relief mother’ and the cost is always exorbitant. Yet I am expected to cope with all this, full time, for the ‘love of it’.

Love is supposed to be my satisfaction and reward. Of course I love my family; but the idea that women produce children purely for their own pleasure is a fallacy sponsored by an affluent and short-sighted society intent on genocide. Women produce children because of a biological urge to perpetuate the species-the pleasure is an incidental side-effect necessary to ensure that they will stick at the job. But it is a short-lived pleasure when it is turned into a penalty. To expect a mother to work for ‘love’ is no more reasonable than to expect a nurse or a bricklayer or a politician to work for ‘love’. In short, the ‘pleasure principle’ is effective only when other conditions are equal.

Satisfaction in any job has two main components: firstly, personal pride in one’s skill to turn out a good product or service; secondly, recognition by society ofthe value of that skill and its benefit to the community. The two are inter-related and under present conditions both are denied to mothers. How can one take pride in a skill which is accorded neither status nor value?

One ofthe conclusions reached by a Seminar on Creche ‘s and Day Nurseries organised by the International Children’s Centre in Paris ( 1 960) was that: ‘The greatest obstacle to the expansion of child-care services of all kinds . . . is the shortage of trained staff … a wide variety of professional, technical, semi-technical and specialised training has been found to be needed. After training up to required standards, the grant of nationally recognised certificates of qualification is often helpful not only as a proof of ability and competence but also m establishing the status of those engaged in child-care work in the skilled and technical levels’.

It is ironical that whilst the need for trained staff to man creches and child-care centres is recognised, the need for vocational and in-service training for mothers is ignored. Yet mothers, whose concern for the welfare of their children is a professional, long-term commitment more deeply felt than that of an employee, have a far greater need for educational and training services to equip them for their job. The traditions of child-care and domestic management formerly passed on within the security of an extended family circle are now frequently entirely lost. Girls, in particular, on whom the major responsibility for founding a family most inescapably rest, often take on the job with an abyss of ignorance which is frightening- and not made less so by the equal ignorance of their partners.

With increasing evidence that ‘equality of opportunity’ rests in the first instance with equality of mother-care (for which no satisfactory substitute has yet been found) it seems incredible that millions of dollars are being poured into the expansion of schools and other institutional child-care programs which have been shown to be of doubtful value (see Karmel Report’: Schools in Australia) whilst the fundamental step required to make these agencies more effective is ignored; namely, the up-grading of the status of motherhood and the funding of vocational and educational programs for mothers.

The present Prime Minister (Mr G. Whitlam) has gone on record with the claim that his Government has been the first to grant ‘equal opportunity’ to women. But what about mothers? Are they not women, too? Have they not the right to equal opportunity to pursue the job of their choice?

According to the International Labour Office Report vI (I) 1964 (Women Workers in a Changing World) … No woman should be forced by economic circumstance to work outside her home . . . Women with family responsibilities, particularly those with young children, should be able to stay at home if they so wish. As has often been emphasised, the incontestable right of every mother to remain within the home and to bring up her children herself should be protected and respected. This emphasises the general desirability of formulating and implementing fiscal and social policies which would enable such women to stay at home if they so choose.

How can the Federal Government reconcile this statement and its own affirmation to ‘eliminate discrimination in employment and occupation’, with the present inferior position of mothers in the Australian community?

How can the Federal Government expect to maintain credibility with women as mothers when it not only refuses to recognise their rightful occupation, but actively promotes discriminatory propaganda against them such as that currently displayed by Commonwealth Employment Service on a poster entitled ‘Mother’s Liberation urging mothers to leave their children (with whom whilst they enjoy the ‘liberation ‘ of going out to work ( at what?).

As a mother, I shall feel liberated when my work is accorded equal status with other workers in the community, not when I am pressurised to neglect it or penalised for doing it.

  1. M. Speden, Mrs
Senator HARRADINE:

– I thank the Senate. Mrs Speden concludes her letter by saying:

How can the Federal Government expect to maintain credibility with women as mothers when it not only refuses to recognise their rightful occupation, but actively promotes discriminatory propaganda against them such as that currently displayed by the Commonwealth Employment Service on a poster entitled ‘Mother’s Liberation’ urging mothers to leave their children (with whom?) whilst they enjoy the ‘liberation’ of going out to work (at what?).

I feel that those questions ought to be considered by the Government and that they should be answered.

This Bill is not the answer. The purpose of this Bill is to provide assistance to poorer families. It does not do a great deal to support families in general. In fact, many families in the middle income groups will get absolutely nothing from the provisions of this Bill. Many families in the middle income groups will not benefit from this Bill. There are thousands upon thousands of trade unionists who earn approximately the average weekly wage or above, and for many of those families as a whole the provisions of this Bill will do absolutely nothing. Certainly it will be of some assistance to the lower income groups. I ask the Government to consider supplementing this legislation by developing a system of payments to be made to the homemaker. Whilst the Committee of International Women’s Year frowns upon that sort of concept, I would think that the Government ought to have a look at it and see whether it is practical of implementation. The International Labour Organisation’s report No. VI (i) of 1964 entitled Women Workers in a Changing World states:

No woman should be forced by economic circumstances to work outside her home . . . Women with family responsibilities, particularly those with young children, should be able to stay at home if they so wish. As has often been emphasised, the incontestable tight of every mother to remain within the home and to bring up her children herself should be protected and respected. This emphasises the general desirability of formulating and implementing fiscal and social policies which would enable such women to stay at home if they so choose.

I know that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle ) is conscious of that principle. I believe that that is the principle which motivates her. I feel that she will not allow the situation regarding families to rest with this Bill and that she will give consideration to the proposals that have been suggested for a mother’s allowance.

I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to making a statement now, or at least in the not too distant future, that the new amounts of child endowment will be the subject of indexation. It is no good just putting into the statute book an amount that is going to be allowed to rest there for years on end. We have seen these payments stagnate for years and years. I congratulate the Government for increasing the payments, as it has now done, but I ask the Government, so as to avoid a repetition of what we have seen up to this point in time, to index the payments so that they will keep pace with the cost of living.

Finally, I take the opportunity of saying to the Senate that I have had long experience of and interest in the subject of child endowment. One probably ought to declare one’s interests before speaking on Bills like this one. But even before I had a family I was, both on the Social Welfare Committee of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and on the ACTU Executive itself, in the forefront of the campaign to have child endowment payments raised. I got this motivation from the late Albert Monk. Albert Monk was a man who, when asked 6 months before he retired from the presidency of the ACTU what he would like to be done in the social welfare area and what would be his priority, said an increase in child endowment. That, of course, has been borne out by the report of the Henderson inquiry. The women of Australia owe it not only to Jack Lang but also to Albert Monk in his negotiations with the then Federal Government that child endowment payments are made directly to mothers. Albert Monk was a man who knew human nature. He knew what many of us would do with the money each week. So he insisted with the then Federal Government that the money be paid to the women directly. I am sure that there are many women in Australia who are very grateful to him for that suggestion.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– in reply- The Government acknowledges the way in which this new proposal has been received by all parties and by the independent members of the Senate. We do want to say that it is a proposal which has resulted from a review of the manner in which assistance has been given to families. Senator Grimes, in leading for the Opposition, said that this is a measure that is not opposed by the Opposition. He acknowledged that it is a step forward in family support that we have been able to give at this time. It is understood by everyone that, through the abolition of certain income tax rebates, we have been able to restructure the way in which assistance is now given to families in the form of the new family allowances.

I do not want to canvass in detail the various matters that have been raised by honourable senators, but there are some things to which I should make reference as I conclude the debate. We were heavily influenced by the recommendations of the Henderson report, which showed that income given into the hands of families would be of assistance. Whilst at this time of somewhat economic stringency we have been unable to increase to any great degree the amount that is given, we have been able by abolishing a part of the income tax rebate to direct additional payments to those lower income families and those single parent families which otherwise would not have had the opportunity to receive increased payments at this time. It was mentioned by Senator Coleman that there are matters about which she is concerned- for example, the matter of the allowance payable to a girl under 16 who is living with her parents being reduced by the increased amount of endowment paid to the mother. Those sorts of matters do crop up when things are being restructured. The total amount involved in this case of $10 still will be paid, but there will be a difference in the amount that is deducted because of the child endowment concerned.

Senator Melzer spoke of the other benefits that are required to give assistance to families. I believe that this is a matter that has been referred to by numerous speakers. The support services of adequate housing, health and so on are important to the way in which a family is able to give security to the children who are its responsibility. I think that it would be ungracious of anyone to state that the Government believes that this is the end result of what can be done to assist families in the Australian context. It is one measure which lay within our grasp at this time and it is one that I believe has been welcomed. All of the matters that were raised by Senator Ryan with regard to women- discrimination against them in the work force and so on- seemed to have some relevance to the matter that is under discussion, but they are not matters to which I wish to refer in detail.

I do want to take up the points that were made by Senator Harradine with regard to family allowances and the needs of families as distinct from their wants. I believe that in calling our new assistance ‘family allowances’ we are talking about assistance that is able to be given to families with children in this country. I agree with the remarks of Senator Harradine that it is important to emphasise the security of the family and the support that can be given to it, but I also want to say that the responsibilities for the security of the family do not rest only with government. They are responsibilities that should be accepted by the parents of the family itself and they are responsibilities in relation to which government is able to give assistance but which can only be shared with parents. The objectives that parents have for their children should be those that lead them to undertake the responsibilities that lead to sound education, to adequate health and care and to the other opportunities which only parents are able to make possible for their children for their future development.

As far as talking about future policies, such as allowances for mothers, other forms of assistance or even the indexation of these proposals is concerned, I am unable to make commitments of that nature at this time. I think we have reached the state of mentality where we talk about the introduction of indexation as being the means by which we are able to preserve the purchasing power of money and the level of benefits. Rather, I think we should be looking to the time when indexation is no longer necessary because we have overcome inflation and we are living in an economy which is much more stable than it has been in recent years. If we have that stability in the economy and the expectation of the future remaining less unpredictable than it has been in the past few years, we might then see women accepting responsibilities within the home for a period when they believe that their children can benefit from the full time attention that they can give.

At this time we welcome the plan that has been accepted by members of the Senate. We commend the Bill to the Senate. We believe that by restructuring the allowances that are provided in respect of children we are taking one further step towards giving additional benefits to the Australian children. I commend the Bill and thank the Senate for the way in which it has conducted the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2330

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1976-77

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I take the opportunity in this debate to say a few words which are not necessarily related to the issues in the legislation. I wish to comment on the statements which have been made in the other place and which were made in this place yesterday by Senator Withers. I believe it is a matter of some importance. I refer to the developments that have taken place in East Timor in the last few days and the clear endeavour by this Government to treat the tragedy that has occurred in East Timor as a Party political issue and attempt to score points from it.

I think it is sad that Senator Withers took the opportunity at question dme yesterday to reply to a question in a manner which suggested that the whole blame for the Timor issue rested with the previous Government and that it was the inactivity of members of the present Opposition that brought about the invasion of East Timor and its disastrous effects on the people of that country. I take the Senate back to 1975 which is the key period when this Timor issue developed. We all know that in the early part of 1975 those who are now in Government and the conservatives generally both inside and outside this Parliament were hell bent on destroying the constitutional government in Australia. We know that in April and May of 1 975 there were moves afoot to deny Supply. We also know of the event which prevented that from happening- the accession of Mr Fraser to the leadership of the Liberal Party. We know that during the next four or five months there was a well orchestrated campaign to bring down the Labor Government and that that campaign succeeded. Those of us who had some interest in and understanding of and conscience about the events that were taking place in Timor were criticised, and strongly criticised by Senator Withers, for not arguing this matter out in a way which would have undermined still further the position of the Labor Government.

The tragedy of this issue is that this Government and its spokesmen in this place and, to some extent, in the other place have sought to place this whole question concerning the rights of people in Timor on a basis of who was right and who was wrong. They say that at the time we should have taken steps which would have completely disrupted our own Government. At that time we were concerned about maintaining the rights of a properly constituted government. It was within the province of the present Government in its caretaker capacity to take steps to unravel the problems associated with the death of the newsmen at Balibo on 16 October last year. After all, the caretaker Government assumed office on 1 1 November and the invasion of East Timor did not take place until 7 December.

Whilst I criticise my own Government’s failure to take some action in the 3-week period from the date on which the newsmen were re- ported missing until that Government lost office, also in fairness must criticise the inability of this Government to follow through the story about the fate of those journalists whose only purpose in being in East Timor was to report the news to the outside world. That, to me, does not constitute any sort of crime. So it was against the background of those events in 1975 that constraints were placed upon supporters of the previous Government. Constraints were placed upon those members of the Labor Party who in this place repeatedly asked questions of former Senator Willesee who, in his judgment at that time, considered that he should have taken the stand that he did take. It was a most unsatisfactory stand. It was a stand taken in the light of the circumstances at the time, but in retrospect now it has been proved to be a stand of weakness.

It will behoves spokesmen for the Government to suggest that they would have done anything different in respect of the advice that was being given to Mr Whitlam and Senator Willesee at that time. A deputation, including a number of members ofthe Labor Cabinet, spoke to Senator Willesee in the early hours of one morning in early November last year. The deputation pointed out to him the obvious facts about the Indonesian involvement in East Timor and about the failure of the then Government to take a principal position in accordance with our support for the principles of self determination. In response to a question that I had asked Senator Willesee some weeks previously he agreed to consider presenting to the Senate a statement which would set out the Government’s policy. When he finally presented that statement to the Senate we find that he, together with the Government, allowed advice from Mr Woolcott, our Ambassador in Jakarta, to misrepresent completely the Australian position with the Indonesian authorities.

What do we find? We find that the ministerial statement was altered by our representative in Jakarta. The paragraph in the statement which set out the Government’s position was not conveyed to the Indonesian Government by our Ambassador in Jakarta. Yet this question was raised yesterday by Senator Knight with Senator Withers. Senator Knight himself was a public servant. He was deprecating the fact that some criticism had been levelled at the Public Service. He said that we had no right or authority to so criticise a highly placed official in the Public Service. The fact is, of course, that there has been no denial that this gentleman did in fact take the unprecedented step of withholding from the Government to which he is accredited the views ofthe Australian Government.

Let us look at the circumstances. This was the time when even Senator Carrick was on his war horse in the Senate, asking questions and trying to stimulate and inflame public opinion about the problems that were developing in Timor. It was the time when Mr Fraser and Mr Anthony were trying to suggest that the events that were taking place in Timor had some sort of sinister communist connotation and when they were trying to suggest, therefore, that there should be some sort of passive attitude on the part of the Australian Government in this area. In the light of all these circumstances it was easy for an ambassador to take advantage of the situation and to try to keep from the Indonesian Government the clearly expressed view ofthe Labor Government that an act of self-determination was an integral part of the developments in that area.

What prompts me to speak on this matter is not only that I am concerned about the illegality of the act on Monday of this week in Dili when some chieftains who had been selected sat in a so-called assembly- a feudal structure- and decided unanimously, with Indonsian troops outside the building, that they would accept an act of self-determination and in fact would seek integration with Indonesia. Nowhere can we see any of the fundamental involvement of people. Nowhere can we see the carrying out of the wishes of this Government and the previous Government. Nowhere can we see a recognition of the wishes of the Portuguese authorities or of the decision of the United Nations. Yesterday, in reply to a question Senator Withers said:

  1. . and I include a condemnation of all those in the Opposition who may be noisy on the issue now but who were so quiet when they had the opportunity to do something about the situation.

I nail that lie. We did everything in our power to bring about a more definitive and stronger position in respect of the events that now are unfolding so tragically in East Timor.

I do not necessarily understand completely the philosophy upon which Mr Whitlam acted. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that he actually encouraged President Suharto to move in and incorporate East Timor into Indonesia. It may be that the Australian Government was dilly-dallying, if you like, was not making up its mind correctly on the issue and was on the defensive. Senator Chaney is trying to interject. Because ofthe acts and refusal of the Opposition, of which he was a member, to accept the 2 decisions of the Australian people in 1972 and 1974 and because of its undermining of public confidence in the Government and not allowing it to run its proper course as part of the electoral processes in this country, surely the Prime Minister was entitled to some understanding of the position that he took. If in fact we find that Mr Whitlam has acted improperly in this matter, he will be dealt with not only within his own Party but also in the community itself. If any person in public life acts improperly in respect of the rights of nations or the rights of people, sooner or later he is brought to book.

What is the position in respect of Mr BjelkePetersen, who said that he had asked Indonesia to act against the Fretilin Government in East Timor? He admitted that he had urged President Suharto of Indonesia, before the invasion, to keep the communists out of East Timor. He confirmed that he had been in touch with President Suharto several times before East Timor was invaded by Indonesian troops. This pompous, arrogant, hypocritical person, who represents the conservative forces in this country, takes out of the hands ofthe Australian Government its right to make a determination about a foreign affairs issue. Let me pinch Dr Kissinger’s latest phrase: Mr Bjelke-Petersen can be described as a public soft-core warmonger. There is no other phrase that can describe this man. I think 1 might be prepared to join Mr Whitlam, even though I condemned Mr Whitlam for the statement when he made it, in saying that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is a Bible-bashing bastard. If we look at this statement -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)- Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw that remark.

Senator GIETZELT:

-I withdraw the remark only in deference to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and certainly not in deference to Mr Bjelke-Petersen. Honourable senators should read what he said in his Press statement. They should have heard him this morning on the radio program AM. He said that he would not hesitate to do what he did again. This man encouraged the invasion of a country which, for the first time in its contemporary history- since 25 April 1974- had the opportunity to enjoy some of the fruits of democracy and self-determination and to run its own affairs free of the colonial overlord that had held sway in the region for some 400 years. This man condones the murders and the atrocities that are taking place in that part of the world. He must be described as a vulgar person, as an uncouth person and as an undemocratic person, for expressing those sorts of sentiments, which go to the lengths of even condemning this Government because, to its credit, it failed to send a representative to Dili on Monday to that great farce and pantomime that was said to be the expressed views ofthe people of East Timor.

Any person who condones that sort of activity must put himself in the same pulpit as those in the 1930s, when Adolf Hitler used nationalism, communism and instability as the reasons for marching into Austria in 1934 and used those same emotive terms as reasons for marching into Czechoslovakia in 1936. We know the terrible aftermath of those tragic events. Surely we have to learn some lessons from this. By the tacit acceptance by the Australian Government, past and present, of the events that have taken place in Timor- the great tragedy is that this has not filtered through to the Parliament and to the Australian people- in fact we have strengthened the hand of the extremist groups in Indonesia. We have not strengthened the hand of President Suharto who, with all his faults and tendencies, represents a more moderate point of view in his own country. We have strengthened that group of generals who in World War II were fighting against Australia and the Allied cause and who, in addition to seizing West Irian when they did, now have succeeded in taking this important step of taking partial control of the territory of East Timor.

What were the options that were open to the Australian Government, what was the only link when a super power in the Asian region, Indonesia, marched across the borders of East Timor in October last year, murdering Australians in the process? When that power subsequently carried out a full scale invasion, what resources were left to the people of East Timor? They had a radio link with Darwin. What a puny little link it was. It was a radio transmitter with which they sought to convey, maybe, their point of view but with which they sought to convey to the rest of the world what was taking place. What did this Government do? On some pretext of illegality by way of an unregistered transmitter the Government closed the transmitter down at the very time that Mr Winspeare Guiccardi was in this region for the purpose of carrying out an on-the-spot investigation on behalf of the United Nations organisation.

We can read the report of Mr Harry’s pathetic, weak kneed, low posture contribution in the debate in the United Nations only last month, when the rest of the world was looking to Australia to take a principal position in respect of this region. They knew that we had an interest in the region and that up until then we had expressed some interest and humanitarian concern about events that took place in that part of the world. What did Mr Harry do? He took a low posture position. He took no initiative to see that the people of Timor were given the elementary opportunity to determine their own affairs. That was all they asked. They did not ask to be aligned with another power. They did not ask for aid. All they asked for was the right to determine their own affairs.

Another option was available to this Government. Certainly it was available to my Government when we were in office. I deprecate the failure of Mr Whitlam and his Ministers to have a discussion in the Cabinet room about East Timor. But I wonder whether any discussion on East Timor has taken place in the Cabinet of this Government. I wonder whether all members of this Government have approved of the aid program that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) announced on 14 April. After Mr Peacock’s visit to Jakarta he said that the Australian Government would be increasing the level of aid to Indonesia over the next 3 years. Whereas we as a Labor government had decided to give $69m to Indonesia over a 3-year period, this Government has lifted it to $86m. Two options were available to us. One was to ensure that the Portuguese authorities who still hold legal responsibility for the territory were given resources to assist in the policy of decolonisation. We can look at all that the Government did incorrectly in respect of the transmitter and what it did in respect of the aid program. Yet certain Government leaders try consistently to place the blame for these tragic events upon the Labor Government.

What attempt has this Government made to see that the United Nations decision is observed by the Indonesians? What evidence is there to suggest that we have conveyed to Indonesia not only our displeasure but also our determination to cut back our aid? Indonesia cannot survive without our aid program. Our Government statements, as good as they may be about the nonattendance at Monday’s farcical conference, are guarded, low key, muted and neutral at a time when we should be giving leadership. In Jakarta we have an ambassador who is an apologist for Indonesian actions.

I have to stand up and account for my actions and other members in public life have to account for what we say and do. Is it suggested that we have a class of citizens who are beyond the point of criticism and beyond the point of being responsible for the advice that they give to governments? Whatever Mr Whitlam ‘s weaknesses may have been in this matter, he was acting on the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs. We are entitled, when we see these critical and partisan statements being presented in this place, to know why the Government has not made a statement, not only criticising aggression but also exposing it.

When I spoke on this matter some weeks ago I mentioned to the Senate that I had received certain information. I was informed that information about the murder of the Australian newsmen was available on 16 October. An article in the Australian newspaper stated:

The Department of Foreign Affairs would not comment on Senator Gietzelt ‘s allegations in the Senate and referred all inquiries to the Department of Defence.

The Department of Defence authorities said that there was no radio transmitter at Shoalhaven. That is all that they did say which suggests that I just happened to have got my information wrong. They did not deny that the intelligence gathering agencies of this country knew about this. They just said that there was no such equipment at Shoalhaven for receiving such information. But what they did not say was that at Shoal Bay, near Darwin, there is a communications base. In fact, they knew this at the time that the order was given for the shooting and murder of the 5 Australian newsmen.

What has Mr Peacock done? I give him credit for some of the positions he has taken on this matter. But yesterday he presented to the House of Representatives the first phase of his report about the newsmen. The investigations were carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs. For God Almighty’s sake, they investigated themselves! I was in Senator Willesee ‘s office half a dozen times when these people told Senator Willesee that there were 50 000 refugees from East Timor in Indonesia. Yet we have now sworn depositions from witnesses to say that there were 20,000. Yet our Department was telling us that there was such a great quantity of refugees arising out of the seizure of power following the failure of the coup when the Fretlin movement took office in September last year. Only recently we have heard- and this makes the crime of Bjelke-Petersen so much greater- that young Timorese youths are being shot whilst protecting their sisters, their mothers and their girl friends from rape by the Indonesian invaders. Yet Mr Bjelke-Petersen on this very day is condoning and defending the Indonesians’ actions and saying that what he has already done in this matter he will do again. He is also criticising the weak kneed attitude that has been taken already by this Government.

Where is the United Nations representative? Why have we not provided facilities? Mr Peacock says that Portugal is delinquent. Portugal has been involved in political turmoil, as we were in 1975. Surely honourable senators opposite would not disagree that there was a certain amount of political turmoil in this country last year. One can understand the term ‘delinquency’ being applied but surely Australia has been delinquent too. East Timor’s people are the people who succoured, looked after and nurtured Australian commando troops for the whole of the Pacific war period. They lost 50 000 of their own people in the defence of our country. This is a country that is our nearest neighbour. Yet we wash our hands of this problem and say that it belongs to Portugal and that we cannot intervene or interfere. I am told that when a relief ship was suggested by the trade union movement and also by the Catholic Church the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs gave certain advice to the Indonesian authorities on how to handle the complex situation that would arise if the mercy ships got on their way into East Timorese waters.

I do not know who is right or who is wrong. I have read Mr Peacock’s statements and I have listened to Senator Withers. I am told that officers act not on their own initiative but on the initiative of the Government. If that is the case, let us find out whether there has in fact been any communication between the Australian Government and the Indonesian Government. What is happening in Dili itself? The very forces with whose representatives members of this Parliament spoke just over a year ago- UDT and Apodeti- have now been excluded by the provisional government and the act of incorporation is well on the way. One of the first acts of this Australian Government when it was officially elected was to reject the incorporation ofthe Baltic States into the Soviet Union because of the rights of the people. That is what it said, and that incorporation happened 35 years ago. Yet we retain friendly relations with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, we stand by and watch Indonesia incorporate East Timor. On 17 August, before this Parliament reassembles, that illegal decision which was taken last Monday will be ratified by the Indonesian Parliament. I make a plea to all honourable senators. There is little time between now and the formal Indonesian proclamation of integration. There is need for a determined campaign by all Australians- and that means all parties and all senators who have some understanding of the problem- by all those who value liberty and freedom and the rights of people, to see that this grave miscarriage of justice is not ratified and that the incorporation does not take place. We should right the wrong done to the people of East Timor.

We have not got a very good record in respect of our own people. We did practice genocide, but to our everlasting credit we have updated our thinking and started to do something about repaying the debt to our own indigenous people. I suggest that we have a debt to the people of East Timor. I suggest that the Government should use sanctions against the Indonesian Government, that we should suspend our aid program to Indonesia until it carries out the United Nations decision, until it agrees to abide by the decision made unanimously by the United Nations Security Council. If that is too much of a bitter pill for this Government to swallow, what about sending a special envoy? What about selecting some person from this country who is not associated with the Department of Foreign Affairs? What about insisting that we have an envoy-at-large in East Timor, with adequate protection from the United Nations, to report upon the real feelings of the people of East Timor and to come back and report to this Parliament? We have had special sessions of Parliament to determine things of less consequence and significance than the rights of people to determine their own affairs.

If we have any conscience at all and if we want to rectify the grave miscarriage of justice that is taking place, then I suggest that, although this matter does not affect our national security but does affect the rights of others, the initiative rests with this Government. Let us put aside my criticism of the Government and the Government’s criticism of the former Government. Let us accept the fact that we have all failed, because there is culpability on both sides. Let us recognise that we have a joint responsibility as ordinary people, not just as members of this Parliament, to turn back the clock and ensure that the people of East Timor have a free choice of selfdetermination; that Indonesia’s troops are withdrawn; that Indonesia carries out the promise it made to the United Nations, both in December last year and again in April of this year; that Indonesia is not allowed to thumb its nose at the world agency; and that the nations within this region take a stand in support of these fundamental principles.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-In Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2), which are before the Senate, I can find no reference to funding for cadets. I presume it is covered by the omnibus heading of ‘Salaries and Payments in the Nature of Salary to the Defence Forces’- unless, of course, the Government has no intention of its modified scheme of cadet training becoming operative before the end of November. I mention that point because on Tuesday I received a letter from a constituent which referred to Mr Killen ‘s statement that the

Government’s cadet scheme would be operated in 2 ways- first by the schools, and, secondly, under what Mr Killen called an open system, by which he seemed to be saying that the Government would give its imprimatur to the establishment of cadet units which were to be under the direct control of interested parties. The question raised by my constituent is whether or not the Government would be willing to give its imprimatur to cadet units which may be established, to use his 2 specific examples, by the National Civic Council or the Eureka Youth League. I wonder whether the Minister, in closing the debate, will clarify that constituent’s question.

The second matter I wish to raise concerns what would have been called, at any time between 8 months ago and 43 months ago, ‘jobs for the boys’. In the last fortnight we have seen 2 examples of people with very close associations with the National Country Party being appointed by Country Party Ministers of the present Fraser Government to highly paid sinecures. Today, of course, we had the announcement that Mr Harry M. Miller, who is well known as a prominent member of the National Country Party, and indeed was the director and architect of its publicity campaigns for the last couple of elections, has been appointed a director of Qantas. I recall that there was an enormous outburst of outrage pseudo morality, particularly in certain sections of the media and especially that section of the media controlled by Rupert Murdoch, when Mr Jack Egerton, a VicePresident of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and President of the Queensland Branch of the Labor Party, was appointed to the same position. I think it is reasonable to make the point that at least Mr Edgerton had by way of qualifications for that appointment a long and distinguished record of industrial relations and for that reason could have been expected to make a significant contribution to the efficient functioning of the Qantas board.

Mr Harry M. Miller, on the other hand- and I extracted this information from Who’s Who in Australia 1974 a. couple of hours ago- is a New Zealander, and his associations with the National Country Party are well known, as are his associations with the entertainment business. I do not know what relevance that would have to a position on the board of Qantas Airways. We find also that he is a member of the committee of the Equestrian Federation of New South Wales, a director of V. J. Byrnes, stock and station agents, of Manilla, New South Wales, and vicepresident of the Simmental Breeders Association. However distinguished Mr Harry Miller’s record may be in the area of entrepreneurial activities in the entertainment business, in concocting propaganda for the National Country Party or in breeding horses or cattle, it is not evident that he has any particular qualifications to hold the position on the board of Qantas.

The third question I want to raise, and there is a reference on page 31 of Supply Bill (No. 1) which I presume encompasses this matter, concerns an appropriation of $ 1.641m to the Australian National Gallery for expenditure on art purchases. I assume that purchases of paintings would be encompassed within that item. I add the information that in the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) on 20 May the Government announced that this was one of the few areas in which it was planned to increase the appropriation for the next financial year over the expenditure in this financial year. Specifically the Government stated that actual expenditure in this financial year would amount to $2.6m and forecast that expenditure in the 1976-77 financial year would amount to $3.5m, an increase of about 40 per cent. This was most unusual because in very few areas is the Government forecasting an increase in expenditure let alone an increase in expenditure of that magnitude.

I wonder whether this decision to allocate increased finance for that activity is in any way related to the fact that in less than 2 years some 26 works of art from the National Gallery have been loaned, presumably for an indefinite period, to Government House or, as was disclosed in answer to a question on notice asked by my colleague in the House of Representatives, the honourable member for Shortland, to the fact that in April, 7 paintings purchased as recently as February 1 976 are currently installed in the unofficial art collection which hangs at Yarralumla. I wonder whether the increased allocation which the Government has forecast in this area is in any way related to the penchant of the Governor-General and his lady for collecting art.

The final matter I want to raise follows on that raised by my colleague Senator Gietzelt who dealt at some length and with considerable skill with the question of Australia’s record in the political turmoil in East Timor over the last 12 months. Senator Gietzelt asknowledged that the previous Labor Government may not have done all it could or should have done to sustain peace in that area. Of course, he has also charged the Fraser Government with substantially exacerbating the pre-existing problem and with being indirectly responsible for the period of total neglect between 1 1 November and 13 December last year. In passing he mentioned the latest unsolicited contribution by the Premier of Queensland to the debate on international affairs. I have obtained the transcript of the Premier’s interview this morning on the radio program ‘AM’. Many members of the Senate would have heard it and it is pleasing to note once again that the Premier still speaks in the lucid style for which he has become famous. Among other things he said:

But on the other hand I want to let it be known that I have been trying for a long time to alert people to what is happening off our shores not very far from home and it is about time that we realised this.

He continued:

We could see it on May day -

I am not sure precisely what the Premier of Queensland thought we could see clearly on May Day but the inference is that we could see clearly on May Day what was happening off our shores not very far from home. He continued:

We could see it on May Day in the big cities in the processions, if there isn’t enough hammer and sickles and red flags flying around the streets, as we’ve seen it during election time to put a fire under people and to make them realise that they’ve got to choose people who are prepared to be alert to these things and be positive, be active, be interested.

From that gobbledegook I do not know what one is supposed to deduce when Mr BjelkePetersen refers to people who were allegedly waving hammers and sickles in the streets on May Day and then infers that they are the people who have to choose to be alert to these things and be positive, active and interested. I do not know whether that was his intention but so far as one can deduce any meaning from the gibberish recorded in this transcript that appears to have been the meaning. I suspect, however, that his intention was to endorse the views propounded by, among others, Mr Anthony and Mr Fraser, prior to the dissolution of Parliament last year.

Senator McLaren:

– They all have great war records.

Senator WALSH:

– They all have a great war record, as Senator McLaren has said, but like so many armchair patriots they appear to be starting from the great spiritual Leader of the Liberal Party who founded the Liberal Party in 1944 and who, as Sir Earle Page pointed out to the Parliament in 1941, was an officer of the Citizens’ Military Forces at the outbreak of the First World War and in 1915 resigned his commission. Perhaps that is evidence of the old dictum that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I suspect that Mr Bjelke-Petersen ‘s intention was not to provide an accolade for those people who were waving hammers and sickles in the streets but to endorse the view propounded last year by, among others, Messrs Fraser and Anthony, that the Commos were about to establish a base in East Timor, that we should invade East Timor or at the very least encourage the Indonesians to invade East Timor. That is precisely what Mr Bjelke-Petersen acknowledges he did. The interview continued:

I have got no scruples in relation to anything that I have said in connection with the security of Australia -

Many people no doubt would agree with that statement too, with the qualification deleted. The interview continued:

Well the position of course was quite plain and quite evident that the- like it happened in so many other places, with the local support that we’d have another Angola, another some of these places, and another Cuba ultimately.

Whatever that means-

And I think we ought to be thankful to President Suharto for the action that he took, otherwise we would have had another ultimately, in a very short space of time, a well established stronghold-type of Cuban base with the Communists in control.

I am not sure from that whether Mr BjelkePetersen was suggesting that ultimately we would have a well established stronghold-type of Cuban base with the Communists in controlwhatever that means- or that we would have a very well established stronghold-type of Cuban base with Communists in control in a very short space of time; or whether Mr Bjelke-Petersen changed his mind very quickly from deciding it would be achieved ultimately to it would be achieved in a very short space of time or almost immediately. The ABC interviewer, Peter Cave, commented in these terms:

You mentioned Cuba, but a lot of people in Australia are saying now that it is more like the Nazi invasion of Poland, what’s happened.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen said:

That’s the ones of course who would like to have seen another type of philosophy or another way of living established there. No. President Suharto is a man whom I respect and whom I admire the stand he has taken against Communism right from the very beginning.

Implicit in that statement, I suppose, is the endorsement of the murder, and I use that word advisedly, of between 300 000 and 500 000 Chinese after President Suharto took control of Indonesia in 1965.

I am pleased that Senator Wright is in the chamber because he is a man with a long and distinguished interest in matters constitutional and I raise this next matter as a senator from Western Australia. When my State joined the Federation, as anyone with more than a passing knowledge of Australian history would know, there was some reluctance on the pan of Western Australia to become pan of Australia. When it did join it was on the distinct understanding- not just an understanding but something that is explicitly spelt out in the Constitution- that section 51 placitum (xxix) of the Constitution would provide that the Parliament of the Commonwealth would have power to make laws pertaining to external affairs and, under placitum (xxx).to relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific. The point I make is that it has been quite explicit from the beginning that power to make foreign policy is vested in the national Parliament and not the parliaments of the States. Yet in 15 months we have seen 2 incursions into the area of foreign policy by this renegade Premier. In November 1974 and February 1975 he made 2 statements threatening the Japanese that unless they purchased Queensland beef, and he stipulated very clearly Queensland beef as though Queensland was an autonomous economic region, there would be no coal for the Japanese. Now we find that in October 1975 he was inciting and advising the Chief Executive of Indonesia to invade East Timor.

Twice in a little over a year this same Premier intruded into an area which is unquestionably the constitutional responsibility of the national government. We have heard a great deal from Mr Bjelke-Petersen over the last two or three years about alleged State rights as guaranteed by the Constitution- or Mr Bjelke-Petersen asserts that they are guaranteed by the Constitution. It is more than time that we heard something from his colleagues about Federal Government rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. It is more than time that those colleagues let Mr BjelkePetersen know that his incompetent bungling and incursions into the area of foreign affairs are not appreciated. Ironically enough, in today’s Australian we get a glimpse into Mr BjelkePetersen ‘s political morality.

Senator Cotton:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. One is endeavouring to be extremely patient and tolerant. I have listened to 2 speeches which bear not the slightest relationship to the Supply Bills. I wonder whether you might indicate to us whether you feel we are in a relevant area of debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)- Thank you, Senator Cotton. I suggest to the honourable senator -

Senator WALSH:

-Mr Acting Deputy President, may I speak to the point of order? I have specifically referred to the Supply Bills twice. Moreover, it is my understanding that it was the normal procedure of the Senate to allow an honourable senator to canvass a wide area of topics during the ‘ second reading debate on money Bills.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I suggest that, as we are trying to finish this program and as a lot of other honourable senators want to speak on other Bills, the honourable senator should wind up that part of his speech and see whether he cannot get back to relevant matters.

Senator WALSH:

– As it happens, the point that I was about to raise is relevant to Federal finances. I was about to read Mr BjelkePetersen ‘s comments from today’s Australian. He declared that the Federal Government should reallocate to the building industry some of the $ 12,000m which it planned to spend on defence over the next 5 years. He went on to refer to other designated areas of Commonwealth expenditure. He stated:

It seems to me that the Federal Government is stressing programs for groups in the community that have never supported private enterprise or non-Labor governments and are unlikely ever to do so.

Quite clearly the inference is that Mr BjelkePetersen believes that only those groups or individuals who support private enterprise and non-Labor political parties ought to be the recipients of Federal funds. I pose this question to responsible members of the Government: Does the Government repudiate that moral view of politics as expressed by Mr Bjelke-Petersen or does it intend to comply with that view and introduce a system which will require recipients of age pensions and similar welfare benefits to declare that they are supporters of the free enterprise system and ofthe non-Labor political parties before they receive those benefits? These 2 most recent outbursts by Mr Bjelke-Petersen only confirm a lamentable and well established pattern of behaviour. On many occasions he has misused the Queensland Parliament. The most recent and most scandalous event was on 7 December, or it may have been 9 December, of last year. He recalled the Queensland Parliament to a special sitting in order to libel by implication under parliamentary privilege every Minister in the previous Federal Labor Government. That was demeaning to the Parliament of Queensland. He has brought contempt upon that Parliament.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen has publicly endorsed the economic policies of the Australian League of

Rights as expounded by the Institute for Economic Democracy. This is relevant to the provision of Federal finance because there is an allocation in the Bill for grants to the States for agricultural purposes. The Institute is a front for the Australian League of Rights which, among other things has been furiously trying to persuade Queensland dairy farmers for the last 10 or 15 years that they do not have any deep seated economic problems, that all the Queensland dairy farmer needed 15 years ago was a sensible economic management and that if that happened the Queensland dairy farmer would be happy and prosperous for ever more, notwithstanding the low levels of production which are inevitably associated with dairying in areas where temperatures are consistently high. Mr Bjelke-Petersen circulated a nonsense economic document which he called the Petersen Plan and which attracted interest and support from fiscal cranks all around Australia. These fiscal cranks are spreading their nonsense among temporarily or permanently disadvantaged groups. This is not only objectionable to those who objectively seek or pursue truth but it is positively destructive in that it holds out false hopes to people who are already severely disadvantaged.

The time has certainly come when members of the same political Parties as Mr Bjelke-Petersen and members of the Party which support himthat is members of the Liberal Party and of the National Country Party of Australia- and who may have found it useful in the past to use him as a hatchet man should repudiate in the clearest terms this parliamentary maverick, this man who has the ethics and attitudes of a thug and the demeanour of a buffoon.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, I have listened to this diatribe and I thought to myself that the honourable senator may perhaps recall his need for good manners and behaviour. One ought to refer him now to standing order 418. I suggest that you might draw it to his attention.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator has had his attention drawn to standing order 418 by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think he is aware of it. I ask him to observe the requirements of that standing order.

Senator WALSH:

-I am not sure what standing order 418 states. I have finished anyway. I had sat down.

The PRESIDENT:

– It may be a good thing if I read the standing order. It states:

No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I suggest to you that the use of the word ‘thug’ in the Senate in reference to the Premier of a State is unseemly and improper. The standards called for here ought to be explained to the honourable senator.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I speak to the point of order. The honourable senator who was addressing the Chair referred to a meeting of the Queensland Parliament at which all sorts of imputations of improper motives were made. Some personal reflections were made against members of this Parliament and of the Cabinet. No action was ever taken by this Parliament to obtain some measure of order between the Parliaments. I think it behoves us to draw to the attention of Queensland members that there has been a special meeting ofthe Queensland Parliament at which were made false accusations and extreme imputations of improper actions against members of this Parliament. Somehow or other there should be a method of reminding those members of that. I think the Queensland Parliament is receiving a bit of rough justice.

Senator Cotton:

– If I may I shall tidy this matter up. I believe that we are the custodians of our own behaviour and of our own Standing Orders. We are not the custodians of behaviour in another House of Parliament. Its members are the custodians of that behaviour. We are directing ourselves to our own conduct and to our own Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– A point of order has been raised. It is so that this chamber has the obligation to maintain its own Standing Orders and to run its on affairs without transgressing those Standing Orders which direct the matter of procedure in this place. It is of paramount important that we observe those Standing Orders. Senator Walsh, will you withdraw the reference to ‘thug’ which you made in your speech?

Senator WALSH:

– Out of deference to you, Mr President, I will withdraw the word ‘thug’ if you deem it to be unparliamentary. In so doing, I wish to draw attention to what I see as being a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, have you withdrawn the word?

Senator WALSH:

– I have withdrawn the word ‘thug’. The Parliament of Queensland -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I want no further discussion of the matter. The point of order has been determined. Senator Walsh, please continue with your speech.

Senator WALSH:

– I will continue, Mr President. I will round off my remarks very briefly. The Parliament of Queensland consistently has been misused for the explicit purpose of libelling members of other parliaments. I believe that it is totally unacceptable that standards of conduct which are spelt out in the Standing Orders of the Senate should be used to protect those people -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, I have just read to you standing order 418 which states in part that no senator shall use offensive words against any House of a State parliament. I wish that you would not pursue the matter which led to the point of order being raised.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I rise to order. With due respect to your earlier ruling, let me say that you sought, in the normal way in which I think we all accept, to have Senator Walsh withdraw the use of a word which reflected on an individual in another parliament. He did that in an unqualified way. But surely that does not preclude him from commenting on certain aspects of behaviour in another parliament which are directed not only at this Parliament but also at individual members of this Parliament. It is a customary comment that has been made in the Senate on many occasions, and I believe with every justification. It has been said not only about members of the Australian Labor Party in other parliaments but also about members of the Liberal Party in other parliaments. Surely, if senators have a right, as you have indicated, to observe and maintain the rules of this Parliament, we also have a right to protect the rules of this Parliament from outside attack. I believe, with great respect to you, Mr President- perhaps Senator Walsh has made his point and we can leave it at that- that there is a measure of unfairness if he is to be precluded from making what is, in my view, a justifiable statement and a statement which has been made on many occasions in the past in the Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you, Senator Wriedt. Senator Walsh, will you connect your remarks to the Bills before the Senate?

Senator WALSH:

– I will round off my remarks with this observation: I believe that it is time the Senate gave attention to its Standing Orders and to amending them in such a way as would remove from the protection of those Standing Orders those people who fail to maintain a similar standard of conduct in other parliaments.

Debate interrupted.

page 2340

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of the Minister for Home Affairs, Personnel and Parliamentary Affairs, the Honourable Om Mehta, leader of a visiting group of members of both Houses of the Indian Parliament. On behalf of all honourable senators, I offer the members ofthe group a warm welcome to our Parliament and to Australia.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 2340

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1976-77

Debate resumed.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-Mr President, you may recall that at question time this morning I raised the subject of the appointment of the second Family Court judge for Tasmania. I asked the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), who represents the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) in the Senate, whether he would have a look at that question, which he agreed to do. I hope that the Senate will forgive me for rising at this late stage- I do not propose to pursue the subject at any great length- and taking the opportunity to raise the matter, which is of quite considerable concern in Tasmania at the present time and has received some prominence in today’s Press. The situation is that after we passed the Family Law Bill into law the proposal was for the appointment of 2 judges in Tasmania, one to be located in the southern part of Tasmania- in Hobart- and a second to be appointed to serve the area of northern Tasmania and the north-west of Tasmania. In due course a very eminent man of the law in Tasmania was appointed as the first Family Court judge in the southern part of the State. From the information which was passed to me today, as appearing in the Press, the appointment of the second Family Court judge was imminent. In fact, I think it was suggested in one newspaper in Tasmania today that the second appointment would be made within a couple of days.

Unfortunately, no doubt due to the efforts of the Government to curtail expenditure to the maximum extent, the second appointment was not made and that position remains vacant. Of course, the situation now is that, with the great amount of work that must be undertaken by the sole judge in Tasmania, he is grossly overworked. I believe that the situation has reached the stage where we are not getting the best service. I do not believe that under the circumstances we could possibly obtain the best services from that man despite his eminence in this area of the law. This is because to meet the requirements of the whole State now he has to undertake a substantial amount of travel which, as we all know, is wasteful of time and money. I am suggesting to the Senate that the failure to appoint the second judge is a false economy. I certainly hope that the Government will take a very quick look at this matter because the whole system of Family Court law, I believe, is slowing down and must continue to do so with the welter of work that the Court has been asked to undertake. I believe that the present judge is being grossly overloaded with work and is being treated very unfairly in respect of the amount of work which he is now obliged to undertake.

The cost of his operations must be increased substantially without achieving the purpose of the Family Court, namely, to deal with all those matters that come before the Court. I think that the present situation will seriously limit the ability of the Court to carry out its duties and responsibilities under the law. If the Government persists in that way, the inefficiency will continue. This will impede the excellent function of the Court, which received a very high level of support throughout the Parliament when the Family Law Bill was passed into law. There will be delays and hold-ups in dealing with these matters. I think that situation, if it were the case, would become quite intolerable. Of course, there is concern about a conscientious person undertaking this very deep responsibility. Although I am not a man versed in the law, I am sure that there would be on the shoulders of the person undertaking duties in this area of the law responsibilities that go beyond those one normally would expect to find in other forms of litigation. This is because he is dealing with family affairs and the personal affairs of people at the most sacred level of family life.

I suggest that the present situation- the failure to appoint that second Family Court judge -is a false economy. I believe that it ought to be remedied at the earliest possible date. If it is noi, the purpose of the law and the will ofthe Parliament in establishing the Family Court will be defeated and the whole system will reach a condition approaching malfunction. Since we have made the laws, I think that the people are entitled to have access to the Family Court. I strongly urge the Government to proceed with what was intended at the outset, namely, the appointment of the second Family Court judge for Tasmania.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to take a little of the time of the Senate to discuss the 2 Supply Bills specifically and the implications that are involved for the States. As we proceed now with these various Bills and the statements which are made by the Government, we are beginning to see emerge more clearly the picture of what the implementation of the Government’s intentions will mean.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What happened the last time Supply Bills were before the Senate?

Senator WRIEDT:

-Senator Douglas McClelland reminds us of what happened a few months back when we had a protracted debate on Supply Bills. Of course, we senators on this side of the Senate accept a more responsible position because we realise that the passage of these Bills is essential for the government of the country. However, we will be critical of certain aspects of them.

I want to direct my remarks mainly to Supply Bill (No. 2), which provides primarily funds for capital works and payments to the States. The funds made available by Supply Bill (No. 2) 1976-77 represent a cut of approximately 24 per cent in money terms over the funds provided in Supply Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 at a similar stage last year. This means a decrease in real terms of approximately 38 per cent. In the light of the current economic position, we do not understand why the Government should adopt this course.

We know from statements made yesterday that the Liberal Premier in Victoria, Mr Hamer, also is beginning to have second thoughts about this whole policy decision by the Federal Government. I quote what Mr Hamer said:

The thrust ofthe Commonwealth Government’s measures is to transfer resources from the public sector to the private sector.

My concern is that this should not go so far, so fast, as to ignore the vital interdependence between the private sector and the public sector, or that public sector expenditures be reduced before the private sector becomes able to take up a correspondingly greater share of the economy.

Much private enterprise does depend on expenditures in the public sector, and I am particularly concerned about 4 major fields of government activity-housing, sewerage, roads and urban transport.

The industry which can probably least afford cuts in government expenditure is the building and construction industry, as so much of that industry depends on government contracts especially in the non-residential area. All that this action will do will be to create further unemployment when that industry is on the downturn. We stress once again that we do not believe that an increase in unemployment is the way to reduce inflation. One of the most effective ways of reducing inflation is to get the excess capacity currently in industry up to full production.

I wish to turn my attention fairly briefly to the effect that these decisions will have on the States. It is obvious from the Supply Bills that the Government has commenced a process of transferring responsibility for certain functions to State governments. I notice that the ‘in’ word now appears to be ‘absorption’. The ‘absorption’ process, I take it, means that the States will absorb the responsibilities of the Federal Government in a whole range of areas but that in particular the States will absorb the financial burdens in a whole range of governmental activities.

An example of this is shown in Supply Bill (No. 2) 1976-77 in relation to the funds for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet where we find that Division 917 provides for payments to the States of $22.8m. In the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1975-76, these funds were provided as expenditure under the Children’s Commission Act. What is not said in the document is that the Government is handing over- or we assume that the Government is handing over- the functions of the Children’s Commission to the States. I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) in the course of his reply to confirm or deny that proposition.

Not only do we find that happening in this field; we see it in other fields as well. I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to areas in which similar action has taken place. I refer to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for which in Supply Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 the sum appropriated for payments to the States was $20.4m. If we take five-twelfths of the sum provided in this respect in Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) in 1975-76, we get a figure of $ 17.2m. But under this Supply Bill (No. 2) 1976-77 we find that the figure has been reduced to $ 12.9m. Another example of this is to be found in the Department of Construction. I made reference to the construction industry earlier. Five-twelfths of the amount provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 is $55m. This year the appropriation in Supply Bill (No. 2) 1976-77 is $44.8m.

I turn to the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development where there is a big reduction from the figure of $ 1 14m in the Appropriation Bill last year to $54m this year. I do not want to weary the Senate with more figures but I think it is vitally important that we understand the degree to which these policies are now taking effect. Over a whole range of areas these appropriations are obviously being reduced. I point out further that the South Australian Land Commission is now in a position to operate successfully on a commercial basis with only limited additional funds. Major development has been undertaken in the AlburyWodonga region. It could be anticipated that Commonwealth and State governments could expect to make substantial returns from this venture in future years. In any event, even if there are no substantial returns, the position of the Commonwealth is guaranteed because the States have to repay the loans. The tactics of the Government are quite clear. Specific purpose payments are down. The Commonwealth will transfer those activities to the States and leave them with the political odium that will result from either calling off the activities or having insufficient funds to do the work properly.

I have mentioned the position of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We find in relation to land development, sewerage and growth centres, etc., that many of the new outer suburban areas of Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane will be affected by these decisions. Living in those areas are many low income earners who will be affected again by these reductions in expenditure.

I know that time is a factor in this debate and I will close on this final note: At the last meeting of the Loan Council, as I mentioned in comments that I made here earlier this week, there were certainly matters known to the Federal Government in the course of those discussions which were not know to the State Premiers. As we have been reminded on many occasions by the Minister responsible for federalism, Senator Carrick, certain statements were made then by some State Premiers to the effect that they were satisfied with the arrangements. It is now becoming increasingly clear in statements by Mr Hamer yesterday, by Mr Neilson in Tasmania, by Mr Dunstan in South Australia and by Mr Wran in New South Wales that now that the picture is unfolding they realise the difficulties which will confront them as this plan proceeds. I expect and predict that the next Loan Council meeting will not be the pleasant little occasion that we witnessed last time. The Premiers of all States will come to the Loan Council this time fully briefed on the implications of this new policy. It has been a very brief honeymoon for the Premiers under this Government. I suggest that the honeymoon is well and truly over.

One Premier who, I suppose we can say, will support this Government’s proposals for additional State rights will be the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, who once again is making it clear that he is seeking a very large sum of money overseas- an overseas loan, mind you! I would have thought that no Liberal Premier would ever seek loans overseas again after what they had to say about us trying to do the same thing last year. However, Sir Charles Court is seeking a loan overseas of $ 1,000m. Presumably the loan proposal will be put to the Loan Council either at its meeting next week or at a subsequent meeting. It will impose a very large repayment burden on Western Australia probably involving $5,000m or $6,000m.

Well, if Western Australians are prepared to accept that level of commitment, that is entirely a matter for that State, but I am sure that Sir Charles Court has carefully considered the magnitude of the amount of money which he proposes to borrow. I hope he is not thinking in terms of this Federal Government coming to his rescue should he find himself in dire financial straits as a result of. such loan activity. It is not that I oppose the principle that Sir Charles Court is suggesting; it is just that it is a contradiction of all that was said last year about the efforts of the Labor Government to do similar things.

I end with the comment that once again these 2 Bills illustrate the manner in which we are moving inexorably towards a state or condition in this country in which the States will have to take an inordinate burden of financial responsibility. I predict that in the next year or two we will see a forced retraction by the Federal Government of its whole federalism policy.

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

– in reply- The Senate is, of course, debating Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2). These Bills deal with the forward expenditures of the Commonwealth from 1 July for approximately 5 months pending the passing of the Budget after its introduction. So they are temporary financial measures, as I think is well known. Therefore it came as somewhat of a surprise to many of us to find Senator Gietzelt launch into a vitriolic speech on Timor and its history- past, present and future. A number of assumptions, accusations, suspicions and propositions were expressed which, so far as I am concerned, left me completely cold. This is not a foreign affairs debate. Opportunities to have foreign affairs debates have occurred and will occur again. That is the proper place to raise such a matter. I do not accept any of the propositions which Senator

Gietzelt put forward. I do not believe a lot of the things he said. But I will put that to one side.

When the Supply Bills were first introduced I circulated amongst all honourable senators on both sides of the chamber the details of them as presented to me by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in order that they might be better informed as to how the variations had occurred. Those details are in the hands of all honourable senators. Senator Walsh made several comments about the Eureka Youth League cadets and asked whether they would be paid by the Commonwealth for their training. I do not know what sort of training he had in mind. I do not know whether it involved making bombs for throwing into doorways after dark. I do not know what he was talking about. I suppose somebody does.

Senator Walsh spoke also about the board of Qantas Airways Ltd. The Qantas board has traditionally tried to have available to it as directors a range of people with a range of talent. I am quite sure that Mr Miller will make a solid contribution, as have Mr Egerton and most other directors of that company in the past. I was also interested to observe that the Mr Miller whom Senator Walsh criticised very much was appointed by Mr Whitlam to be, I think, an adviser to his Government on bicentennial matters. So he may have some talents that have not been discerned by Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh also spoke about the purchase of paintings and whether the paintings purchased are going to be loaned to the Governor-General for display at Government House. The general story of Australia’s paintings collection is that it is in the galleries, it is in storage and it is made available to people in embassies overseas on a return with care basis. Some of the paintings are in Parliament House and some of them are in Government House. I do not think that that is a relevant matter for the purposes of this debate. Senator Walsh also referred to the position in East Timor. We had an argument about constitutional matters and foreign affairs responsibilities. We had some information given to us about the Premier of Queensland that we did not want. Senator Devitt talked about the appointment of a second judge to the Family Law Court. All in all the debate on these Supply Bills has left a great deal to be desired.

On the other hand, Senator Wriedt seemed to me to be devoting himself to some of the serious issues involved. He naturally and very properly dealt with some of the areas of significant change between this Government’s behaviour in financial matters and that of the Government of which he was a member. Most of the things he talked about were general issues. Some of them were of interest; some of them were basically incorrect. I suggest to Senator Wriedt that one of the ways in which to reduce unemployment is to reduce inflation first of all and not the other way about. Never mind, that is just a difference of view.

There were one or two things about which Senator Wriedt asked specific questions. His general matters were mostly- practically in every case- matters for consideration in the total body of consideration of the Budget. He talked about the Loan Council. He also talked about State borrowings that may occur. I think that I am correct in saying that no borrowings can take place without the approval of the Loan Council, which then assumes responsibility for those borrowings, and that under an arrangement the National Debt Sinking Fund is therefore appropriated for the purpose of repaying the loans. So there is a responsibility.

I imagine that the Loan Council would take a very serious view of anybody- the individual States and the Commonwealth- borrowing outside the total borrowing program and of the ability of the nation as a nation to succeed in repaying those debts. After all the reason for the existence of the Loan Council and the agreements which are consequent upon the Loan Council is that in the mid- 1920s Australia’s creditworthiness overseas was very largely destroyed by profligate, uncontrolled State government borrowings. Nobody wants to see that day return. That is why we have the Loan Council, that is why the Sinking Fund exists and, I imagine, that is why under any government it will be maintained and controlled like that.

Senator Wriedt:

– Does not the same principle apply under your new federalism policy?

Senator COTTON:

-I do not really think so. Senator Wriedt asked specifically for some information which the advisers do not have with them at the moment but which they can make available to him through me. I feel that I have to pay the same courtesy to him as he paid to me. I would therefore like to get that information for him if possible and make it available to him after the suspension of the sitting. For that reason I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2343

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, which is the first piece of legislation concerning industrial relations introduced by this Government. Since the Government came to office there has been a great deal of talk about its industrial relations policy. It is refreshing in one respect to find that something is now being done about it as a concrete expression of what that policy is meant to mean. In his second reading speech the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, has drawn attention to the fact that the Government has had a series of negotiations with the trade union movement about the legislation and that the legislation has in part been modified in line with those negotiations. There are one or two points to which, on behalf of the Opposition, I would like to draw the attention of the Senate. I would also like to point out our areas of disagreement with the policy that lies behind this Bill. For convenience, I suppose it is appropriate to deal with those matters in the order in which the Minister has set them out in his second reading speech. Might I say to the Minister that I have found it invaluable that there has been a summary of those points in his second reading speech to the Senate.

The main things that this Bill proposes to do are as follows: Firstly, in the Minister’s view, it proposes to rectify weaknesses in the present Conciliation and Arbitration Act regarding representation by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations of the public interest in relation to appeals and references. The purpose of these amendments is to give the Minister a right to intervene in proceedings where the public interest is, in his view, affected and, further, a right to have a say in relation to appeals and references to the full bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In the Minister’s words, ‘the Government does not have the opportunity to express a view as to whether there should in fact be an appeal or reference to a Full Bench in the public interest’. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill remedy this omission. It will, of course, still be for the Commission to decide whether to hear an appeal or reference in the public interest. The Government will be in no different position from any other party in this regard.

The Opposition opposes these provisions in the legislation and will vote against them. The reason why we oppose them is simply that we feel that it is an incorrect approach to industrial relations to have the Government intervene in proceedings to which it is not a party-that is to say employers and employees in an industry are each placed in a position where they understand the particular nature of the industrial dispute that they may be engaged in and they understand the nature of the industry and all the circumstances that relate to it. The point that I am putting is, strangely enough at first sight, a rather private enterprise view on how the industrial relations system in this country should be conducted. Lest I am reminded of this fact by honourable senators opposite, let me say that it is common knowledge that a Labor Minister, the Minister for Labor and Immigration in the previous Government, suggested that similar amendments should be made to the Act by the Labor Government. I should say at the outset that that was done in the context of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission having fixed a policy of wage indexation as a decision of the Commission. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission then asked the former Minister: What are you going to do as a government to ensure that the guidelines that we have laid down are carried out?’ That was the tentative response which was not proceeded with.

That is the position which this Government has now adopted, but it has adopted the position in an entirely different context. It has adopted the position in the context not of a request from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to do something about enforcement of guidelines but of a situation in which it has embarked upon an economic policy which involves a reduction in real wages for those who are subject to the awards of the Commission. In spite of an election promise that wage indexation would be supported by the Government, which was made by Mr Fraser in December last year, a quite open attack has been made on the principles of full wage indexation. So it is an entirely different context in which this Government seeks the right of intervention and appeal in proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It does this in an area which has traditionally been the preserve of the parties engaged in the industry in question. That is the major objection which we have to this legislation.

There is an accompanying objection. This Bill gives the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations the right to be represented by counsel without the leave of the Commission. That is to say, the Minister will have the right to appear before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, represented by counsel, without the leave of the Commission. That is a departure from everything which has previously occurred in the Commission. It is undesirable from the point of view that if a party intervenes as of right, that is to say, if the Minister intervenes as of right, he has a completely different status in the proceedings of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from people who have to seek leave to intervene and who do not intervene as of right. That is the position of the Opposition in relation to the first point set out in the Minister’s second reading speech. We will vote against those provisions of the legislation.

The second point to which the Minister referred relates to an amendment contained in the Bill which provides that in Full Bench proceedings the Commission must have regard to the state of the economy and the likely effect of any award. It refers specifically to the level of employment and inflation. This is a piece of window dressing and hocus pocus. I hope that it does not reflect the ignorance of the Government about the role of the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. One can go right back to the period after the Second World War and follow through the basic wage cases, the margins cases and the national wage cases which took the place of basic wage cases, and one will find that in every one ofthe decisions in those cases the Commission has been asked by the Government and by the parties, be they employers or unions, to have regard to the state of the economy. In every decision without exception, the Commission has said: ‘In considering the submissions, in arriving at our conclusions and in giving our decision we have had regard to the matters put to us about the state of the economy and, of course, the level of inflation’. Everybody knows that in the national wage cases in the last few years the Commission has said these things again and again. It has been asked to have regard to these matters and it has had regard to them. In the Opposition’s view this provision is sheer window dressing. We will vote against it because it is unnecessary verbiage. I will spend no more time on it than that.

The third point in the Minister’s second reading speech relates to the amendments contained in the Bill to ensure ‘that every member of a union and employer organisation has a real opportunity, without intimidation, to choose who should conduct the affairs of the organisation’. I refer to those words specifically because they are somewhat provocative and have no support whatsoever. There is not one tittle of evidence in the Minister’s second reading speech to indicate that members of unions or employer organisations do not have a real opportunity to choose now. There is not one tittle of evidence to indicate that any members have been subject to intimidation during union ballots. I agree that if we want to go back to the late 1 940s or even the early 1950s we will find that there was substantial evidence to indicate that members of certain unions may have been subject to intimidation by one side or another, but there is no evidence in the Minister’s second reading speech or in the debate in the House of Representatives or in any other allegations to indicate that there has been intimidation and so on in the conduct of union ballots.

The Government hopes that the introduction of what it calls secret ballot legislation will have the result of involving members of unions much more in the conduct of ballots, and that the consequences of that will be that certain union officials who may be unpalatable to the Government will be so regarded also by members of their unions and there will be a consequent change in the composition of the boards of management and the officials of unions. The present legislation provides that members of a union who desire a ballot to be conducted by the Industrial Registrar can petition for a ballot. This requires 250 signatures or 10 per cent of the membership, whichever is the lesser number.

Senator Harradine:

– Five per cent.

Senator BUTTON:

– I am indebted to Senator Harradine. The figure is 5 per cent. The provision has been used from time to time but one cannot, I suggest, legislate against apathy in this way. If people do not want to petition for a ballot one must assume in a democratic society thai they do not want to do so for the very valid reason that they are content with the union officials they have or with the candidates Ibr an election; that they are content with the present system. Onemust assume that to be so. Indeed, there is no reason to assume otherwise. It is desired that the present position should be replaced by a position in which ballot papers will be forwarded to all members of unions, and a secret postal ballot will take place. It is my view that some unions will welcome this legislation and find it convenient because it is accompanied by the undertaking that the Government will pay the costs of such ballots if they are conducted by the Industrial Registrar or the Commonwealth Electoral Office. Many unions are already taking advantage of those provisions as they exist in the present Act.

The point we seek to make about the legislation is that it seems to us and to some unions to be an unwarranted interference in the affairs of the unions. The provisions in force at the moment appear to work satisfactorily. The assumptions underlying the proposed changes, that as a result of this legislation somehow there will be a dramatic change in results of union elections, are in our view totally unwarranted, totally unproven and unlikely to be fulfilled. The fact of the matter is that the factors which motivate people in union elections are vastly different from the factors which motivate people in national elections. We believe that to be the position. As I have said, nonetheless we do not think that, insofar as most unions are concerned, the provisions will be particularly onerous. We just think they are mistaken.

The next point referred to in the Minister’s second reading speech is the limitation of the term of office of office bearers of organisations to a maximum of 4 years. So trade union officials can be elected for a term of 4 years and no longer under this legislation. We understand the period of 4 years to be a compromise arising from the negotiations between the representatives of the trade union movement and the Government. The unions, in fact, suggested 5 years and the Government 3 years; and the compromise was 4 years. There is something to be said for the term of office of a trade union official being prescribed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, because for years there has been litigation in the Industrial Court about what union rules should provide as to the term of office of a union official and about what is an appropriate period for a union official to hold office. The Court has said, in a confusing variety of decisions, that the term of office of officials in some unions is appropriately 3 or 4 years and in others 5 years. I believe that in the case of some unions the Court has said 6 years, but that may not be a correct recollection.

I think there is an advantage for unions in having a fixed term prescribed by the Act. That will get rid of many of the difficulties that have been occasioned by a great deal of litigation over the term of office of union officials. I would have hoped that the Government might have adopted a somewhat more imaginative approach in dealing with this question of the term of office of union officials. There is a very great reality of which politicians, by the nature of their profession, should be acutely aware. I am sure most of us are. Union officials also are aware of this, and thus they are put in a very difficult position. I refer to the fact that trade union officials constantly have the knowledge that they have to face an election in a prescribed period of time. That sometimes makes it very difficult for them, because they are subject to all sorts of pressures about the decisions they have to make which are of fundamental importance to the union, to the industry in which they are engaged and indeed to the country.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They have to deliver the goods.

Senator BUTTON:

-They are subject to these pressures and, as Senator Mulvihill- with his usual succinct summary of these things which I have difficulty in expressing- has said so eloquently, they have to produce the goods. That is a difficulty for them. As I say, I hoped that the Government would adopt a more imaginative approach to this matter. It is not just a question of defining a term of office; it is a question of trying to determine what happens to a union official who is caught in an unfortunate position and who with the utmost good faith has not delivered the goods. He is subject to these pressures because of the nature of the industry in which he works and so on.

The legislation provides for the appointment of an additional judge to the Industrial court. We are not opposed to this. We think it is a good thing. I will indicate briefly some dissent from the views expressed by the Minister as to why he thinks it is a good thing. I have done this in the Senate before and I will keep on doing so until either this Government or the next one does something about it. I refer to what the Minister said in the second reading speech when dealing with the appointment of an additional judge. He said:

Clause 1 1 of the Bill provides for an increase in the maximum number of judges ofthe Industrial Court. The Government is anxious that the person appointed to be President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be of the highest calibre, and thus it is appropriate that he should have judicial status. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has already announced that the Government proposes to bring the Act establishing the Tribunal into operation this year. The increase by one in the permissible number of judges in the Industrial Court will enable the President ofthe Tribunal to be a judge of the Court. He will also be available to take part in the work of the Court other than appeals on administrative matters.

The trouble with the Industrial Court is that it is a grab-bag for every legal’ bobtail that is thrown to it. The judges of the Industrial Court are required to conduct inquiries. They are required to conduct royal commissions. One of the judges of the Industrial Court now will be required to sit on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The judges are required to deal with restrictive trade practices, with the Northern Territory and with the Australian Capital Territory.

The industrial jurisdiction is a very specialised and important jurisdiction. It is a downgrading of the function and purpose of the Industrial Court to appoint judges to that Court and to use it as a sort of reservoir of judges to be farmed out to all sorts of other jurisdictions. That is what the Court is being used for. There is a decline in respect in industrial circles for the Industrial Court. There is confusion about its judgments. There is no understanding of where it is going. There is no confidence in approaching that Court seeking justice in an industrial situation not only because of political reasons- it has been a political court in the past-but also because of the calibre of the work done in that Court because it does not consist of specialists in this very difficult and important jurisdiction.

This Government again is making a mistake in using this Court as a place to which judges can be appointed and then farmed out into every imaginable legal jurisdiction and not giving proper attention to the very important work which the Industrial Court in fact is charged with performing under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We draw attention to this serious mistake which we believe the Government is making in relation to the appointment of an extra judge to the Industrial Court. It is not grasping the nettle on this question. It is continuing a bad practice into which it has fallen and indeed into which successive governments have fallen in the past. I remind the Senate of the views which Senator James McClelland and other distinguished senators put to the Senate last year on the role and functions of a Superior Court in Australia. I think Senator James McClelland summed it up very well after the Superior Court debate concluded. He said: ‘We won the battle, but we lost the war’. The tyranny of numbers prevailed again in relation to that. The Industrial Court now has been converted into a mini-inferior court- if I may call it thatwith the functions of the Superior Court being put upon it. I believe all the consequences of that to be disastrous for the industrial relations scene and the industrial jurisdiction in Australia.

I have indicated that the Opposition will vote against the provisions relating to representation by the Minister in appeals and references. The Opposition is opposed to the window dressing of requiring the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to have regard to employment and inflation as if it has not done so over many years. We also will vote against the provision relating to ballots. We think it is unnecessary, based on entirely false premises and an alteration which is not likely to succeed. We will not vote against the provision relating to the term of office of office bearers or organisations. We will not vote against the provision for the appointment of an extra judge to the Industrial Court. We would like very much to vote in favour of a much wiser policy in relation to that Court; but it is, of course, not available for us to do so in the context of this legislation.

I make just one other observation about the Bill. The Bill provides, in clause 13, for certain organisations, if the Industrial Registrar is satisfied, to conduct their elections in a manner which will not be prescribed by the new Act. That is to say, they will be able to conduct them at a particular place on a particular day without using the secret ballot provisions as they will be applied to other organisations. This is a concession made by the Government which is designed to apply to organisations like the Waterside Workers Federation. I think it is a sensible concession because organisations like the Waterside Workers Federation conduct their ballots on one day and in one place. Every member of the organisation stops work, I gather, and is able to vote in the one location in a secret ballot.

The interesting thing about that provision, which the Government has inserted by way of concession to organisations like the Waterside Workers Federation, is simply that it proves the very point which we make about the substantial amendments on secret ballots. If we look at the history of the Waterside Workers Federation we see it has conducted its ballots in that way for years. The Federation has not met with any objections from the present Government, nor did it meet with any objections from it when it was in opposition and wanted to take us to task about this legislation. It was always the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union that was singled out then. But to take the Waterside Workers Federation in my State, its members elect the most extraordinary conglomerate of officials in terms of political allegiance that one could possibly imagine. There are people on the executive of the Waterside Workers Federation in Victoria who represent the National Civic Council on the one hand and the Peking line Communist Party on the other. There are factional differences between Moscow and Peking and anarchists elected to positions on the waterfront. Everybody of all sorts of conceivable political positions are elected.

Senator Lajovic:

– No Liberals.

Senator BUTTON:

-No Liberals, which of course- Senator Georges- They would not have a

Liberal.

Senator BUTTON:

– I do not know. This is an extraordinary admission, is it not, from Senator Lajovic? Next time I talk to the wharfies I shall mention it to them but it is the honourable senator’s suggestion and not mine. The Waterside Workers Federation elects these people in its ballot situation, which is exactly the same sort of ballot situation as this legislation is designed to arrive at with all unions. This just emphasises the point which I made earlier, that is, that the assumptions underlying this legislation are wrong. Any examples which one can point to to support those assumptions in fact do exactly the opposite- they prove them to be wrong. The Waterside Workers Federation is a classic example of that situation. The Opposition will vote on these matters as I have indicated. In certain respects we commend the legislation but most of it we object to in the manner I have indicated.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to support the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill which is before the chamber this afternoon. I am somewhat disappointed to know that Senator Button and his Party intend to oppose some significant areas of the Bill because it seems to me to be a particularly responsible piece of legislation- a piece of legislation that has within it quite a marked measure of flexibility. In the consideration of any conciliation and arbitration legislation there has to be a great measure of concern, for it is probably one of the most, if not the most, complex areas of government. It is probably one of the most complex areas of relationship between government and employer and employee. Consequently it deserves and must receive from time to time an absolute maximum of sensible and responsible consideration.

It is my view that the Bill that is before this chamber does give evidence of a great measure of responsibility. It gives evidence of a great measure of discussion that has already taken place between the Government, the employers and the unions in these matters.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That has to come.

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes. One of the indications of the flexibility and the responsibility of this legislation is that those discussions are, in fact, continuing with the support of all parties involved. The purpose of this legislation is at least four-fold. In the first place its purpose is to give government the opportunity to express a view as to whether there should be an appeal or reference to a full bench of the Australian Industrial Court in the public interests. It seems to me extraordinary that Senator Button should object to this. I cannot imagine a more sensible or a more important circumstance to be considered by any court or by any commission than that of the public interest. Whatever part of a community or economy one belongs to, the public interest must be more significant than any single or individual part of the community or the economy.

Consequently an objection to having the right to express in those places the concern of the public interest seems extremely hard to follow. There are many occasions on which the decisions of lesser tribunals may indeed prove to have significant flow-on or leap-frogging effects throughout the industrial area of our economy. Indeed, in that circumstance they may well establish pace setter conditions. It would seem to me to be important, indeed imperative, that a government as the ultimate organiser and co-ordinator of an economy should have the right, indeed the obligation, to seek that any results and any recommendations of these tribunals, where considered necessary, should be referred to the full bench. That really is all that the Government seeks in this particular part of the legislation that confronts us.

Senator Button seemed to think that matters of inflation and employment were matters that were considered anyway by the Commission and by the courts involved. Of course, there is nothing at all to stop those organisations from considering matters of employment, matters related to inflation and the general circumstances of an economy. But what this legislation seeks to do, I suggest, is merely to emphasise the necessity of those organisations- those courts and commissionstaking into account a whole range of areas that relate to employment, inflation and other circumstances in the total economy of this country.

This legislation is in no way making any reflection on the capacity of the commission concerned. I believe that it is merely adding a proper measure of emphasis. It is merely seeking to ensure that the parties that finally come down with decisions and make deliberations have had every opportunity to be fully aware of all the relevant facts. Surely the Government, as an elected legislator, has the right, and indeed, as I believe I said before, the obligation, to present on behalf of the people in the public interest all those attitudes and all those matters that are relevant to the state of the economy, which surely has to be taken into account in the final deliberations of these particular commissions or courts.

Clause 6 of this amending Bill is the clause which widens the provision for the full bench to take account of likely effects on the levels of employment and inflation. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that that is not a new concept. As long ago as 1953 the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia made the following observation in the railway case of that year. Sir Owen Dixon said:

While an arbitral tribunal deriving its authority under an exercise of the legislative power given by section 51 . . . must confine itself to conciliation and arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes including what is incidental thereto and cannot have in its hands the general control or direction of industrial, social or economic policies, it would be absurd to suppose that it was to proceed blindly in its work of industrial arbitration and ignore the industrial, social and economic consequences of what it was invited to do or what, subject to the power of variation, it had actually done.

I quote those words of the late Sir Owen Dixon merely to indicate that back in 1953 there was an awareness by an eminent man of the law of the necessity for a court to involve itself with the social and economic consequences of the judgments that it made.

Again, I emphasise that the basic purpose of this legislation is to improve and to increase the emphasis that must lie on the public interest and on the representation to the deliberating commissions of the effect of certain actions on the economic and social order in which we live. Today probably more than at any other time we recognise the social contract as being of immense importance in industrial relations. If that is to be the case and if we are to succeed in that area in Australia, then we have to be sure that the law under which we operate, the legislation we pass, is such that it will enable those who deliberate on matters of social contracts to be aware of the reaction across the board, across the whole canvas of activity, of the things which they bring down and of the regulations they make. It is of extreme importance, particularly in those circumstances, that matters relating to employment and inflation in the economy should be matters of which a court takes considerable notice in arriving at its decisions. I suggest that, in the long term, the capacity of this Government or of any government to operate in the enormously important areas of defence, social security, education or local government, across the whole canvas, is directly related to its capacity to control inflation. It is with that view in mind that this legislation places such emphasis on the necessity to promote matters relevant to the economy, in this case matters relevant to employment and inflation.

I was somewhat surprised that Senator Button opposed the concept of the secret postal ballot, which is the next area of involvement in this legislation. It seems to me that the great majority of Australians, indeed the great majority of the rank and file members of the Australian trade union movement, are concerned in real measure that they should have the opportunity to elect by a secret postal ballot those who represent them. I believe it is essential that they should have the opportunity, unpressured, to arrive at decisions which ultimately bring forward their representatives in the various organisations and in negotiations with governments. Under this legislation there is a choice in relation to the ballot system. Ballots may be controlled by the Commonwealth Electoral Office, in which case there would be no charge on the unions. In itself, that must hold within it a measure of attraction because, so far as I can ascertain, the conduct of union elections is an extraordinarily expensive exercise. I understand that last year the Australian Railways Union conducted a ballot at a charge to itself- in other words, to its members- of some $40,000-odd, and of course that union is not one of the really big unions.

This Bill contains a provision that secret ballot elections may be conducted within the structure ofthe union, and I believe that that is a sensible and important provision. Within certain guidelines, it is probably quite unnecessary for us to prescribe or attempt to prescribe the actual structure of a trade union. The immensely important thing, and I belie ve that this is the aim of the legislation, is to ensure that all members of a union are able, through whatever structure they may choose as a majority within the union, to express their attitude to the various people who nominate themselves to be their representatives. It is important that they are able to express that attitude in a totally unpressured way. That is the objective of this legislation, and I believe it is an objective which is fundamentally desired by the great mass of Australians, certainly by the great mass of Australian unionists. In this context, I refer to clause 1 3 of the Bill, which provides for a new section 133aa. Sub-section (3) of the new section states in part, and I believe this is significant: the Industrial Registrar may, . . . exempt the organisation, in respect of an election, from the application of this section if he is satisfied that the conduct of the election in accordance with those rules-

  1. is likely to result in a fuller participation by members of the organisation in the ballot than would result from a postal ballot; and
  2. will afford to members entitled to vote an adequate opportunity of voting without intimidation.

I cannot see why there should be any real or sensible objection to that sort of provision. I understand that in some unions and in some circumstances that as much as 90 per cent to 95 per cent of union membership can be found in three or four specific areas.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That would not permit the collegiate system to operate.

Senator SCOTT:

-I thank the honourable senator for mentioning the collegiate system. I will refer briefly to that later. The concentration of union membership in those three or four specific areas would enable a vote to be taken quite simply, and probably without the implementation of the postal ballot. Nevertheless, even in that situation, 5 per cent or 10 per cent or indeed all the unionists involved naturally would have the freedom to apply for a postal ballot and use it in that manner.

Senator Primmer:

– Would you apply the same criteria to farmers ‘ organisations?

Senator SCOTT:

– The farmers’ organisations arrive at their own structure and it is that sort of structure which is important in the context of the trade union movement.

Senator Primmer:

– There are 2 standards, then, one for farmers and one for trade unionists.

Senator SCOTT:

-No, I do not agree with that. The point I was making is that the legislation which confronts us is aimed at perfectly reasonable and proper objectives and has a real measure of flexibility which indicates a responsible attitude of the Government. As Senator Cavanagh remarked a short while ago, we are concerned with further and continuing talks between employers, employees and government. That is as it should be because I do not believe that we will find a solution of permanency to any problem unless it is the result of compromise. This legislation will lead to the greater possibility, perhaps even the probability, of responsible compromise in this field of industrial relations which, as I said when I started to speak this afternoon, is probably more basic to the Australian economy and consequently to the whole of Australian society than any other single matter.

It is important to emphasise, as evidence of the confidence and determination of the Government and of the honesty of its endeavours, the implementation at this early stage of total tax indexation. Referable as it is to the value of real wages and salaries it is an indication of the determination that no stone will be left unturned in an attempt to bring about industrial relations which will enable our total community to realise its real potention. It is the objective of this legislation to make sure that there is no rigid dictatorial view of union operations. The purpose of the legislation surely is to establish a situation in which the rank and file unionist wherever he may be can vote according to his conscience without pressure of any kind from groups within or without.

Senator Mcintosh:

– He does that now.

Senator SCOTT:

-This is the objective of this legislation. Senator Mcintosh says that we do that now. However, I recently noticed that the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union in electing its executive had 2 per cent of its membership vote. I am not sure that that would be as the total membership would have desired but that is the circumstance. It does not seem to me or to the great mass of Australian unionists or Australians in general that a representative elected by 2 per cent of the people is necessarily a satisfactory representative. There was brief mention of the collegiate system. It again is evidence of the determination of this Government to seek an ultimate and responsible solution to the industrial relations problem that there is to be further consultation on the collegiate system. It may well be that in certain circumstances referable to the far flung membership of unions the operation of a collegiate system on a regional or State basis would succeed in giving truer representation across the board. I refer to the statement of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in regard to the collegiate system when he said that the Government accepts in principle a form of collegiate voting, but the system adopted must be consistent with its policy of the fullest participation by members.’ I do not believe that there can be an objection to that sort of view. It is merely stating in so many words that unions must find a way of achieving for their total membership the right actively to elect their executives. The structure of their union and the manner in which they do this within the postal voting system is certainly their own business.

I draw my remarks to a close by mentioning a couple of items that are covered by this legislation. They are 2 items on which I can be brief because they are items of which Senator Button has indicated he approves. In the first place there is the recommendation that a period of 4 years should be the period for which executive members are elected. This of itself is purely and simply a compromise and therefore may well have a measure of permanency about it. Secondly, the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is to have the status of a judge and this, Senator Button also agrees, is a proper and reasonable provision. It will entail the election of one more judge to the panel and will create the proper status of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I believe that the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill is one that exhibits a great measure of flexibility and the great determination of the Government to come to terms with industrial problems by talking them over and by compromise with unionists. It is only by compromise, which is the essence of this legislation, that we shall succeed in establishing an industrial climate which will enable this community to climb out ofthe trough into which it has fallen.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
South Australia

– My contribution to the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill will relate mainly to the provisions for compulsory postal secret ballots and the limitation on the term of office of elected union officials. However, before I address myself to those clauses I would like briefly to refer generally to the Bill. The Government is introducing legislation which it claims it cannot give effect to. It is claiming that it does not intend to proclaim the legislation other than minor provisions relating to the appointment of an additional judge to the Commonwealth Industrial Court until it has had a chance to hold discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. If this Bill is so important that it is rushed into the Senate during the dying stages of a long, weary and uneventful session it should also be necessary to rush it over to the Governor-General to be proclaimed.

So it appears that the Government is not genuine in its attempt to improve industrial relations but is introducing this legislation only to provoke the unions into confrontation so that later on when the Government finds its economic measures are failing to get results it will be able to blame the trade union movement. It is quite obvious that the Government will enter into discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions with a closed mind, otherwise it would have delayed the legislation until after the discussions. This action by the Government makes a mockery of the claim that it wishes a free and frank discussion with the ACTU. When the legislation was introduced there was a very important omission, due to the haste with which the legislation was prepared. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in the House of Representatives had to amend the Bill to provide that all union members would have the ability to have a postal vote in union elections. The Bill as introduced did not define what a postal vote was. The Government, in its haste to provide in the Bill for what it has been telling the people of Australia it would do if it were elected to Government last year, had forgotten.

The Bill provides that the Minister shall have the right to intervene in matters coming before the Commission, even matters in which the Government is not a party. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that the Minister shall have power to appeal against a decision of a single member of the Commission whether it is in an arbitrated decision or a consent award or even the certification of an agreement. The intervention by the Minister destroys the long accepted view that persons and organisations not parties to a dispute have no right of audience at all before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The prime objective of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as limited by the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth, is in respect of the prevention and settling of industrial disputes. I maintain that if this legislation is ever assented to, which I very much doubt, it will not be in the best interests of industrial harmony in Australia. It will be to the contrary. I believe that industrial disputes will increase. The Government should not be introducing this legislation at this stage because in 1975, according to statistics, there was a reduction in the number of days lost through industrial disputes when compared with 1 974.

Senator Wright:

– It was still the second highest year since 1 929.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– I am well aware of what Senator Wright has said because that also is in the statistics from which I am quoting. Nevertheless, it is an improvement on a very high year of industrial disputes. I maintain where there is an improvement in the number of days lost through industrial disputes, for whatever reason, the Government should not introduce legislation which will only provoke the unions. That is what this Bill is doing. The Government is now amending the Act by including provisions which will cause industrial disputation. The effect of these clauses will be to force long drawn out disputes. They will also encourage the unions to bypass the Commission and not to have any agreements certified. Consent variations to awards need not go to the Commission. There is no doubt that the unions will take the course of action which they think necessary. The legislation has been deliberately introduced to assist the Government in its aim to reduce real wages and its attempt to contain inflation. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) stated:

Sustained recovery can hardly come about as long as real wages are maintained at the inflated level which, over the past 3 years, they have attained.

As a Labor senator I am proud of the last 3-year record of the Australian Labor Party in office. For once, in a very long time, the workers in Australia had a real increase in their wages. Prior to that any increase they achieved was taken away by increasing indirect or direct taxes.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

-Before the suspension of the sitting of the Senate for dinner I was referring to a statement by the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, that wages had to be retained at a reasonable level. It seems to me that the Government is beginning to panic because there have been no real signs that there is any slow-down in inflation or that there is any major reduction in unemployment. The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, during events leading up to last year’s election, continually criticised the Labor Government for its economic policies. He also made several promises. He promised that if the Government were elected it would support wage indexation, restore the superphosphate bounty, reduce unemployment and reduce inflation. He made many other promises which so far the Government has been unable to fulfil.

Contrary to the promises made by Mr Fraser during the election campaign, at the first hearing before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on wage indexation he reneged on his election promise. He argued for only a 3.2 per cent increase in wages when the consumer price index increase was 6.4 per cent. However, the Commission on that occasion handed out a severe blow to the Government by rejecting completely the submission put forward by Mr Fraser in his attempt to contain wages and granting the full 6.4 per cent increase. Again, during the recent national wage case the Fraser Government intervened before the Commission in an attempt to persuade it to grant a 3.2 per cent increase- the percentage increase in the consumer price index for the previous quarter- only on wages up to the minimum wage. Again the Commission rejected the Government’s submission and granted the applicant, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the full 3.2 per cent increase it sought. However, the Court did not grant that increase in accordance with the application. It imposed a cut-off point which it set at the level of average award wages.

I believe that this Government will try to put the blame on the trade union movement if it fails-there are ominous signs that this will be the case- to fulfil its election promises to contain inflation and to reduce unemployment. It will try to put the blame on the trade union movement for strikes and election ballots that do not please the Government; ballots in which the wrong officials are elected or officials are elected who place too much importance on conditions and the welfare of the members of the union. The Government will try to put the blame on the unions as an excuse for not having a formula that will reduce inflation and also reduce unemployment. The unions are very perturbed that this legislation is only a gimmick. It is being passed through the Parliament for a purpose, namely, so that at a later stage the Government may have it proclaimed if it finds that the measures it has introduced- slashing expenditure here and there and at the same time giving huge handouts to primary industry by way ofthe superphosphate bounty only because it was an election promiseare not effective. However, the Government does not worry about the election promise it made to support full wage indexation. As I have stated previously, Mr Fraser very quickly reneged on that promise which he made during the election campaign.

There are 2 matters in the legislation to which I want to refer. Firstly, the Bill contains a provision that there will be secret postal ballots. So far, no one from the Government side- the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, or any other government memberhas given any reason why the Government wants compulsory secret postal ballots. It is obvious from a reading of the second reading speech and from the comments made by honourable senators that the union the Government is out to get is the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. Reference is made in the Minister’s second reading speech to the elections of that union and the percentage of members who vote in those elections. I believe that there are ample provisions in the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act for members of any organisation registered under that Act to apply for a ballot to be conducted by the Registrar or the Australian Electoral Office. I refer to regulation 139 of the Conciliation and Arbitration regulations. It states, in part:

For the purposes of section 170 ofthe Act, the number of members of an organisation or branch by whom a request under that section for the conduct of an election for an office in the organisation or the branch, as the case may be, may be made is two hundred and fifty, or one-twentieth of the total number of members of the organisation or the branch, as the case may be, whichever is the less.

Let me cite the case of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union which has the highest membership of any trade union organisation in Australia. It is estimated that that union has 1 75 000 members. Under existing regulations made under the legislation, the union is required to obtain only 250 signatures to petition for a secret postal ballot. Surely it would be quite easy to obtain 250 signatures from members out of a total membership of 1 75 000- only 0. 1 4 per cent of the total membership- requesting that the elections for officers of the union not be conducted under the terms of the rules of the union but be conducted under the terms of this Act. It does not matter, under this legislation for compulsory postal ballots, whether those ballots are conducted by the Registrar, the Australian Electoral Office or the Minister himself. I venture to say that, whether that election be for the officers of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union or any other union officials who are giving a service to the members, the result of the election would remain exactly the same. I am not concerned with whether only 2 per cent or 95 per cent ofthe membership of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union voted at an election. I venture to say that, irrespective of how the ballot was conducted, whether it be under union rules or under the control of the Registrar, the result of the election would be the same.

The reason why I say this is that any trade union official in Australia elected to office and doing his job in the interests of the members whom he represents has no worries about how a ballot will be conducted. It is only the officials of unions who have been elected by some devious means through the rules of their organisations and who do not carry out the objectives of their members and look after the welfare of those members who have anything to hide, who have any need to worry and who need to seek protection from the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to retain their jobs. I ask the Minister in his reply to explain to the Senate why urgency exists requiring the introduction of legislation enforcing compulsory postal ballots in respect of union elections when already adequate provisions are made in the regulations and the Act of which any union member may avail himself or herself.

The last reference that I wish to make to the Bill now being debated concerns the provision seeking to limit the term of office of any elected official of a trade union. We have been given no reason at all why this should be done. As Senator Button mentioned here tonight, several applications have been made to the Commonwealth Industrial Court regarding the tenure of office of elected officials of trade unions. On all occasions the Court in its wisdom has rejected such applications and has stated that in its belief the rules of the organisations do not contravene the provisions ofthe Act.

Let me refer to a recent case between the Australian Workers Union and a member of the South Australian branch of the AWU. This case followed a change in the rules of that union. The term of office which had been 3 years was increased to 5 years. At the convention at which this change in the rules regarding the term of office was agreed to, I opposed the motion proposing the change. Nevertheless we cannot ignore a determination made following an application before the Commonwealth Industrial Court. I refer to the case of Watson v. the Australian Workers Union in which the judges heard evidence on a challenge to the decision by the Australian Workers Union to vary the term of office from 3 years to 5 years. This case is reported in the Federal Law Reports. At page 357, Mr Justice Joske said -

Senator Wright:

– Which year?

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

-It was 1967. At page 357, Mr Justice Joske said:

In order to determine whether the period during which a union official holds his office is so long as to be unreasonable within the meaning of section 140(l)(c) of the Act, the court must consider all the relevant circumstances affecting the union, including rules of the union which bear upon the matter, whether or not they are being challenged. It must consider the rules as they stand, and is not entitled to take into consideration the possibility that the rules may be altered or guess at what the alteration could be or what effect such alteration could have. The size of the union, the extent of territory and number of occupations and awards relating thereto which it covers and the period of time members retain their membership are important considerations, lt must be borne in mind that the officers ofthe union have to carry out important administrative functions and need to be strong enough and experienced enough to be able to control their members so that awards will be obeyed.

Mr Justice Joske continued:

These are all matters to be taken into account from the point of view of stability in the administration of union affairs, which is a most important element for consideration in deciding upon the reasonableness of the period of an official ‘s term of office.

He concluded his remarks by stating:

I have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the size of the union, the duties of its elected officials, and the control over them by members as provided by the rules, their five-year term of office is not unreasonable, notwithstanding that it is a substantially long period of office for persons who are elected representatives.

Senator O’Byrne:

-This legislation is trying to undermine that situation.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

-Exactly, Senator O’Byrne. That is exactly what it is trying to do. In the same hearing, Mr Justice Kerr as he then was- he is now our Governor-General- as reported at page 361 of the Federal Law Reports had this to say:

I have read the judgments of Dunphy and Joske JJ., and agreed with them that the five-year term of office provided for by the rules ofthe Australian Workers Union for holders of elective offices in the union is not unreasonable having regard for the nature ofthe union, its size, the many callings and industries it covers, its widespread geographical coverage, the great numbers of awards it obtains and administers, its complex and extensive administrative problems, the duties of its elected officials and the control over them by members as provided by the rules.

He said further:

It is obvious enough that the term of office could be fixed for such a long period of time that the representative nature of the office is effectively destroyed. Yet there must be much room for debate in any particular case as to the point at which the term of office must be regarded as imposing an oppressive, unreasonable or unjust condition upon the members. A five-year term of office, looking at the matter broadly, does not of its own nature appear to me to be oppressive, unreasonable or unjust, and I can readily believe that in the situation in which registered organisations find themselves in this country, operating under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and being involved in an elaborate system of compulsory arbitration, some such organisations might well regard a five-year term of office as most advantageous if strong-minded, constructive, useful and responsible work is to be done by its elected officers. Accordingly, I do not find that the idea of a five-year term of office in itself involves the imposition of an oppressive, unreasonable or unjust condition upon the members of an organisation.

There we have a fairly recent decision of the Commonwealth Industrial Court which was hearing argument in a case in which a rank and file member of the Australian Workers Union complained that the Union had increased the tenure of office of officials from 3 years to 5 years. The judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court unanimously agreed that a 5-year term of office was not oppressive, unjust or unreasonable. Yet, in this legislation although we are being asked to concede the rights of organisations to fix their rules and the terms of office of their officials and to conduct their own ballots, whether by postal ballot or secret ballot- which is the way in which most unions do conduct their ballots- we are also being asked to agree that no union should in the future be able to provide in its rules for a term of office for its officials of more than 4 years. I would like to know what right the Commonwealth Government has to interfere in the internal affairs ofthe trade union movement by enforcing a term of office of 4 years on quite a number of unions which at present provide for a term of office of 5 years or 6 years.

Honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber have had no experience of being officials in the trade union movement. They are probably not even members of any trade union organisation. Therefore they would not know the ramifications and the administrative problems of the trade union movement. It could well be that the affairs of a particular branch of a trade union have become run down as a result of mismanagement by an elected officer or an appointed officer. After a change of officers the new officials of the union would have the problem of rectifying the mistakes. I maintain that this cannot always be done during a 4-year term of office. For this reason I fail to understand why the Government has included in this amendment to the legislation the provision that unions can elect officers for only a 4-year term.

I have never heard of any request from the trade union movement for a reduction in the term of office holders to 4 years. I do not know of any employer organisation seeking or asking the Government to restrict the term of office to only 4 years. I can only assume that the Government has introduced this legislation because it wants to put it on the shelf and wait to see how the Australian Council of Trade Unions behaves during the next conference that it has with the Government. If, as the Government expects, the ACTU does not accept the economic package of restraint that the Government has introduced I think the Government will then try to bluff the trade union movement by saying that it will proceed to have the legislation proclaimed.

But it does not matter whether it does because there is no provision in this legislation that can improve the type of ballots that are conducted by many of the major trade union organisations in Australia. I refer firstly to the Waterside Workers Federation. It does not have a secret postal ballot. It has a compulsory ballot in relation to which it gets something like a 95 per cent return in elections. The Miners Federation has a similar type of ballot- it is called a pit head ballot- for its official positions in relation to which it gets an 85 per cent return of votes. This legislation, irrespective of whether postal voting is compulsory, will not achieve the same percentage of votes as either the Waterside Workers Federation or the Miners Federation has achieved.

I have had considerable experience in regard to union elections conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office and I am a supporter of those types of elections. During my term of office as Secretary of the Australian Workers Union in South Australia all of the organisation’s elections were conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office. They were not conducted by it compulsorily, as this legislation intends to bring about, but as a result of petitions by the rank and file members of the organisation. When I was the Secretary of the organisation in South Australia 1000 signatures were needed before it could request a ballot to be conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office. The Labor Government reduced that requirement to 250 signatures. Surely there is no organisation in Australia that could not get the necessary 5 per cent of its membership to sign a petition or the necessary 250 signatures. There is one union in Australia that is registered under this Act that has only 10 members. It would be very simple for one of those members to sign a petition requesting that the elections for the official positions of that organisation be conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office.

I would like the Minister for Education to explain to the Senate when replying in the debate why there has been haste in introducing this legislation and why it is being forced through the Senate so quickly when there are already ample provisions in the trade union movement for members to request a secret postal ballot. I would also like him to explain why the Government has seen for the first time that there is a necessity to include in the legislation a provision that the term of office of a union official cannot exceed 4 years.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I congratulate the Government on introducing this measure as rapidly as it has since coming to office on 1 3 December of last year. It is clear to me that in going ahead in the way in which it has since it came to office the Government is fulfilling the promises that it made to the people. This Bill relates to one of the clearest promises that it made. I would like to declare an interest in this matter. I was once a member of the Bank Officials Association, which therefore makes me a trade unionist of some experience. I was a member of it in Western Australia.

Senator Donald Cameron adverted to several matters that are of fairly great importance in the current economic scene in which we are involved but he seemed to think that they are of no great importance. He has disregarded entirely the fact that the wage inflation this year is the key problem that we are all facing in the community today. He seems to think that that is purely and simply a matter of dispute between the 2 sides to a particular argument. He has disregarded entirely the responsibility of both sides in that dispute about wages to the community in general. That is the key problem that we are facing at the present time.

The key element of the Bill is set out in clause 13, which is the provision concerning secret postal ballots in respect of the direct voting system. It will be recalled, of course, that one of the key elements of that clause is sub-clause (3), which exempts any organisation from the application of that particular rule in certain circumstances. That seems to me to be completely reasonable and totally fair in the present situation. Obviously the union ballots is related to the question of democracy in unions. Senator Donald Cameron would know a lot about this matter because it is constantly raised by the State Government in South Australia. We are seeking to establish the individual rights of the trade union member, and to give him the right to express himself clearly at every opportunity. Senator Donald Cameron also would remember a vote that was taken outside the secret ballot system at the factory of Chrysler Australia Limited last year. A vote was taken on the 35-hour working week and it was lost. So people are prepared to stand up for their values and their interests in a situation like that. We are seeking to guarantee that right to trade union members of they wish to exercise it.

When one considers the tremendous costs involved in union elections, it seems to me to be quite incomprehensible that the unions should be disagreeing with our proposal. I think that Senator Donald Cameron referred to the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. I am led to believe that if the AMWU were to run an election and pay for the election itself it would cost approximately $ 1 50,000.

Senator McLaren:

– They have not asked for a subsidy from the Government like some other people in the community.

Senator MESSNER:

-That is an important point to consider when we are seeking to guarantee the rights of people. I am particularly interested in the point raised by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech with regard to the collegiate system. This is a matter on which I have received several representations. I am coming to the view, albeit gradually, that this system presents great benefits for the individual member of a trade union. I am not speaking on this matter with the experience that other people have, and I will be looking with great interest to the discussions on this matter that will take place between the unions and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in the next few months before 13 November.

It seems to me that the introduction of any method by which machine politics can be kept out of trade union affairs must be to the advantage of the individual members of unions, and if that is what we are seeking I would be in favour of it. In regard to the collegiate system I make the general observation that it seems to me only reasonable that in order properly to obtain democracy in unions there should be only one tier between the individual member of a union and the final election to Federal leadership.

I do not want to speak at length about any of these points. From information that has come to me I believe that by a pretty clear majority the public has indicated that it is totally on side with our point of view. Also I believe that the members of the public are demanding in their own interests and in the interests of individual members of trade unions that we should have a situation where the Government can intervene in proceedings before the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and ask the Full Bench to take the question of public interest into account in making its decision. I believe that this provision is particularly relevant. We have seen the leapfrogging which has taken place in past years. A single judge of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can give a decision in a case involving lower levels of tribunals and this question can then flow on to other levels without the national interest being taken into account. As honourable senators know, the Bill also provides that the national interest will cover the question of employment of unionists as well as the question of inflation, which is the fundamental problem which we all face.

Bearing in mind that 40 per cent to 50 per cent of trade unionists are breadwinners in any family, it seems to me that this legislation is in the interests not only of the nation but also of the individual unionists. I regard the Bill as being quite reasonable. The decisions that we make tonight will be fundamental to the obtaining of a social compact in Australia and to the establishment of a system whereby these things can be worked out with proper discussions within the trade union movement and with the trade union movement, the Government and the employers all consulting together. I support the Bill and commend it to the Senate.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– It is not my intention to speak at length on this Bill. There have been discussions in respect of the provisions of the Bill between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I find it extraordinarily difficult to speak in a chamber like this. In fact, since I became a member of the Senate I have found this chamber to be the most difficult place in which to speak. I have found that one has only one-quarter of one’s potential audience, and that three-quarters of that audience is not terribly interested in what one says. The only ones who are interested are you, Mr President, the 2 Clerks and the Hansard writers. (Quorum formed) I thank Senator

Douglas McClelland for drawing attention to the state of the chamber.

I propose to discuss only 4 matters relating to this Bill. Whilst Senator Messner will not relish some of the things that I will say about this Bill, it is at least refreshing to see that at last some common sense is being talked about what is called the collegiate system. The debate on that subject in the other place was brought to such a low level of ignorance and prejudice by 2 members that when you speak of the collegiate system some people think you are speaking about the college of cardinals. On this matter parliamentarians seem to be getting involved in an unnecessary argument as to whether the direct or centralist system or the collegiate or federalist system is the most appropriate system of voting in elections for registered organisations and on associated matters concerning plebiscites.

Senator McAuliffe:

– That is not in this Bill.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), when introducing the Bill, mentioned this subject, and the Minister in the other place gave an undertaking concerning it. Certainly the arguments tend to favour the collegiate system. They are arguments based on rank and file control and democracy and also on federalism. There are arguments based on the rights of small States. There are arguments based on the fact that a centralist system gives favour to those with money or to those with a political machine behind them. But all that is irrelevant. I belong to 4 unions. One of those unions has a collegiate system of voting and another has the direct system of voting. It is a simple situation that the different registered organisations have different methods of self-government according to their own traditions, preferences, geographical and industrial coverage and administrative experience. The matter is for the choice of the union. When one says that the matter is for the choice of the union, the question is asked: Is that the choice of the officials of the union or is it the choice of the members of the union? That question also shows a great deal of ignorance, because the questions of plebiscites and whether one system or another gives greater or truer rank and file control are already covered. The issue of control of organisations by the membership is covered by regulation 1 1 5, backed up by a whole body of case law in the Australian Industrial Court.

The surprising part about all of this argument is that no one has bothered, either during this session or when the Act was amended in 1 973, to present the situation to the Parliament in its true perspective; that is to say, the right of the union to determine its own form of self-government according to its own traditions, preferences, geographical and industrial coverage and administrative convenience. I know of one union which if it did not have the collegiate system, would not have been able to get 3 branches to federate with it. I talk of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. I go back to ‘Bull’ O’Dea’s time. When we were trying to get three of the branches to federate, they did so on the basis that their rights and the rights of the branches in the smaller States would be protected. Incidentally, the body of case law to which I referred confirms that the collegiate or federalist system or method is consistent with the principles of rank and file control.

Prior to the 1973 amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the majority of registered organisations in fact had rules which provided for that very system. The 1973 amendments to the Act brought condemnation from large numbers of trade unions because they were not consulted prior to those amendments being introduced or carried. We saw a situation in which overnight the traditions of organisations and their methods of operation had been changed without any consultation with the individual registered organisations. Despite this body of case law and the obvious preference of most unions- I emphasise the words ‘most unions’for the federalist or collegiate system, the Act was changed to withdraw the right of registered organisations to choose their best method of selfgovernment and to force them to change their rules by the direct or centralist system within 3 years of the commencement of the 1973 Act. I know of quite a number of organisations which have no intention of allowing the meddling in their own affairs to take effect. They will not change their rules; or if they are forced to, some of them in fact will defederate. That is not a good situation for the industrial system of this country.

Senator Button:

– Did you say ‘defederate’ or defenestrate’?

Senator HARRADINE:

– I said ‘defederate’. Do not bring up deregistration. That is a big weapon. I will deal with it while I am dealing with the question of the Australian Industrial Court, which I do not want to deal with at length. Senator Button has made some comments on that matter, and he is a practitioner in that jurisdiction. This Bill, 2 months after objection was taken to a similar provision, again seeks to increase the number of Australian Industrial Court judges. I would like to remind the Senate of what I said on that occasion. What I said is recorded in the Hansard reports of 2 and 3 March 1 976. I spoke with a great deal of forethought and 1 attempted to choose my words carefully. We are dealing with a very sensitive area. In the final analysis the Government must realise that the correct operation of the Australian Industrial Court ultimately is the linchpin of the system itself, of registration of organisations and so on. I said:

I return to what I said in opening and I say this with the greatest degree of commitment that I can gather at this time of night. I say it because I have defended for a long period the system of conciliation and arbitration that we have in this country.

I also said:

I say in conclusion that it is basic to the implementation of any industrial policy- good or bad- that the entity known as the Australian Industrial Court should exist and that it should command the respect of the other participants in the system.

I also stated, when referring to the need for the judges of the Australian Industrial Court to work full time on the work of the Court:

Two significant results would arise from having a complete availability of judges. Firstly, the Industrial Court would be able to operate with the same degree or regularity, continuity and stability as do the High Court and the Supreme Courts of the States. Secondly, the reputation and effectiveness of the Industrial Court would be enhanced because of its increased efficiency and capacity to deal more readily with matters coming before it.

I add: In a more consistent manner. I leave it at that, for the Government again to give consideration to my words, if it wants to do so. If it does not, it should give consideration to what other people who know the situation have to say. The Government obviously took no notice of what I said on that occasion, and that was one of the reasons why I commenced my address tonight the way I did.

It is not my intention to vote for the second reading of this Bill. My reason is that by the Government’s own statements- in fact, by virtue of the clauses of the Bill- it is not an urgent matter. It is not going to operate so far as the significant clauses are concerned apart from the Australian Industrial Court judge provision, until the Bill is proclaimed. There are other very important and vital matters which should be considered and included in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Let me refer to just a couple of these matters. I refer to sections 140 ( 1 ) (d) and 1 33a from memory. The unions were required to conform to these 2 provisions and to change their rules in line with these 2 provisions some time ago. A minority of unions have conformed because many of the unions concerned- the registered organisations- find that they cannot conform with those provisions.

Briefly stated, section 133a refers to certain funds establishment and section 140 ( 1 ) (d) was the provision which required the rules of the organisation to provide for branches to have certain autonomy over their membership and also in matters under State tribunals. Section 133 ( 1) (0 was one of the amendments made in 1973. It cut right across the provisions of many unions’ rules which enabled the rank and file to have recall powers over their union officials. As a union official I say that that is not fair on the rank and file. At the present moment under this provision the secretary almost has to shoot the branch committee of management before he can be sacked and then he could say that there was no quorum. Section 133 ( 1) (f) provides that the rules of the association or organisations: . . shall not provide for the dismissal from office of a person elected to an office within the association or organisation unless he has been found guilty, in accordance with the rules of the associations or organisation, of misappropriation of the funds of the association or organisation, a substantial breach of the rules ofthe association or organisation -

Senator Button:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. My point of order is that the Senate is debating the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill which contains certain specific provisions. Senator Harradine is addressing his remarks to the provisions ofthe 1973 Act about which he may have some legitimate complaints but they are not the subject of debate in the Senate.

Senator Webster:

– Rubbish.

Senator Button- The Minister for Science, who could not tell a stubby from a test tube, is interjecting in the course of my comments concerning something about which he knows absolutely nothing- even less than he knows about his own portfolio. The fact ofthe matter is that, as I put earlier, Senator Harradine is talking about an Act ofthe Parliament and the amendments to that Act which, as the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, well knows, deals with subject matters different from the sections of the Act which the Senate is debating. I am interested in Senator Harradine ‘s views. I should like to hear them on another occasion. But this is not the appropriate time and he should not be allowed to discuss these matters now.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I find quite a degree of relevance in what has been stated by Senator Harradine. I ask you, Senator, to continue your speech and to confine your remarks, so far as you can, directly to the matters before the chamber.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Thank you. I take that point, Mr President. All I was trying to do was to advance the reasons for my voting against the second reading of this Bill. The facts of life are that about 10 or 1 1 other amendments are required. I am sure that Senator Button and others in this chamber will know that there are amendments to this Act which are required for the better functioning of organisations. I shall leave it at that.

I do come back briefly to the questions relating to section 133 ( 1) of the Act, concerning the system and method of self-government, namely, the centralist or direct system or the collegiate or federalist system. I want to say very clearly that a lot of genuine trade unionists are very concerned and disgusted about the level to which the debate has fallen. One member of the Government in another place said, strangely enough, that only the extremists were supporting the rights of unions to choose the federalist system. I do not know whether he was bemused by his silver headed friend but I want to say that before the 1973 amendments the majority of unions had that system. Many of them now have had to change their rules in the belief that they had 3 years to do so. The Minister has said that that will now not be necessary. I ask: Who are the extremists? Are the majority of the unions who had this system prior to the 1973 amendments extremists? Is the Australian Council for Salaried and Professional Associations, whose policy is to support the right of choice, extremist? Is the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations, which is the other peak council, extremist? I hope that we reach a level of reasonable debate on that matter.

I tura now to the secret ballots provisions in this piece of legislation. Admittedly, there have been discussions on this particular subject with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Therefore I am not going to involve myself in a long debate on that particular subject. But I do sayand I refer to what Senator Cameron said- that misstatements do not help in the debate. Senator Donald Cameron referred to the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, and in support of his opposition to this legislation he indicated that if only 250 members of the AMWU made a request to the Registrar a secret postal ballot would be held. That simply is not so. If one reads section 170 and the relevant regulation, it is apparent that if that request is made then the ballot is conducted at the direction ofthe Registrar.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– That is what I said.

Senator HARRADINE:

– No, we have to be very clear about this. What Senator Donald

Cameron said, and he will be able to read it tomorrow in Hansard, was that if an application for a secret postal ballot was made by 250 members, then there would be a secret postal ballot. That is not so. I am on the side of the Opposition in opposing the second reading of this Bill, but I believe that discussion on this question is not helped by people saying things that are not true.

Senator Bishop:

– Perhaps you misunderstood the honourable senator.

Senator HARRADINE:

– If I find that is so when I read Hansard tomorrow, I will apologise. If the Government thinks that all the industrial problems of the country are going to be solved by this piece of legislation, it has another think coming. It would be extraordinary to believe that anyone could be so naive as to think that.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Well, they are.

Senator HARRADINE:

-I am not prepared to say that. I am prepared to wait and see what comes out of the discussions and what ultimately happens as a result of this legislation. Of course, to the extent that it will encourage unions to have their elections conducted by an independent returning officer and by a secret postal ballot method, paid for by the Commonwealth, I suppose that a lot of unions will support the legislation, and support it very readily. But if the Government thinks that it is going to affect greatly the future of industrial relations, then the Government has another think coming. What will be required in the future battle is that people be aware of the issues confronting the trade union movement and the country as a whole. That there are people within the trade union movement who are prepared to stand up and fight to preserve the integrity of the trade union movement, to preserve the integrity of the strike weapon, which in the final analysis is so vital to free trade unionism in this country, to preserve that strike weapon which was fought for by our forefathers, and to protect it from those who would use it simply as a political battering ram to confront the Government or any other section of the community and thereby hold that strike weapon up to ridicule.

Those are the issues that confront us and those are the issues that the Government ought to recognise. It ought to recognise that in the final analysis victory depends upon unionists imbued with that spirit of defence of true trade unionism, with the resource capacity to oppose those with other major resource capacities whose involvement in the trade union movement is to subvert it and to pervert it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to say a great deal in this second reading debate. I rise mainly for the purpose of saying that a multitude of questions about this Bill have to be raised in the Committee stage. I think that the Bill is badly drafted. It was drafted in haste, which resulted in the deletion of a definition clause which had to be inserted in the other place. While the Bill made provision for a postal ballot, no one knew what a postal ballot was. I think that that sort of error has been repeated in a lot of other clauses but those errors may not yet have been picked up. Honourable senators could well support clauses which serve their particular interest when they should not be supporting the Bill at all. The Bill seeks to do 4 things, and these were outlined by Senator Button. It gives to the Minister the right to appeal where in the opinion of the Minister it is in the public interest to do so. When a decision is made by a member of the Commission under section 28 public interest has been taken into account by that member, but if in the opinion of the Minister it is in the public interest that there should be an appeal then he has the right to appeal.

Senator Wright:

– He has the right to what?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-He has the right to appeal.

Senator Wright:

– To intervene.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, he has the right to ask for a review of the decision of the member made under section 28.

Senator Harradine:

– He has the right?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes. The member, who is the Commissioner, has to decide under section 28 whether he should sign a moratorium or whether he should make an award, and he has to take into consideration the public interest. As a result of that, if in the opinion of the Minister a question of public interest is involved, he can then appeal to the Full Bench of the Commission for a review of the decision of the member. While under section 28 the Commission has to take into consideration the economy before making an award, the Bill seeks to include in consideration of the economy the requirement that the Commission- that is the Full Bench of the Commission- should take into consideration the effect of its decision on the level of employment and its effect on inflation. That is a new ingredient and, when one considers it, it is difficult to see how any wage increase could ever be granted because such a wage increase would have some effect upon inflation. I suppose that is intended to apply where it has some detrimental effect. But under section 28, a member of the Commission is not required to take into consideration the effect his award will have on the levels of employment and inflation. He has made an award without the necessity to take those things into consideration. However, the Minister can then appeal and ask the Full Bench to take them into consideration.

Senator Wright:

– Section 28 deals with certifying agreements.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is so. It deals with signing a memorandum, certifying agreements or making an award. Section 28 deals with the settlement of industrial disputes.

Senator Wright:

– Certified agreements.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would say to the honourable senator that that is a matter we can go into fully during the Committee stage. However, that is my interpretation of section 28. As Senator Button stated, this is the first time that reference has been made to intervention by the Minister. It is the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and the emphasis has always been on conciliation. Parties to a dispute get together and try to sort out their differences. Only at such time as they cannot sort out those differences does the question of arbitration arise. Section 28, which follows the belief of the former Minister, Mr Clyde Cameron, that the Government should keep out of industrial disputes as much as possible, made it impossible if there was agreement between the parties for a member of the Commission to refuse to sign the certificate unless the award or decision was not in settlement of the dispute, was beyond the power of the Commissioners or was not in the public interest. Unless one of those 3 criteria applied he was compelled to sign it. There was no interference by the Government.

Senator Wright:

– That is a ground on which the Minister claims the right to be heard- the public interest.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The Minister can claim the right to be heard in the public interest but the question of public interest at that stage already had been considered by the member. The fact is that no one but the Minister has the right of appeal against a memorandum signed under section 28.

Senator Wright:

– Because they have both agreed.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes, I suppose they have both agreed but there could be another aggrieved party. The Minister is the only one with the right of appeal and now the Government seeks to have the Minister as the predominent figure in industrial disputes.

Senator Wright:

– No, one who is entitled to be heard.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Not only entitled to be heard but entitled to act as of right. He will have a right which he never had before, and which possibly some of the litigants have not got, to ask for a review. The third matter for which the Bill makes provision is postal ballots. The present Act which Senator Harradine was complaining about makes provision for secret ballots. Those secret ballots must be postal ballots. This amendment seeks to make them secret postal ballots. The intention is to have postal ballots conducted under such conditions as would result in a larger proportion of members of an organisation voting without being subject to intimidation. Everyone thought when discussions were being held on this provision that the Minister had to find a way out for the purpose of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia which has the collegiate system of voting but was caught up by the provisions of section 133 from which it had no escape.

Senator Harradine:

– There were a lot of others. The majority of them were.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am not saying that there were not others but there was a strong feeling that this provision had to be made for the Clerks Union because it and the Government were somewhat sympathetic to each other and the Government could not have an alternative system to that which elected officials for the Clerks Union. Everyone has accepted that the clause which enables a party to opt out was inserted to overcome this position. Also it will get over the position of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia which now gets a 93 per cent vote. We heard Senator Messner with his limited knowledge of the Australian Bank Officials Association telling us all about trade unions. He is satisfied and happy with and appreciates the collegiate system. I take it also that Senator Harradine by his interjection is completely satisfied with it, that it is a good system and provision is made for it.

Senator Harradine:

– Provision is made where?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I thought that Senator Harradine accepted that provision was made for it.

Senator Harradine:

– In this Bill?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Senator Harradine:

– No. It does not arise in the Bill.

Senator Withers:

– It does not arise in this Bill at all.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It does arise because there is provision for secret postal ballots in the Bdi.

Senator Harradine:

– Under section 133(1)(a).

Senator CAVANAGH:

-There is the right of exemption for those organisation whose present rules have an alternative system of secret ballot which allows for greater participation of members of the organisation than it is anticipated a postal ballot would produce.

Senator Harradine:

– But the Clerks Union has a secret postal ballot now. You are talking about section 133(1)(a) where you have a collegiate system for part time officers, where they sit around a room and vote for a part time officer. This Bill does not cover that situation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know that. The Act refers to particular officers which it names in paragraphs (a), (aa), (b) and (c). I was always of the opinion that officers of the Clerks Union were appointed by a collegiate system of voting. It would never occur to me that the exemption clause in this Bill, clause 13, would permit such a system of voting to be accepted as an alternative. There would need to be a most corrupt industrial registrar who had the right to exempt organisations from compliance with the rules and this is the only decision of the industrial registrar, according to the Bill, which cannot be appealed against to the Full Bench. Every other decision can.

Senator Harradine:

– That provision was inserted for the Waterside Workers Federation and that type of organisation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is my mistake. I know that the Waterside Workers Federation is well covered by this provision. The 3 organisations that occur to me as being covered are the Waterside Workers Federation, the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia and the Clerks Union. It would appear that Senator Harradine now agrees with me that their system of voting is not covered by this Bill. Senator Messner is quite misinformed to insofar as he had the idea that those organisations are covered. The only other question concerns the date of operation. This was mentioned by Senator Cameron. The Minister in his second reading speech points out at some length how the Government has conferred with the trade unions. Senator Scott emphasised this point. However it is not conferring with the trade unions on the Bill if the Bill is introduced first, passed through both Houses of Parliament and then the Government talks to the unions about it. If the Government wanted to introduce a Bill which was in conformity with the resolutions of a conference between the trade unions, employers and the Government, it should talk to those 2 groups first and then introduce a Bill.

Senator Harradine:

– And it was discussed with registered organisations.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Well, with registered organisations. If the Government had expected to meet the wishes of all parties as a result of the conference, it would have discussed the matter with them first. But now it will say: ‘Here is an Act passed by both Houses of Parliament. We hold it up to you. The time when the Act will come into operation will be decided at subsequent talks. We cannot change it even though you may persuade us next week. It is the Act, as it is, which will be proclaimed on such and such a date. It will be down on your heads if you do not reach agreement at this conference.’ This is blackmail. That is the purpose of this Bill. That is why it is being rushed through this evening.

We find that there is to be a right of appeal against the decision of a commissioner before the Act comes into operation. Whilst I think an appeal must be made within 21 days from the signing of the award, there is a threat that immediately workers are successful in getting an award which is displeasing to the Government, the Government will have the right to proclaim this Act and to go to the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to ask for a review of the award.

Senator Wright:

– You are not being conciliatory now.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am certainly not being conciliatory as far as the Government is concerned. There is no conciliation on the part of the Government. A complete system of blackmail is being held over the trade union movement not only in respect of discussions next week but also in relation to future applications to the Court. A union could expect some degree of success before the Court but it could well be influenced by other unions not to ask a member ofthe Commission to make an award on a matter because the Act could be applied, with all its repercussions, against other unions. For that reason this Bill could be a threat to the unions. The legislation could be held over their heads, but as long as they are good boys the proposed Act need never be brought into operation. Whilst those who have not caused much trouble have a predominance in the ACTU, there is such complete disagreement on the part of unions because they are fed up and lack faith in the Government that the Government will find it very difficult to achieve its aim. It is certainly not a measure such as we have before us tonight which will alter the unions’ attitude and lead them to accept this threat to their organisations which the Government is holding over their heads.

Perhaps foolishly I have tried to discuss Committee stage matters during the second reading debate. Senator Wright greatly accommodated me by leading me on with a list of questions. He was seeking further clarification or putting an alternative opinion. Obviously this should not be and cannot properly be done during the second reading debate but can be done during the Committee stage. Because of the drafting the Bill needs a lot of clarification so that we may know exactly what is meant.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Much has been traversed in this debate but I think I should inject a couple of matters now which have not been mentioned. Over all, the general concept of the legislation through the eyes of the Government has been that once the Australian Electoral Office conducts a union ballot no one will be able to cry stinking fish if he is defeated. I know that that is the millennium which the Government is seeking. But it is just not on because no matter who runs a ballot there will always be people who will not admit that they are defeated on their merits.

Senator Walters:

– You are telling us.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-Senator Walters should listen to what I am going to say. She might get a degree in trade union principles. She does not have it at the moment. When I was interrupted I was making the point about the promised land for perfect trade union ballots. I shall illustrate my point. Senator James McClelland knows the union concerned, as I do. This is a typical case which occurred a few months ago. The New South Wales Branch of the Australian Railways Union held elections. The northern organiser, Max Maguire, had completed a term in office. Without anyone being egotistical, I point out that he probably would have won again. Nominations were called. Due to a misunderstanding by some letter sorter the opponent’s nomination was received about 24 hours late. One of my colleagues in the other place raised the matter with the controlling faction in the union. As Senator James McClelland knows, the Australian Railways

Union in its current form is singularly free of extreme factionism. Jack Maddox, the Secretary and an extremely honourable man said: ‘It is out of my hands. We know the rank and file man. He is a good chap. But it is in the hands of the Electoral office. ‘ The senior electoral officer was adamant that nominations had to be in at noon on a given day. The electoral officer played according to the book.

The union had no animosity towards the rank and file applicant. This is where I bring in the attitude of Mr Clyde Cameron and relate it to Senator Harradine. The point was that the opponent’s nomination was invalid. Max Maguire was elected unopposed. I am certain that the unsuccessful member and some of his colleagues in Newcastle will always feel that they were robbed of the right to run for office. It is of no use running away from the idea; it was not a Com. plot or a National Civic Council plot. It was one of those situations which happened. Let us get away from the idea that if ballots are run by the Electoral Office everything will be perfect.

When we perused the matter further we found there was no chance of having the decision reversed. People might say to me that this would have been a bonanza for a legal challenge. Senator McAuliffe is a member of this union and he would agree that most of the ARU members are very responsible people. They did not want to involve the union in paying money for senseless litigation. I think Senator Harradine knows that I am thinking of some of his friends in the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. They are wasting members’ money. I mention that in passing.

Senator Harradine:

– Opponents.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The ARU does not work that way. I mention an earlier Australian Workers Union conflict in New South Wales. Mr Charlie Oliver, an extremely sound member of the trade union movement, was equally hostile about rulings by the Australian Electoral Office. I am not a member of the AWU. I hammer the point again and again, particularly to Senator Messner, the former bank officer from South Australia: ‘Do not imagine that this is the promised land’. The instance I have given the Senate about the ARU was not a factional fight. We will not get the perfect voting system.

I want to deal with Senator Harradine ‘s reference to the big leaguers in New South Wales and Victoria and the smaller States getting squeezed out. The capacity of a man with the ability to make it was exemplified in the early 1960s in the ballot for the national secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. Charlie Fitzgibbon from Newcastle, which is not such a major port when compared with one or two others, was involved. He was opposed in a triangular contest by Nelson from Sydney and Gus Alford from Melbourne. He still won. So let us destroy this idiotic attitude that we have to have a position like this.

Senator Harradine:

– With the of the Australian Labor Party.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The honourable senator is not disturbing me for one moment. My voice is still good enough to out-shout him. I make this point: If we are going to argue for a college system I return to the Australian Railways Union in the 1950s. On one occasion I had the difficult job at a State council meeting of leading 30 brave souls. On one issue we opposed Dr Lloyd Ross and on the other we opposed J. J. Brown. The fact of the matter is that many people such as myself suffered in their trade union advancement because of events at that dme. But I never needed a government to protect me. I would like to commend a book to Government senators as ideal reading. It is entitled The Mindful Militants. It is a history of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. If they want light reading, I commend The Pork Chopper to them. It is a paper back book about the American Steel Workers Union and some of the devious things that happen in the United States.

I am trying to emphasise that, no matter what sort of ballot system is used in union elections, unions get officials who are the product of their environment. I do not wish to refer to the internal workings of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union or to offend Senator Mcintosh. Honourable senators would find that the book The Mindful Militants deals with the wage structures from the 1920s to the years of the Second World War, the judgments of Mr Justice 0’Mara and all those sorts of things. I wish to develop a football analogy in relation to trade unions. Whether it be in the metal trades, transport, on the waterfront or in the mines, most union officials have to be of the same physical dimensions as a ruckman or a rugby forward. I think I have covered the major football codes which honourable senators follow. I suppose that, if I took the analogy further and included soccer players to please Senator Lajovic, the union officials would have to have the physical dimensions of a centre half, or something like that. The message I am trying to get across is that service as a union official is not the promised land.

I think it was Senator Scott who referred to the responsible attitude shown by certain European trade unions- possibly the West German or Scandinavian set-ups. Every time this is raised. I remember what was said by Senator Carrick very early in the life ofthe Whitlam Government when we were asking for increased powers over wages and prices. We never gained those powers. Honourable senators opposite can clamour about it and speak about the freedom of the individual; but the West German and Scandinavian economies are much tighter. People are prepared to merge their individuality for the common good. I am not saying that that is good or bad. Recently we heard Senator Lajovic howl about the situation in Sweden and we also heard Senator Grimes explain what the real picture was. I lean towards the picture painted by Senator Grimes. However, we cannot have it both ways.

If we were to have a much tighter economy and if General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd did not always get so easily the price increases they seek, we might have a more docile trade union movement. When honourable senators opposite talk about trade union leaders, whether they be John Garland, Carmichael, Taylor of the Australian Railways Union or Charlie Fitzgibbon, it could be imagined that they get up in the morning and say: ‘It is June. We will press the button tomorrow to obtain wage increases and we will bring governments to their knees’. Although that is the picture that is painted, it is not the true position. I will tell honourable senators what happens when the workers read in the newspapers about how BHP receives a price increase so easily. The next month the workers start approaching the delegates delegates the matter and the representations go right up to the national officers. That is the fact of life.

I know that I have given honourable senators a reading list already; but I will give them one more recommendation. I recommend Senator James McClelland ‘s column in the Australian newspaper. Honourable senators might agree with him on one point and not another; but he stimulates thinking. Recently he made a point about the sorts of people who entered the trade union movement m the late 1940s and early 1950s. He pointed out that today people engage in all sorts of activities, attend university courses and lead a more developed life. I am not knocking people such as myself. The plain fact of the matter is that the trade union movement is so harsh that a person needs the skin of a rhinoceros to make it to the top. That is the situation. I leave honourable senators with this thought: Whatever I may have said pessimistically about the matter, there is basically one other factor. Senator Donald Cameron’s brother ushered in a trade union college system. Possibly, the people who come in to fill the gaps will be much better equipped to oppose people such as Senator Wright.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

-in reply- I thank honourable senators for what has been a useful and thoughtful debate. There is within the Senate a wide degree of experience and expertise in this field. As some honourable senators have pointed out, it is a field of immense complexity. Many people, including some honourable senators, have devoted a lifetime of professional study to it and to the many changes that have occurred in the 7 decades of the existence of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Therefore, I thank honourable senators for their contributions. I have taken note of what has been said. The Conciliation and Arbitration Bill is not put forward as a solution to all ills. I assure Senator Harradine of that. I assure him also that the Government is well aware that the need for quite a number of amendments may well emerge in the future, particularly when the reserved judgment of the High Court in the Maher v. Egan case is handed down. When that decision is given, we may have some further knowledge of the difficulties that were exposed originally in the Moore v. Doyle case. There is quite a field of amendment to be considered. This is not regarded as a total or omnibus measure.

The Bill is regarded as doing a number of relatively simple and straightforward things. It is regarded as discharging one of the most popular and most widely supported of the Government’s policies and mandates. I refer to secret ballots for the election of office bearers. I remind the Senate also that a continuous series of public opinion polls taken authoritatively has shown that a vast majority of the public and trade unionists believe that the secret ballot system properly conducted for the election of office bearers should be introduced. Not only has the Government a mandate at the ballot box; it also has before it the evidence of very strong support for this measure.

As to the Bill itself, there are only some relatively narrow fields of dispute. The Bill seeks to add an extra judge to the Australian Industrial Court. It seeks to permit the chairman of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be a member of the Industrial Court. That drew no particular criticism, except that Senator Button drew attention to the fact that in his view the Industrial Court was gathering together what I think he called a rag bag. But I do not think that was necessarily a serious or significant criticism. The second object of the Bill-to provide that the term of office bearers should be a maximum of 4 years- appears to have escaped any serious criticism. The third deals with secret ballots. In general terms, quite apart from the mandate of the Government, the comments of honourable senators have been along the lines that this is not necessary and that various methods exist already for this to be done. The simple fact of the matter is that what the Government is seeking to do is to provide what must be regarded as essential in a democratic community, namely, an opportunity for full participation by members of trade unions in what is a vital function- the election of their office bearers. The Government is giving a choice to unions and is enabling them, if they so desire, to save money and to have the ballot conducted at public expense.

The suggestion was made that our decision not to proclaim parts of the Act for the time being was some bending towards blackmail. I want to recite the simple fact that the Government was asked not to proclaim certain sections of the Act, they having been passed by the Senate, until after discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I would have thought that every honourable senator in this chamber would want to have the fullest co-operation between the Government and the ACTU and to have the Government at all times take whatever steps can be taken to help in bringing about what could be of massive benefit to the Australian people, if indeed the Government and the trade union movement Budget come to some fair understanding on the real problems involved, including containing inflation and restoring full employment. In fact, there is no real hardship in what is being done.

There is also the provision which relates to the representation by the Minister of the public interest in relation to appeals and references. My recollection is that it was widely publicised that the previous Government in August of last year announced that, as the result of a Cabinet decision, it would proceed along lines of this general thinking but would go further than this Government proposes to go. The principle itself was to be exploited in stronger fashion. 1 have before me the report of various Press cuttings as a straight announcement, an announcement by Federal Cabinet authorising planned changes to the Act. I merely say that there is a parallel because the proposals of the Labor Government as published at that time were to give the Minister the right of appeal and the right to seek reference of matters. But the Labor Government went further. It proposed to give the Minister the right to intervene in any proceeding and give the President of the Commission the right to refer any matter on his own motion to the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Senator Bishop:

– That is only Press speculation.

Senator CARRICK:

– Well, I do not want to be in any way vexatious in this matter. I take it that what Senator Bishop is saying is that this was not in fact true.

Senator Bishop:

– I say that there was no decision made by the Government in that respect and that the Minister is only setting up a man of straw to defend what the Government is doing.

Senator CARRICK:

– That is not my intention. If Senator Bishop is saying that the Press reports are wrong, that is something I understand -

Senator Bishop:

– I am saying that there was no Government decision in respect of the matter and the Minister ought to know that.

Senator CARRICK:

– The last thing that I want to do is to introduce any kind of vexatious issue into the debate. I merely say that there were what appeared to be widespread authoritative reports of Cabinet decisions issued obviously by way of hand-out and no refutation which could be seen of them. Therefore, on the face of it, it appeared that the Government was contemplating principles going far beyond what are in this Bill. It may be right; it may be wrong. That matter can be responded to. It is not said in any sense of altercation but merely to respond in that regard.

Senator Harradine referred to the collegiate system of voting. It is true that throughout the trade union movement there are widespread differences of view whether there is benefit in the collegiate system or in the direct system of voting. There is widespread difference of view within the Parliament and within parties within the Parliament on this subject. That is quite natural because here is something of great moment and of great practical interest.

If my memory serves me, in 1973 the then Minister for Labour and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, introduced an amendment into proceedings in this Parliament which caused some dismay throughout the trade union movement. The effect of that amendment was to give notice to the trade unions that they must abandon by, I think, mid-November of this year, the collegiate system and return to direct voting for their office bearers. This, as I think a number of senators, notably Senator Harradine, have pointed out, caused anguish in the trade union movement and caused a number of trade union movements to say that they would disobey and look to find ways around this proposal.

I remind the Senate that in the second reading speech that I delivered on behalf of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in another place, I pointed out:

The Government accepts in principle a form of collegiate voting, but the system adopted must be consistent with its policy of fullest participation by members. As I have indicated, the issue is a very complex one, and the Government believes that further detailed consideration is necessary.

That consideration is proceeding as a matter of urgency. As the Act stands, organisations which provide for collegiate voting are required to direct elections for full time officers by 13 November of this year. I wish to inform honourable senators that organisations need not move to give effect to that requirement by that date unless they wish to do so. lt is the Government’s intention to have enacted before that date legislation to give effect to the outcome of its current examination of this issue. If the Government is not in a position to have amending legislation introduced before that date, it will extend the time for requirement for such period as may be necessary to have the amendments passed. Of course, before introducing any legislation it will be necessary for the Government in accordance with its undertaking to discuss its proposals with the peak employer and employee councils. That is an unqualified statement by the Government.

There is one final matter that relates to this measure. That is the question ofthe intervention of the Government in terms of the public interest -in terms of the state of the economy. There are not 2 parties to an industrial dispute. It is not just employer and employee. There must be a third party. There must be the public, the community and the public interest. It must be the right of government to intervene in terms of public interest. This makes thorough sense in the overall situation.

Therefore, putting it in perspective, this is not as I say an omnibus; it is not the final situation. It will indeed have foreshadowed a number of other measures later this year in the Budget session. It aims to do a number of important things including the introduction of the secret ballot. 1 have heard nobody say that a secret ballot, properly conducted, for the election of office bearers is other than a good thing. That seems to be agreed.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Every union has them.

Senator CARRICK:

-It is a good thing. Senator Cavanagh intervenes and says that every union has them, but the illustrations and the evidence before the Government and the people of Australia is that in a very considerable number of unions the participation of the electorate- the trade union rank and file- in the ballot is so minimal as to negate the whole idea of the secret ballot. A 2 per cent participation in a major union ballot is of course a negation of the ballot itself. Therefore when we consider that the office bearers will be elected by about 1 per cent of the union membership, it is quite clear that there is something wrong.

I do not purport at all to be expert in this matter. But I do want to say one thing, and one thing only. In my judgment, over the years, the greatest single reform that one can have in the industrial arena is one which will not come from legislation at all. It will come in one way only, that is by persuading the rank and file and trade unionists that active, continuous and articulate participation in their unions is required. If this is so, many ofthe areas, many of the problems -

Senator Bishop:

– That is what we are saying. The Government’s legislation does not do that.

Senator CARRICK:

– There would be many points of common agreement, Senator Bishop. Let me make this perfectly clear: With respect to the trade union movement, in the field of trying to get good relationships in conciliation and arbitration, one would hope for and one would find many common points of agreement between both sides ofthe Senate. We would find common agreement in the need to get an articulate electorate inside the trade union movement. We join the Opposition with that hope. I thank the Senate and wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3- by leave- taken together.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to speak about clause 3, which relates to definitions and which seeks to amend section 4 of the principal Act by inserting certain definitions. Proposed section 4 (4) of the principal Act states:

A reference in this Act to an office in, or an office within, an association or organisation shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be read as including a reference to an office in a branch of the association or organisation.

Of course, this provision is not confined to the organisation; it spreads throughout all the branches, unless the contrary intention appears. Of course in clauses 12 and 13, whereby a postal ballot is necessary, a contrary intention does appear insofar as it does not mean all officers of all branches. It means those officers who are specified in the definition of officers in the interpretations down to paragraph (c) of the interpretation and paragraph (d) is not in that interpretation. The only place at which one finds reference in the legislation to ‘an office in or an office within’ is in clauses 12 and 13, which provide that the office holder must come up for election after 4 years. So proposed section 4(4) refers only to those who must come up for election and not to those who must be elected by postal ballot. I ask: Why does the Government want to interfere with any system that an organisation has that counts as an officer some perhaps unimportant official in a country branch who has been an officer there for 10 or 20 years? The Government is compelling that person to retire from his position every 4 years and to stand for re-election.

Senator Wright:

– To what clause of the Bill is the honourable senator referring?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Clause 3.

Senator Wright:

– I have found reference to the definition there, but the honourable senator also said something about clause 10, clause 11 or clause 12.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have referred to clauses 12 and 13. Clause 12 provides for section 133 of the principal Act to be amended by the insertion after paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section 133 of paragraph (da).

Senator Wright:

– But that is not in respect of the 4-year period mentioned.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-What I am saying is that the Government has included in the definitions a definition of ‘officer’ that includes every member of an organisation who, under the rules of the organisation, is an officer of a branch or sub-branch of the organisation. Why does the Government want to specify him and to pick him out? It did not pick him out for the purpose of placing him in the category of those who have to come up for a secret postal vote. He is not one of those officers. The contrary intention appears insofar as the officers are named in clauses 12 and 13. Proposed new paragraph (db) of subsection ( 1 ), section 133 reads: shall not permit a person to be elected to hold an office within the association or organisation for a period exceeding 4 years without being re-elected;

Senator Harradine:

– You are really referring to sub-branch officials now.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Not only officials. It could be anyone who is an officer of a subbranch in accordance with the rules of the subbranch. Any official who is classified in section 4 must go to a postal ballot. But then we find that those who of necessity do not have to go to a postal ballot still have to retire every 4 years. What is the reason for this? I do not think the Government would want to worry about trivial personalities in country areas. The officers who must go to a postal ballot are set out in clauses 12 and 13. I think that the officers about whom the Government would be concerned are those covered in paragraph (a), (aa), (b) and (c) in sub-section ( 1 ) of section 4. But there are also the officers under paragraph (d) who do not have to go to a postal ballot but who have to retire every 4 years. Why this is so I do not know. Perhaps I am wrong, but I can see no other purpose for proposed new sub-section (4) in section 4.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– In the hope that I may be helpful to Senator Cavanagh- if not, I will seek further information- my understanding is twofold: The compulsion for a secret ballot is binding only upon certain senior officers and not junior officers. I think that is common ground. Secondly, paragraphs (d) and (e) are not included. It is true that all office bearers are to be re-elected every 4 years. It is the intention to bring them all into line for election every 4 years.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– All I can say is that it seems to me that this provision is unnecessary. It is antagonising some harmless individual who is proud of the period for which he has held a position in a union. But if the Government wants to go on with this provision, that is all right.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5- by leave- taken together.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition will be opposing both of these clauses and dividing on them.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I find some difficulty in understanding clause 5. 1 do not know whether the seriousness of clause 5 has been brought out. Clause 5 provides for a new section 36a to be inserted in the principal Act after section 36. Proposed new section 36a reads:

  1. 1 ) In this section, unless the contrary intention appears- member’ means a member of the Commission; the Commission’ means a Full Bench of the Commission.
  2. The Minister may apply to the Commission for a review of-

    1. an award made by a member, including an award made under section 28;

I want to speak to this question because during the second reading debate Senator Wright interjected and said: ‘While the Minister can appeal, it was because the parties had agreed’. I mistakenly said: ‘I suppose that is the reason’.

Senator Wright:

– That is not this clause. You were talking then about certified agreements.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, I was talking about section 28.

Senator Wright:

– These are amendments to sections 34 and 36.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Clause 5 provides for a new section. The power given under this proposed new section is found in these words:

  1. The Minister may apply to the Commission for a review of-

    1. an award made by a member, including an award made under section 28;

Therefore, it is accepted that the Minister may ask for a review of an award made under section 28. Section 28 refers to the settling of a dispute by a member. If the parties agree, a member can sign a memorandum of agreement. A member can refuse to sign a memorandum of agreement only, if ‘the terms are not in settlement of an industrial dispute’. That means that the parties have not settled an industrial dispute. He can also refuse to sign a memorandum of agreement if any of the terms is a term that the Commission does not have power to include in an award; or it is not in the public interest that he should certify the memorandum or make the award an order’. That refers to a memorandum. If the parties do not agree a member then goes on to make an award. Under proposed new section 36a the Minister may apply to the Commission for a review of an award made by a member. That is when the parties do not agree.

Senator Wright:

– No, that is under section 28 (3) where a memorandum certified becomes an award.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Let us find out what it means. Proposed new section 36a reads:

  1. The Minister may apply to the Commission for a review of-

    1. an award made by a member, including an award made under section 28;

That is right. That is where an award is madenot a memorandum. It continues:

  1. a decision of a member to certify a memorandum under section 28, where it appears to the Minister that the award or decision is contrary to the public interest.

Here we have the position where an award is made by a member.

Senator Wright:

– Under sub-clause ( 1 ) a commissioner may either certify the memorandum or make an award or order according to the memorandum.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is so, but he shall not certify the memorandum unless it complies with certain conditions.

Senator Wright:

-That is why (a) and (b) are disjunctive in the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I have called Senator Cavanagh. I suggest that if any other honourable senator wants to make a contribution to the debate he can do so later.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would say they are disjunctive because either can apply. Paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of proposed new section 36a reads:

A decision of a member to certify a memorandum under section 28.

No one else has the power to appeal against a decision made under section 28. Now for the first time the Minister will have the power to appeal. The Minister in asking for a review under clause 6 of this Bill can ask the Commission to take into consideration the effect of an award or memorandum on the level of employment or inflation. That is in a review of a member’s decision. I do not think that a member likes to have his decision found to be wrong and upset. A member has no authority to take into consideration the effect of his decision upon the level of employment or inflation in making any award or signing an award or memorandum under section 28. But a new ground of appeal for the Minister is introduced. He can base his appeal on something that a member had no right to take into consideration, unless he did so in considering the broad terms of the economy. Surely this is not the intention of the Government.

Senator Button:

– Both sections apply to the Full Bench only.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes, that is so. They relate to appeals against decisions and the bringing in of new grounds which the original judge had no right to consider. The other point I wish to make is in relation to proposed new section 36a (3), which reads:

An application under sub-section (2) shall be made within 2 1 days after the date of the award or decision to which it relates and shall state the reasons for which the Minister seeks the review.

I refer also to clause 5(2) of the Bill, which reads:

An application under sub-section (2) of section 36a of the Principal Act may be made in respect of an award or decision made or given before the commencement of this section.

Proposed new sub-section (3) states that an application must be made within 21 days of the making of the award; yet clause 5 (2) refers to an award or decision made or given before the commencement of this section’. If I understand it rightly, the Ministers must make an application within 21 days after the date of the award; so he can refer only to an award which is 3 weeks old at the time this Bill comes into operation. I ask the Minister whether that is the correct interpretation. As I said in my speech at the second reading stage ofthe Bill, there appears to be a threat. What is the need to provide for retrospectivity with respect to an award made before the commencement of the Act?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I am grateful to Senator Cavanagh for raising those points. I suggest- he may well be aware of this-that he read the proposed new section 36a as being a flow-on of section 35. That is the very first thing. To understand that I also direct the honourable senator’s attention to section 35 (3), because the fact that an application is made by the Minister for a review is no automatic assurance that the review will be given. Section 35 (3) provides:

An appeal does not lie under the past preceding subsection unless, in the opinion of the Commission, the matter is of such importance that, in the public interest, an appeal should lie.

In other words, it is not an easy road for the Minister. He has to convince the Commission that there is a strong ground of public interest for intervention. That has to be established. Senator Cavanagh raised some matters regarding the question of awards. There are awards by consent, and where there is certification it is the certifying of an agreement. I believe that Senator Cavanagh ‘s understanding regarding the 21 days is correct.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has directed my attention to section 35, sub-section (2) of which states:

An appeal lies to the Commission against-

an award made by a member otherwise than under section 28 . . .

Of course, if the award is made under section 28 that provision does not apply. We are now giving the Minister the right to ask for a review.

Senator Wright:

– Where do you find the words ‘otherwise than under section 28 ‘?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– In section 35 (2) (a) of the Act.

Senator Wright:

– My reprint is not up to date if those words appear in the copy which you have.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The words are in my copy. The Minister advised us that he had had this circulated. It was amended by Act No. 1 38 of 1973. Therefore we have a provision that does not permit an appeal to lie, and another section is to be inserted which contradicts that. How do we solve this contradiction? If the commissioner wants to see what powers he has he looks at section 35 and section 36a, which are contradictory. There is a conflict. I do not know what the commissioner would do.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have maintained a fairly unvarying silence this week and throughout the debate on this Bill. I claim the right to be heard on a matter of very great importance that Senator Cavanagh has raised. I intend to put forward a point of view for the purpose of comment by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). I believe that members of the Australian Labor Party are very concerned about this point of view. I have read the debates in the House below. This matter came up during the time of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government.

I take the view that when the parties reach an agreement in settlement of an industrial dispute the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is exhausted because its jurisdiction is only for the conciliation and settlement of disputes. Therefore, the efficacy of an appeal under section 35 originally against an award or decision of a member refusing to certify an agreement is of the utmost doubt. It is not an answer to say- as Mr Clyde Cameron in the other place put his argument yesterday or the day before- that if there is a right of review or a right of appeal from a refusal to certify an agreement the parties will not seek the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Commission because an agreement in settlement of an industrial dispute has no enforceability in any jurisdiction, industrial or common law, without certification. The advantages of certification are of the utmost value to members of unions for the purpose of entitling them to enforcement of the provisions of the agreement. That brings us to the situation where it is otiose to say that we give an appeal against an agreement that has settled a dispute because that agreement exhausts the jurisdiction. I suggest that this section is penned upon the basis of clause 4 of the Bill introducing a section subsequent to section 35, namely section 36a, which does not provide for an appeal but gives a right of review.

One might say that it is only a question of words, but in reality it is not. It is not an appeal against the provisions of the agreement. It is a right to have referred to the Full Bench the question whether or not a single commissioner should certify that agreement and so add to the agreement the entitlements that come from certification of it; that is to say, entitlement by the members to enforce it in all industrial jurisdictions and other courts as rights enforceable under an award. There a review is available to the Minister on his application on one ground only and that is whether to certify the agreement would be in the public interest.

Senator Cavanagh:

-What can the Commission do as a result?

Senator WRIGHT:

-Refuse to certify it.

Senator Cavanagh:

-But they do not. The member certifies it under section 28.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, but this is a provision to lift the proceedings from the single Commissioner to the Full Bench. The Full Bench then, as I understand it, by its authority says whether the agreement should be certified. One of the tests of whether the agreement should be certified under section 28 is whether it would be in the public interest to certify it. I have risen to state my view on that because I have argued this issue in my own councils- not always with complete success. I think it is simply vanity that denies the situation that once parties to a dispute have settled their dispute by agreement the Arbitration Court has no longer any jurisdiction. But if the agreement comes to attract the values that the Arbitration Court and its system add to the agreement through certification, then that is a matter in which the Minister has a legitimate interest in saying that the Full Bench should consider whether this consent agreement, which becomes a consent award, is in the public interest.

That is a matter which this amendment proposes should be capable of being transmitted from the single member of the Commission to the Full Bench for review. The Full Bench is then in exactly the same position as the original member for the purpose of original duty as to certification, but with the added force that it is a Full Bench and not a member. I have felt vexed for some years by the confusion that surrounds this matter. To see this confusion still continuing is the only excuse for my intervening in the debate. I believe that when members are contributing in Committee by a proper interchange of thought it is possible to establish in 3 or 4 words and without a long speech a mutual understanding which often is not achieved by speechifying.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– It is foolhardy to be arbitrary on these things but my understanding and advice is that in the general sense what Senator Wright has put forward is a true interpretation. Senator Cavanagh raised a point as to why there was, on the one hand, the right of the Minister to seek review and appeal but apparently, on the other hand, the other interested parties did not have this right. I add to what

Senator Wright said in this way: If 2 parties have reached agreement by consent their agreement would not be a matter for appeal, as such, because by the very nature of the agreement they have agreed. It is not an enforced marriage. So it does not follow that what Senator Cavanagh has said is so. That is the simple basis of my understanding of the matter that Senator Cavanagh raised.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I think I should take the matter a bit further. I understood Senator Wright and I agree with the way he put the case. But when agreement has been reached it is certified under section 28 by compulsion. I am told now that the review concerns an appeal against a certification rather than against an agreement and the benefits that come from it. The Minister has not told me how we get over section 35 which provides that there is to be no appeal against an award made under section 28. Section 35 makes no exemption for the Minister or anyone else. There is no right of appeal. Now we are adding a section 36a under which the Minister can appeal, which is a contradiction of section 35.

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales)Minister for Education) ( 10.25)- I shall be very brief. I think I understand quite clearly what Senator Cavanagh and Senator Wright are now saying in tandem. That is that the application for review is made against the certification. That is perfectly true. But I repeat that the agreement had come to the point of certification, having been a voluntary agreement beforehand. So one would not expect the parties to the voluntary agreement to want to appeal at that stage.

Question put:

That the clauses stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7- Representation of Parties.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I draw attention to the substance of the Opposition’s objection to this clause; that is, that it simply adds to the existing words of the section the right of the Minister absolutely to be represented by counsel. The concern about that is that it creates a new status for the Government, represented by the Minister and counsel. Whether or not that is the intention of the section I do not know, but it is certainly the result. Accordingly, we oppose this provision. However, it is not intended to divide on it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I support what Senator Button has said, and I should say also that my objection applies as well to clause 10 of the Bill, which deals with appeals under Section 88ZG against decisions made by the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal. Rather than arguing the point again under clause 10, I should say now that that clause has the same effect and establishes the right of the Minister to be represented by counsel. Clause 7 amends section 63 ofthe Act. At the present time, section 63 provides that a party or intervener may be represented by counsel, with the leave of the other parties. Sub-section (2) of section 63 states:

Where the Minister has intervened in proceedings before the Commission a party or intervener may, with the leave of the Commission be represented by counsel, solicitor or paid agent.

Therefore, if the Minister has a right to intervene, then the parties may be represented by counsel with the leave of the Commission. But if the Minister does not intervene on the question of public interest, then under clause 7 of the Bill sub-paragraph (c) states: by inserting in sub-section (2), after the word ‘Minister’, the words ‘is a party to or’.

At the present time, when the Minister has intervened in proceedings before the Commission a party or intervener may, with the leave of the Commission, be represented by counsel, solicitor or paid agent, but if the Minister is a party to the action, does he then come under section 63 (2) of the Act and has he a right to be represented by counsel or does he have to get leave because he is a party? Section 63 ( 1 ) (a) provides that a party or intervener may be represented, so there is no disputing the Minister’s right to be represented. But he may be a party to the agreement and appeal against it, and while all other parties to the appeal have to get leave to be represented by counsel, the Minister is there as of right. The position could arise where the Tribunal refuses to give leave to the parties. The Minister could be represented by senior counsel and the party who is affected by the award could be represented by one of its officials and, even if they could afford to pay for him, they could not have counsel. I think that would be very unfair competition in a system which purports to give wage justice, if it is permitted to go on. If one party has a right, then I think the right should extend to all parties. As there has been a tendency not to turn arbitration tribunals into legal tribunals, I think that representation by members of the Public Service should be sufficient.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– As I understand the matter, the Minister has always had the right to intervene in the public interest in matters before the Full Bench under section 3 1 relating to standard hours, wage claims based on national economic grounds, and long service leave, and under section 34, references, and section 35, appeals. The Minister has always appeared in such proceedings represented by counsel, except on odd occasions when he has been represented by an officer of the Australian Government Public Service. That has also been the position when he has appeared in proceedings before single members of the Commission by leave. The amendments concerning representation do no more than recognise the existing position and extend it to cases where the Minister is entitled to ask for a reference or a review. As I understand it, the Minister cannot be a party until the Commission recognises and accepts his application to intervene or to initiate or to seek a review. He becomes a party only when the Commission gives him the right to be a party, as it does to any other party in a case before the Commission.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10- by leave-taken together.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I referred previously to clause 7 and to the right of appeal against section 28 agreements. Clause 10 also gives to the Minister the right to appeal against a decision of the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal under section 88ZA. The Tribunal deals with flight crew officers agreements and a judge is appointed to hear the case. Like any wages tribunal, employers and employees are represented. There is a complete system of conciliation for employers and employees, but if they fail to reach agreement the Tribunal may make an award. Even in that case the Minister will have the right to appeal against the decision. Added to what I said before, this is something which we must oppose.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Clause 1 1 deals with the increase in the number of industrial court judges. I feel that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) with undue flippancy passed over the comments that were made in the second reading debate. The Government ought to have a serious study of what was said about that provision in the second reading debate. There is one good thing about this Bill coming into the Parliament and for it I congratulate the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and his Department. We have a consolidated version of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I am sure that all honourable senators will appreciate that very sincerely.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will be quick and say to Senator Harradine that it was not my intention to be flippant. I think I confused what had been said by Senator Button and Senator Harradine and sought to correct it. This was in relation to the number of judges and the functions of judges and the general concept of their appointment. I will certainly take the remarks made to my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street).

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I must rise again. I meant the whole of the statements that were made on that matter during the second reading debate, including the statements of Senator Button.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I want to take just 2 minutes because when this matter comes to another jurisdiction I intend to direct some remarks to the federal judiciary. The conception of the Industrial Court since it was created in 1956 is that it has become a magic pudding into which we throw an extra unit when we want a territorial judge, a judge for royal commissions, a judge for Aboriginal rights or a judge for something else. As I understand the sense of Senator Harradine ‘s submission, it is that we should have a finite court of, say, five or seven judges whose duties are exclusively to be available for duties under this jurisdiction and that they should not be distracted by a miscellany of jurisdictions elsewhere or treated just as ad hoc agents or judges to conduct inquiries for this, that and the other purpose, not being industrial matters.

The uniform exercise of that jurisdiction establishes those judges in the confidence of the parties and, what is more, concentrates the responsibility that those judges have to exhibit. I rise simply to add my advocacy to the viewpoint that Senator Harradine has put forward. It is only because of the absolutely discursive way in which this idea and that idea have come up for an additional judge. A couple of months ago it was because a judge was subtracted to ASIO and we thought forsooth he had to retain his judicial status. That was quite proper. But why add another member to the court? Why not make provision for his office to have a proper status? Here is a proposal not to give an additional judge to that miscellaneous court but to provide that he shall have that status on the basis of which he shall be appointed as President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. When it comes to the Family Court I will be expanding at greater length on this question of the absolutely unsatisfactory condition of the federal judiciary.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

Senator Wright has concurred in the observations that I made in the second reading debate and in the chamber some weeks ago and I am glad that he takes on board the importance of them. Mr Temporary Chairman, I suggest that the Senate vote on clauses 8, 9 and 10 together. Clause 1 1 we support but clauses 8, 9 and 10 we intend to vote against on the voices only.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 1 1 agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 1 3- by leave- taken together.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I suspect the motives behind this legislation. The Government has decided that substantial voting in union elections is necessary. So not only is it going to make it a moral and social obligation but also a legal obligation on organisations such as trade unions. I believe it would be more fitting for it to look closely at some of the local government organisations to see how democratically they are run. The Government hides behind the guise of democratising the unions. The truth of the matter is that the Government objects to one or two leaders in the trade union movement and has hit upon a marvellous plan to remove those leaders. It can try any way it likes to interfere with the trade union movement, whether through penal clauses, fines, or rules and regulations, but it will never break the spirit of the trade union movement because the trade union movement was working for its members long before this 76-year-old Parliament started and will continue to operate for many years to come.

In respect of fines, I remember the thousands of dollars it cost my trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which eventually became the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, in fines. I can remember the rumblings among the rank and file which were reflected by the shop stewards in the quarterly meetings. They were beginning to object to these fines and would continue to object to them. Eventually we said: ‘This is the end of the penny section. You have had it. We are paying no more fines’. And that was the situation before the Government was changed in 1972. That was the feeling in the rank and file ofthe trade union movement.

We have had our share of court controlled ballots and at the same time we ran our own ballots as a check in the Amalgamated Engineering Union. We had court controlled ballots for Brother Horsburgh, Brother Hennessy, Brother Garland and somebody else and the check ballot was run side by side.

The ballots differed on only one thing and that was the number of people who voted. There was no other difference in the results. There was never any suggestion that 2 per cent forced their will on the other 98 per cent, as Senator Scott implied when he was speaking earlier about there being something untoward. Senator Carrick said that there was something far wrong. If he thinks there is something far wrong let him put his finger on it, but do not imply it. We had a ballot in Western Australia for Brother Stewart and Brother Marks. Brother Stewart was as right wing as they come- I do not want to be disrespectful- and Brother Marks was as left wing as you make them. Brother Stewart won that court controlled ballot. Again we ran a check ballot side by side and he deserved to win. However, after being in office for 3 years he proved how unworthy he was and he was dumped. He was dumped not in a court controlled ballot but in an ordinary ballot. Stewart then took the matter to court and challenged the ballot. He decided that there were irregularities in the ballot. The matter was defended in the courts. Brother Garland was the person who defended the case. The lawyer was a person called Ian Viner, who is now the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the House of Representatives. He won the case. There was nothing crook in the ballot. Those people who are eligible to vote can do so if they wish to. The possibility is always there if they wish to use it. The non-voters in the union tacitly agree to accept the verdict of the voter as to the representation and, consequently, the policies on the strict understanding that the channels are kept open. They may exercise that vote if they feel there is the necessity as they have done in many other ballots. The non-voter accepts the situation as it is. There is nothing crooked and nothing untoward about such ballots.

I object to the innuendos which have gone around the chamber about the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. I ask honourable senators to prove those innuendos. I say to them: ‘Put your money where your mouth is’. Honourable senators are talking about tradesmen. I challenge any honourable senator on the Government side to tell me what is the going rate for a fitter and turner.

Senator Webster:

– About 50 per cent time.

Senator McINTOSH:

-About 50 per cent time! That is a real smart alec answer, something we could expect from the Minister for Science. The award rate for a fitter and turner is $134.80- a real big deal. What does it cost to travel backwards and forwards to work? Senator Messner talked about the bank union. I do not know what kind of union principles he learnt there. A toolmaker gets $141.40 a week- a real big deal. He is working to very fine measurements. He may be working on an optical flat to 5 millionths of an inch. Yesterday we were talking about the medical profession and the wonderful hands the surgeons have. Honourable senators spoke about how they got the cornea off a person’s eye; how they could cut in with an instrument and remove the cornea. But I ask: Who makes the instrument? It is the bloke on 141 bucks a week. This is the person honourable senators opposite are trying to hold down.

We talk about industrial relations. This is a wonderful way to get industrial relations. I ask honourable senators to think about it. Industrial relations are two wonderful words. We can conjure up all sorts of pictures. I wonder what pictures have been conjured up in the minds of honourable senators on the Government benches when they think about industrial relations. The employer’s attitude to industrial relations, from a trade unionist’s point of view, would be a way of keeping harmony in industry so that the boss can get on with the business of making profits. The unionist’s attitude as the employer sees it is this: Whatever industrial relations are I do not know, but I am against it in any case. So never the twain shall meet. Until this Government or some other government really gets down to the business of doing something about industrial relations and introducing some form of worker participation we will never get harmony in the community. All the rules and regulations which the Government continually brings in do not mean a damn thing to the trade unionist. He could not care less because once he finds that it is between him and his principles he will fight like a Kilkenny cat. I warn honourable senators on the Government side. The unions do not have to be parties to the arbitration system. They can pull out. Honourable senators should be careful that they are not sounding the death knell of the arbitration system. They could quite possibly be doing that. With these few remarks I oppose the whole blooming Bill and not just the last part.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I ask a question quickly. Proposed new section 133aa. (4) states:

Sub-section ( 1 ) of section 88F does not apply to a decision of the Registrar under this section.

Section 88f relates to the right of appeal against the decision of the Registrar. The Registrar can make a decision as to whether “some person should comply with or be exempt from the Act. What is the reason for this? Why is there the one exemption? Why is the decision of the Registrar not appealable?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– If an immediate answer is not imperative I will get it in detail later and give it to the honourable senator. It is a technical matter and I do not want to give him a superficial answer.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– It is only this matter in which I am interested: All other decisions can be appealed against but here the Registrar has the right to say: ‘This union’s rules are such that it need not comply’. But when the application is made to the union it has the right to reject it, too. I dp not know why this tremendous power is put in the hands of the Registrar. Rather than criticise that power I will wait to see whether there is some logical reason.

Senator Wright:

– What clause are you referring to?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is clause 13 of the Bill. Proposed new sub-section (4) refers to section 88F which states that the Commission may grant leave to appeal to the Commission from an act or decision of the Registrar in relation to a matter. That is ari exemption from the decision of the Registrar on this occasion. I do not know whether that is the position. I am not saying that it is important. It may be important.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– My advice is that the reason why this has been drafted as it is in the legislation is that if a right of appeal were given against a decision of the Registrar there would be such a volume of appeals that it would bring the whole matter to a standstill. I felt that since this is a subject on which I am not informed and on which I need more detail I would like the right to research it and to give the honourable senator an answer in greater depth.

Clauses agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1976-77 Second Reading

Debate resumed.

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

– I told Senator Wriedt that during the suspension of the sitting for dinner I would get the officers from the Department of the Treasury who were not able to give details for him to produce those details. They have done that, it is a little bit late in the evening to read them now. Perhaps I should refer to this matter after question time tomorrow morning. He might like me to give the information then rather than have it incorporated in Hansard.

Debate interrupted.

page 2375

ADJOURNMENT

Radio Stations in South-eastern Queensland - Angola

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

- Senator Martin told the Senate the other evening that country radio stations in south-eastern Queensland are losing advertising because of a Broadcasting Control Board decision to allow 2 city radio stations to broadcast from an island off Brisbane. Senator Martin said that the Board had allowed radio station 4KQ, Brisbane and radio station 4IP, Ipswich to broadcast from St Helena Island in Moreton Bay at a strength of 5000 watts. Senator Martin claimed that the increased range of the stations’ radio beams had meant that country radio stations in southeastern Queensland faced strong competition and were losing some of their advertising revenue. Senator Martin asked for Government action to be taken through the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) to restrict the radio beams of 4IP and 4KQ to the Brisbane-Ipswich area, thus cutting them out of the northern and southern reception regions.

Let me ventilate the facts in regards to this matter. The real facts are in striking contrast to the conclusions to which Senator Martin appears to have jumped. So that the Senate will be completely informed of the position in relation to 4KQ’s present marketing attitude affecting areas now reached by 4KQ signals- I put the emphasis on the word ‘present’ because it is quite different from that of the pre-St Helena era- let me give the details: Radio station 4KQ knows that the strength of its reception in the Gold Coast is of local quality and that it extends in many instances beyond the New South WalesQueensland border.The station has had a traditional involvement on the Gold Coast for as long as I can remember. I have 17 years of residence on the Gold Coast to back up this opinion. Over the years 4KQ has promoted and publicised the Gold Coast with outside broadcasts from the Chevron Hotel every Friday. That became a point of interest to tourists. The station has broadcast the Gold Coast foot race, which has outstripped the Stawell Gift in importance at the present time. With outside broadcast units the station has relayed beach patrols, Christmas and New Year functions and incidental campaigns related to individual advertisers located on the Gold Coast or Brisbane advertisers interested in the Gold Coast. Broadcasting vans of 4KQ had long been accepted as a landmark by visitors to the Gold Coast. The symbol of 4KQ was well known to everybody. I submit that 4KQ was synonymous with Gold Coast activities.

With the arrival of radio station 4GG on the Gold Coast, naturally the directors of 4KQ met in conference and they decided that by retaining their traditional activities on the Gold Coast they could always claim a right to remain there. I do not think that is an unfair conclusion. This situation was accepted by the management of 4GG. I think that is important to the submission that I am making this evening. The fact that 4K.Q remained on the Gold Coast after 4GG was licensed was accepted by the management of 4GG. I am happy to report that the relations between 4GG and 4KQ are on the highest level. 4GG has made it publicly known that it accepts that 4KQ has a traditional involvement on the coast and it could never be claimed that 4KQ has intruded on 4GG territory. Senator Chaney is trying to interject. He is from Western Australia, and unless he looked at a map I do not think he would know where the Gold Coast is situated, let alone know anything about what we are discussing. The fact is that 4KQ has never intruded on 4GG territory. That has been accepted by the management of 4GG for the very honest reason that 4KQ was in existence before 4GG. I am happy to say this evening that the secretary of the company at the time was Senator Keeffe. He was on the inside of the negotiations that went on between the directors of 4KQ and the newly established station 4GG on the Gold Coast, and a very happy arrangement was arrived at.

From Senator Martin’s claims on the matter, the second station concerned could be 4NA at Nambour near the Sunshine Coast. In the past 4KQ had some casual interest in the north coast but only for specific reasons connected with surf festivals and real estate projects originated by advertisers in Brisbane. With regard to sales in Nambour area, the whole basis of the confusion, 4KQ can probably be regarded as the station which has done more in the area of promotion of Australian talent in the past than any other radio station. Statistics prove that point. Talent quests extended to the Nambour area. 4KQ was involved with the Nambour showground and for some years broadcast a campaign for the show society. This of course involved selling to local prospects. The important point is that when 4N A was established Mr Ralph Taylor became the manager of the station. He was previously the manager of 4GG. When 4NA was established, what do you think 4KQ did? 4KQ ceased direct selling activities in that area. The only sales activity that could affect 4NA would be Brisbane based activities, such as advertising by the Brisbane based developers ofthe Kawana Estate on the Sunshine Coast. 4KQ ‘s relations with 4NA Nambour are at a high level, as are its relations with 4GG on the Gold Coast.

In conclusion permit me to read the last 2 paragraphs of a letter that directors of radio station 4KQ wrote to the Broadcasting Control Board when seeking permission to re-site its transmitter. Its letter was in response to a circular letter that was sent not only to 4KQ and 4IP but to every radio station in Australia telling them that there was a changed policy regarding transmitter power of medium frequency commercial broadcasting stations and that if they desired to have their transmitters re-sited they could apply to the Broadcasting Control Board. That circular letter ‘B109’ was sent on 7 January 1975. In Queensland it prompted replies from radio station 4KQ and radio station 4IP only. I quote the last 2 paragraphs of 4KQ ‘s application:

This, therefore, would mean that 4K.Q would be intruding in areas for which it was not licensed and the areas for which other companies hold a licence. We would appreciate confirmation that the Board approves of this. 4KQ operates with progressive management, but in harmony with other licensees, whether directly involved in our market area or not. We wish to continue this association as we believe it is essential in the development of our industry and the fulfilment of the Board’s plan for improvement and expansion of broadcasting in Australia.

That was part of 4KQ’s reply to the circular letter from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which was sent out in January with the reference number ‘B 109 ‘.

After reviewing the position and discovering the facts, I am at a loss to know why Senator Martin introduced the matter at all. I sincerely hope- and I am sorry that she is not in the chamber to hear my remarks- that her conduct did not spring from an intention to injure radio station 4KQ. Regrettably, her allegations at least

E reduced the same effect. I now hope the matter as been put aside once and for all as being nothing else but a fizzer from her point of view.

Senator JESSOP (South Australia) C 1 1.12) - I rarely intervene in the adjournment debate but tonight I want to make a few comments about certain matters that concern me. I hope that at the end of my speech I will be given the leave seeking to present a petition. There are many troubled spots in the world where violence arises due to internal political struggles. Angola is a typical example. Because of the encouragement of the Soviet Union and the intervention of Cuban troops, the present regime- the Angolan Popular Liberation Movement- has been established. It is my personal view that, where such circumstances arise in the world, the role of establishing peace should be adopted by a United Nations peacekeeping force or by the intervention of the United Nations Security Council. As far as I am concerned, these internal domestic political issues ought to be settled in this way without resort to violence.

In fact, it is my opinion that Australia should press for the United Nations Security Council to respond to such situations more quickly. In the case of Angola, the Security Council’s interest in the affair was brief and, in my opinion, cursory, the issue not being raised before the Security Council until some time after the Soviet and Cuban intervention had been clearly identified. As far as I am concerned, at that stage the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Australians should always bear in mind that we are close to a large number of small nations, many of which have just emerged from colonial status. Therefore I suggest we take a lead in pressing for a quick response to the kind of intervention that occurred in Angola. There are now a large number of small states in the United Nations and we should be ever conscious of their vulnerability. I think it behoves Australia, in our situation in the world, to suggest a quick initiative to meet crises such as these. As far as I am concerned, the previous Government was very loath to encourage such quick intervention. I am one who is very critical about that.

In Angola we have witnessed nothing less than an outrage against the process of decolonisation as it has been accepted internationally for more than a decade. A major outside power which had no cultural or economic links with the territory has been able to force the outcome of domestic politics in a direction to suit its own ends. As in other places, the outside world did little to prevent these developments which cost the lives of thousands of people. I realise that Dr Castro has announced- I understand this from a Press statement last week and I have substantiated this by checking with other sources- that many of the 15 000 Cuban troops in Angola, who have acted in my opinion as proxies for the Soviet Union, will be withdrawn in 2 years. I understand the proposition is that about 200 troops a week will be withdrawn. Can we believe that this will happen? In any case, after that period several hundred troops will be left in that country. This could create a political irritation in Angola and could tend to prevent free political determinations. For this reason I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a petition which has been signed by 33 members of the Federal Parliament and which I propose to send to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I understand that a similar petition signed by approximately 35 members of the Federal Parliament will be presented in another place.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Wriedt:

– This is an unusual procedure. I think it only right that Senator Jessop at least indicate the material contained in the petition. I do not know whether it is strictly in order. One must be guided by your judgment, Mr President, as to whether that course may be followed. It may have been followed in the past.

Senator JESSOP:

– It was done recently.

Senator Wriedt:

– All right. I cannot remember whether last time someone indicated the substance of the petition. Before leave will be granted I believe the substance of the petition ought to be indicated to the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Jessop, you have sought leave to incorporate the petition. This is a matter not to be debated. Would you indicate the wording of the petition?

Senator JESSOP:

-Certainly. I sought leave because a similar petition to which I was a signatory was presented to this chamber not long ago. Therefore I am quite happy to read this petition to the chamber.

Senator Georges:

– Was it a petition presented in similar fashion or in the normal way?

Senator JESSOP:

– Judge for yourself.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If you want all petitions incorporated in Hansard we will be here for a fortnight. Once you start with one petition we will be here for all time.

Senator JESSOP:

– Do not point your finger at me, Senator.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am just saying that -

Senator JESSOP:

-Do not say anything while you are pointing your finger at me.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Seek leave to incorporate it and we will give you an answer.

Senator JESSOP:

-I will do that. I hope that you remember that similar leave was given previously.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– What about reading the petition.

Senator JESSOP:

-I will do that. The petition reads:

As members of the Australian Federal Parliament we urge the attention ofthe Security Council ofthe United Nations “to the human suffering, massive loss of human life and damage to property that resulted from the U.S.S.R. and Cuban intervention in Angola, and to the continuing presence of Cuban troops in Angola.

We urge the Council to strongly affirm its opposition to intervention by outside forces in the internal affairs of the countries of southern Africa, and to seek from the Government of Angola an assurance that the foreign troops remaining in Angola will not be allowed to use Angola as a base from which to engage in military intervention in other countries in southern Africa.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is there any other wording in that petition?

Senator JESSOP:

-That is the complete text of it, Mr President.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

-The last occasion on which this method of incorporation of a petition was used was, I think, in relation to an Amnesty International matter and it did involve several members of Parliament. I think that there were special features of that petition.

Senator Baume:

– It was a once only petition and not an Amnesty one.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes. I believe that this practice should be nipped in the bud and that it should be stopped here and now. I do not wish to debate the substance of the petition, although it could well be debated. Strangely enough I have in my pocket a letter which I received only yesterday from Africa. It would be very interesting to read some of the extracts from that letter on this subject from a former member of my staff, which gives different information, but I do not want to enter into a debate on this matter.

I believe that the practice of following this procedure in an adjournment debate is a bad practice to get into. The members of this Parliament have every right and every opportunity to express their views on all of these matters. They are in a quite different position from the citizens outside of the Parliament in respect of whom there may be circumstances which would warrant the incorporation of a petition in an adjournment debate. I do not think that any of us would oppose that. But this is a different matter. The adjournment debate is not a vehicle which the members of Parliament on both sides should use for this purpose. For that reason I would not grant leave to Senator Jessop to have the petition incorporated.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– In response to Senator Wriedt I say that this is not the first occasion on which this sort of thing has happened. It happened on another occasion. I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Wriedt tonight, but I would rather he said: ‘This was done once by an honourable senator on one side of the chamber. So I will agree to it being done by an honourable senator on the other side of the chamber.’ I assume that Senator Wriedt agrees with the wording used in the petition tonight but is concerned about the general approach to this matter and the method by which petitions are presented. Perhaps after the one from this side ofthe chamber has been accepted tonight serious consideration then should be given to the points of view that Senator Wriedt has expressed tonight.

The PRESIDENT:

– No decision has been taken on the issue of whether the leave sought by Senator Jessop should be granted. Senator Jessop has read that which he sought to have incorporated before the incorporation was queried by the Leader of the Opposition. There is no point at this stage in his pursuing its incorporation.

Senator WRIEDT (Tasmania-Leader ofthe Opposition)- Mr President, the only thing I wish to say in regard to the comments of Senator

Young is that I agree that we should try to be fair about the incorporation of material, but I believe that this process -

The PRESIDENT:

– You will have to seek leave to speak further in the debate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

– As I was saying, we try to be fair about the incorporation of material. The material that an honourable senator seeks to have incorporated is important to him. The only time when leave is not granted is when we are in a frame of mind where we start refusing leave for the incorporation of material, but that has not been the case tonight. I am just concerned about the procedures that are being adopted. I do not believe that we should allow them to go beyond the stage that they have already gone. Perhaps we were wrong some time ago in allowing the previous incorporation to take place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.25 p.m.

page 2379

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circul

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 420)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each member of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee.
  2. What is the composition of the Committee’s Execeutive
  3. What is the (a) salary (b) cost of travel facilities (c) cost of office expenses, and (d) cost of entitlements and facilities other than (a), (b) and (c), for each member ofthe Committee.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The NACC Executive Committee is comprised as follows:

    1. Stanley (S.A.) President, Liaison with Government

Bodies and Instrumentalities. K. Saunders (Qld) Vice President. O. Anderson (Vic) Information Officer. M. Liddle (N.T.) Land Rights, Compensation, National

Resources.

  1. Nagas (N.S.W.) Housing and Employment.
  2. Smith (N.S.W.) Legal Affairs.
  3. Fejo (N.T.) Sports and Recreation.
  4. Loban (Qld) Culture and Education.
  5. Hagan (Qld) Finance and Administration.
  6. Mason ( W.A.) Health and Welfare.

    1. (a) Salary $7,000, plus an Electoral allowance of $2,000 (city) and $3,000 (country) p.a.
    1. (c) and (d) Each member is entitled to an office, office furniture and equipment, telephone, stationery; the total cost to the Government for these items to date is $8 1 ,520.

Costs in respect of each member vary according to the member’s requirements. Each member is entitled to employ a pan-time secretarial assistant on a salary of $5,278 p.a. Travelling allowance is only paid when a member is required to be absent from his home to attend approved National or Executive Meetings: the total cost of these meetings in 1975-76 is estimated to be $70,968.

Torres Strait Border Issue (Question No. 523)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs recently visit the Torres Strait Islands: if so, when did the visit take place and who accompanied the Minister.
  2. Did the Minister have discussions on the Torres Strait border issue during any such visit: if so what was the result of these discussions.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Minister visited the Torres Strait Islands on 20-24 April 1976. He was accompanied by his wife; Mr B. Dexter, Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; Mr R. Worthy, Director, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Queensland Regional Office and his wife; Mr R. McHenry, Senior Private Secretary and Mr D. Thomson, M.C., M.P., Member for Leichhardt.
  2. The Minister visited the Torres Strait as part of a routine familiarisation tour for discussion of the Department’s programs as they would affect the people of this area. Naturally, the subject of the Torres Strait border issue was raised. The Minister was able to hear the Islanders’ views at first hand and to clarify some of the general confusion surrounding this issue. During these discussions the Minister conveyed to the Islanders the assurances given by the Prime Minister that all inhabited islands and the territorial sea around them will remain part of Australia and that the Islanders will remain Australian citizens. The forthcoming negotiations with Papua New Guinea will aim at establishing a permanent and stable arrangement which will be accepted internationally and by all parties concerned. The Minister assured the Islanders that the arrangement will seek the best way to preserve the Islanders’ livelihood culture and traditional way of life, including freedom of movement on the waters of the Torres Strait and environmental protection for the whole area.

I would also refer the honourable senator’s attention to the Prime Minister’s reply to a question asked by Mr Hyde in the other place on 6 May 1 976.

Postal Charges (Question No. 537)

Senator Collard:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. 1 ) How did the Postal Commission arrive at the decision to increase charges for private mail bags and private boxes.
  2. Will the Postal Commission consider removing all charges from the users of private bags and boxes and instead pay each user a slight remuneration, in view of the fact that the user of such services has to use his own time and energy to obtain a better service.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Postal Commission, when determining and announcing last July the charges for private mail bags and boxes was mindful that under the Postal Services Act 1975, it is required to achieve a balanced financial trading result. Charges have to be set so that users ofthe services generally pay the cost of providing them. The pricing of private box and bag services has been related to the general movement in postage charges and the demand for these optional delivery services.
  2. The Postal Commission is re-examining these charges and hopes to be in a position to announce some changes shortly.

Queensland Ambulance Centres: Transport of Aboriginal Patients (Question No. 549)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Does the Department of Aboriginal Affairs reimburse ambulance centres for the cost of transporting Aboriginal patients; if so, which ambulance centres in Queensland have received reimbursement, how much have each of them received, in each financial year since 1 97 1-72.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes. Details of payments are shown on the attached table.

Uranium (Question No. 558)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister state in a speech he made to the Australian Mining Industry Council at the end of March 1976 that Australia has a quarter of the western world’s known uranium.
  2. Does the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in its latest annual report put Australia’s total uranium reserves at 323 000 tons, or 9. 1 per cent of total western reserves.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1) In my speech to the Australian Mining Industry Council on 29 March 1976 1 said that Australia possesses almost a quarter of the Western World’s known uranium. This estimate is based on the report ‘Uranium- Resources, Production and Demand’ published jointly by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency in December 1975. The report estimates Australia’s reserves (reasonably assured resources recoverable at less than $US15/lb U30 ) to be 243 000 tonnes uranium or 22.5 per cent of the Western World’s reserves. These low-cost reasonably assured resources are equivalent to uranium reserves in the mining sense. Australia’s total resources (reasonably assured and estimated additional resources) recoverable at less than $US15/lb U O are estimated in the above report to be 323 000 tonnes uranium or 1 5.5 per cent of the Western World’s total uranium resources in this cost category. Since publication of the report there have also been some substantial new additions to Australia’s uranium resources, notably the announced increase in the size ofthe Jabiluka deposit.
  2. Except for Australia and the United States, the estimates for Western World uranium resources contained in the 1974-75 Annual Report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission are based on an earlier NEA/IAEA report and are, therefore, not comparable to the above estimates.

Pacific Islanders Living in Australia (Question No. 603)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs received any submissions seeking special assistance for the descendants of Pacific Islanders living in Australia.
  2. Do the descendants of Pacific Islanders at present receive any special grants, loans, or other financial assistance, from the Department, similar to that provided by the Australian Government to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders: if not, is the Minister considering the provision of special assistance to the descendants of Pacific Islanders.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. My Department has received no request for financial assistance but is represented on an Interdepartmental Committee, appointed by the Prime Minister and serviced by the Department of Social Security, to estimate the numbers of South Sea Islanders in Australia and examine their demographic distribution; assess the economic and local characteristics of the Islanders and to decide if they are in any way disadvantaged as a group relative to other groups in the Australian community; evaluate their special needs, if any, and to recommend appropriate forms of government assistance to meet those needs.

Postal Charges (Question No. 604)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Have increases recently been applied to private mail bag and post office box services; if so, what are the current rates, and what were they prior to the increases.
  2. Has the Department of Post and Telecommunications received a substantial number of complaints from people living in rural communities about the increases.
  3. Is the Department, or Australia Post, currently reviewing the increases.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. However, these increases were announced on 3 1 July 1975, together with other changes in postal charges. A comparison of the charges is provided by the following tables:
  1. No, but a number of representations has been made to me about the level of these charges.
  2. Yes. The Postal Commission is re-examining these charges and hopes to be in a position to announce some changes shortly.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 614)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister give an assurance that he will reject the representations made to him and which he disclosed in an address to the Australian Mining Industry Council General Meeting on 29 March 1976.
  2. Did the representations suggest that in future legislation on Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory the Government should make provision in the legislation that where terms and conditions for mining cannot be agreed upon between Aboriginals and mining companies provision should be made for arbitration.
  3. Is such a proposal contrary to the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward that mining on Aboriginal lands should be with the complete agreement of the Aboriginal community concerned, unless it was in the national interest and approved by both Houses of the Parliament.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. No. Mr Justice Woodward recommended in his Second Report that difficulties in negotiating terms and conditions of mining should ‘be resolved by conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration, sponsored by the Government’.

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 570)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When will the Minister provide an answer to the question asked by Senator Cavanagh on 23 March 1976 relating to a review by the Remuneration Tribunal on salaries and allowances payable to members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

My colleague the Attorney-General has had the necessary regulation prepared to allow the Remuneration Tribunal to determine salaries and allowances for members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee.

When that regulation has received Executive Council approval the Tribunal can proceed to review the present payments to National Aboriginal Consultative Committee members.

Torres Strait Islands (Question No. 569)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Will the Minister provide a detailed list of direct expenditure in the Torres Strait Islands by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs since December 1972.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Police Interviews with Election Candidates

Senator Withers:
LP

– On 19 February 1976 Senator Cavanagh asked Senator I. J. Greenwood, Q.C., who then represented the AttorneyGeneral, the following question without notice:

I direct to the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question relating to the fact that the Commonwealth Police are still interviewing independent candidates in the Australian Capital Territory for the last Senate election, with the exception of Mr Michael Cavanough. Is this being done upon an instruction of the Attorney-General? Does the interviewing of other candidates suggest that the reports that there were bribes other than the suggested one that has led to a prosecution are correct? Did one of the candidates refuse to have an interview with the Commonwealth Police unless his solicitor was present?

I am now able to inform the honourable senator as follows:

The Commonwealth Police have interviewed certain persons who stood in the Australian Capital Territory as independent candidates for election to the Senate at the 1 975 election. These interviews took place following certain statements made to the Police in the course ofthe investigation of the allegations made by Mr M. Cavanough. The statements so made suggested possible breaches of the electoral law in relation to the election of senators for the Australian Capital Territory. The Attorney-General agreed that the Police should investigate them.

The investigations have now been completed but they have not disclosed evidence that establishes the commission by any person of an offence against the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Having regard to the result of the investigations it would not be proper to answer the remainder of the question.

Mailbag Delivery Services

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 1 April 1976, Senator Young asked me the following question, without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware that some mailbag delivery services have been greatly reduced, even though the cost of a mailbag postal service has increased by 100 per cent in the last 12 months, due to the policy of the previous Government? As mail services, including mailbag services, are an important and necessary part of communication in rural areas as well as in urban areas, will the Minister ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether he will give consideration to improving those country mail services where no great cost increase is incurred, and I emphasise, because of the economic situation, ‘where no great cost increase is incurred”?

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

The Postal Commission has been re-considering the charges for private mailbag services and hopes to be in a position to announce some changes shortly.

The Postal Commission is very conscious that the delivery of mail in rural and remote areas is an important communication service and has decided that an urgent examination be undertaken of these services. As the honourable senator emphasised in his question, however, the cost factor is a significant one. The quantity of mail involved on most rural services is generally so small that it is rarely practicable to provide a transport service purely for mail conveyance. Mail contracts are therefore generally let to transport operators catering for the carriage of passengers or goods in the areas concerned. The frequency and associated cost of a mail service is thus often a matter for the transport operator and the community he services, as it depends to a large extent on the volume of other business which can be combined with the mail run.

Aboriginal Unemployment (Question No. 149)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons of Aboriginal descent were registered for unemployment benefit at (a) 31 December 197S, (b)31 January 1976, and (c) 29 February 1976.
  2. Does the Department take any special action to overcome the problem of unemployment in the Aboriginal community.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Information relating to the number of persons of Aboriginal descent in receipt of unemployment benefit is not available. However, experience indicates that approximately 85 per cent of Aboriginals registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) as unemployed are likely to be in receipt of unemployment benefit. The number of Aboriginals registered with the CES as unemployed at the dates in the question were:

    1. 31.12.75- 9 988;
      1. 1.76-10 897;
      1. 2.76-10 513.
  2. My Department operates a specialist Aboriginal Employment unit which directs the Department’s normal programs towards the specific needs of Aboriginals. Special provisions are made for Aboriginals within NEAT and specialist officers, known as Vocational Officers and Assistant Vocational Officers, some of whom are Aboriginals, take the services ofthe CES to the Aboriginal community.

In addition to this special action, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs administers a work creation program under its Special Work Project Scheme. This provides for short term work projects in areas of high Aboriginal unemployment and often provides the opportunity for Aboriginals to gain work experience and skills. My Department is closely involved in the implementation of these projects.

Port of Townsville (Question No. 426)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister recommended to the Prime Minister that a project for the development of the Port of Townsville be abandoned.
  2. Will the abandonment of the plan to expand the Port prevent large overseas ships from calling at Townsville to discharge and take on cargo; if so, will this further disadvantage North Queenslanders.
  3. Are current and planned Federal Government cuts higher in Northern Australia on a per capita basis, than anywhere else in Australia.
  4. Will the Minister undertake to review all expenditure cuts in the isolated areas of Australia, with a view to lessening the burden on people who already suffer serious disabilities as a result of living in isolated areas.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. No. Responsibility for the administration and development of the Port of Townsville rests with the Queensland Government which exercises this responsibility through the Townsville Harbour Board. Accordingly, any proposal for expansion or development of the port falls within the responsibilities of the Queensland Government. However, I understand the Board and the Australian National Line have held discussions on the upgrading ofthe Line’s terminal facilities at that port. The upgrading was to enable first and second generation Eastern Searoad Service vessels to call at Townsville and to improve the working of the Line’s larger coastal vessels. Following a review of its financial commitments for 1975-76 the Commission decided in January to defer this project for the time being.
  2. The deferral of this project will not alter the present situation at Townsville. Although Eastern Searoad Service vessels cannot make direct calls at Townsville, shippers are not disadvantaged as their cargoes will still be centralised to Brisbane at no additional cost. Large overseas cellular container vessels can still call at Townsville and use the container berth if they so wish.
  3. and (4) The expenditure restraints announced by the Treasurer do not discriminate against Northern Australia or any other geographical area of Australia. As the Treasurer announced in his statement in the Parliament on 20 May, the decisions should be seen as but the latest instalments in the Government’s continuing policy to restore economic health and at the same time to improve the living standards of less well-off sections of the community. In this way the Government is endeavouring to improve the economic well being of all Australians, irrespective of where they live.

Woomera Bureau of Meteorology (Question No. 460)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Bureau of Meteorology intend to reduce the activities of, or close down, the Bureau at Woomera, South Australia.
  2. Is Woomera, apart from a small office at Oodnadatta, the only meteorological station between Adelaide and Alice Springs that can provide information on high level winds and temperatures on that air route.
  3. Will this result in a reduced safety factor on the Adelaide-Alice Springs, and other air routes in the vicinity, should the Woomera Station be closed.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The meteorological office at Woomera was established primarily to provide services for weapon trials conducted by the Weapons Research Establishment. In conformity with the reduced requirements for these services, the Bureau of Meteorology will withdraw its forecasting staff from Woomera after 30 June 1976. Forecasting services that may be required from time to time during the phasing down period will be provided by the Bureau’s Regional Forecasting Centre at Adelaide.

However, the Bureau intends to maintain a program of meteorological observations at Woomera because of their value for aviation and general forecasting.

  1. Woomera is the only location on the Adelaide-Alice Springs air route, in addition to the terminal points, where high level wind and temperature observations are carried out. Observations of high level winds, but not temperatures, are made at Oodnadatta.
  2. As Woomera meteorological observations will still be available there will be no change in the nature of the information provided by the Bureau of Meteorology for aviation.

Aboriginal Unemployment (Question No. 498)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it correct, as claimed in an article by Andrew Clark in the National Times of 12 April 1976, that more than 40 per cent of Aboriginals in the workforce are currently unemployed.
  2. How many Aboriginals were unemployed as at (a) 1 January 1975, (b) 30 June 1975, (c) 1 January 1976, (d) 1 February 1976. (e) 1 March 1976, and (f) 1 April 1976.
  3. How many Aboriginals were there in the Australian workforce on each ofthe dates referred to in (2).
  4. In what areas has the Government cut back the activities of the Aboriginal Employment Section of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations.
  5. 5 ) Why was this necessary.
  6. Has unemployment amongst Aboriginals increased by 27 per cent since the activities of the Aboriginal Employment Section was first curtailed; if so, will the Minister urgently consider making sufficient funds and staff available to allow the Section to effectively carry out its responsibilities to the Aboriginal people of Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1) At the end of March 10 484 Aboriginals were registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). This number represents approximately 30 per cent of the estimated Aboriginal workforce.
  2. Only end of month statistics of Aboriginal unemployment are maintained. The numbers of Aboriginals registered as unemployed with the CES were:

    1. end December 1974-7082
    2. end June 1975-7062
    3. end December 1975-9988
    4. end January 1976-10 897
    5. end February 1976-10 513
    6. end March 1976-10 484
  3. The estimated size of the Aboriginal workforce was 35 000.
  4. Staffing and financial restraints have been imposed on all Commonwealth Departments. These restraints affected the services of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations including those provided to Aboriginals.
  5. The restraints imposed on the Public Service and public expenditure were necessary for the Government’s assault on the intolerable level of inflation being suffered by the community and as a prerequisite to the recovery of the private sector.
  6. The statistics I have provided show a significant increase in unemployment among Aboriginals since mid June 1975. The Government has decided to give special consideration to those activities of the Department directed to the placement of people in employment, including Aboriginals. As a result, restrictions on travel by CES staff and by the Vocational and Assistant Vocational Officers who provide services to Aboriginals have been removed. Additionally, action is been taken to improve the staffing of Vocational and Assistant Vocational Officer positions.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (Question No. 499)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. Has access to some remote Aboriginal settlements in the North of Australia been restricted for vocational officers attached to the Aboriginal Employment Section of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; if so, what settlements are involved.
  2. Has access to some other settlements been abolished; if so, what settlements are involved.
  3. What was the reason for any restrictions, and what result have they had on the effectiveness of the Aboriginal Employment Section.
Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Weather, conditions for travel and the restraints imposed on staffing and expenditure in the Public Service have combined to prevent Vocational Officers visiting the following Aboriginal settlements in recent months:

Northern Territory- Maningrida, Umbarkumba Angurugu. Bertalumba Bay, Daly River, Pupamanarti Snake Bay, Oenipelli, Warribri, Yai Yai Haasts Bluff, Kungayunti, Areyonga, Docker River, Pipalatjara Amata, Ernabella, Fregon, Indulkana, Yalata, Coober Pedy, Oodnadatta, Maree, Gerard.

Western Australia- Kalumburu Mission, Oobulgurri Wyndham, Kununurra, Halls Creek, Fitzroy Crossing, Lombadina Mission, Beagle Bay Mission, Derby, La Grange Mission, Broome, Balgo Mission, Port Hedland, Jigalong Mission, Roebourne, Yandeerra, Onslow.

Queensland- Aurukan, Bamaga, Bloomfield River, Doomadgee, Edward River, Hopevale, Lockhart River, Mitchell River, Mossman Gorge River, Palm Island, Thursday Island, Weipa, Woorabinda, Yarrabah, Mornington Island.

  1. No.
  2. 3 ) The reasons for the recent curtailment of visits to those areas are mentioned in answer to the first part of the question. However, the restrictions on travel for Vocational and Assistant Vocational Officers have now been eased and the service to those communities will be restored in the near future.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (Question No. 500)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

Has Mr R. Winroe been demoted from the position of Acting Officer-in-Charge of the Perth Office of the Aboriginal Employment Section of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; if so, for what reason was this action taken.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Following established practice, Mr Winroe was deputed to act for a month as from 22 March 1976, in the absence of the substantive occupant of the position, as OfficerinCharge ofthe Aboriginal Sub-section of my Department’s Regional Office in Perth. While acting in this position it was intended that he would, again following established practice, be paid the appropriate Higher Duty Allowance (HDA).

However, in view of an error of judgment made by Mr Winroe while acting in the abovementioned position, he reverted, at the end of the first week, to his substantive position and, in consequence, was not paid HDA for the remaining three weeks as was originally envisaged.

Subsequent to this incident, during another absence ofthe substantive occupant of this position, Mr Winroe again acted, and was paid the appropriate HDA for the whole of the period involved, viz, 20 April- 14 May 1976.

Gun Laws (Question No. 503)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Secretary of the Police Federation of Australia, Mr Page, in the Brisbane Sunday Mail 1 1 April 1976. claim that gun laws in Australia are in a deplorable state.
  2. Is the Minister aware that the Annual Executive Conference ofthe Police Federation of Australia has decided to press for a meeting of Australian Police Ministers to discuss the need for stricter gun laws and greater control over the possession of firearms.
  3. Has the Depanment carried out any research on the number of unregistered firearms in Australia and their use.
  4. Will the Minister take steps to arrange a meeting of Australian Police Ministers to discuss this matter.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Such a statement purporting to be made by Mr Page was published in the Brisbane Sunday Mail on 1 1 April 1976.
  2. Yes.
  3. No. Several States and Territories in recent years have conducted amnesties on unregistered guns, and statistics may be available from the respective Police Forces. The Criminology Research Council has made a grant to three researchers for research into gun laws and possession of firearms and they have issued an interim report.
  4. A meeting on 21 August 1970 of State and Federal Ministers responsible for the various State, Territory and Commonwealth Police Forces, chaired by the then Chief Secretary in New South Wales, discussed various subjects relating to firearms control including uniformity in Firearms Registration. Normally it would be for the New South Wales Minister to reconvene the Conference if this were considered desirable.

Northern Development Council (Question No. 527)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. Has the Northern Development Council been disbanded; if so, what was the composition and function of the Council.
  2. If the Council has been disbanded, what Depanment or authority is now attending to the functions formerly carried out by the Council.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No. However, the responsibility for the Northern Development Council is now with the Minister for National Resources.
  2. See(l).

Rhodesian Police Force (Question No. 559)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many members of the Rhodesian Police Force have been granted entry permits to Australia in the past 6 months.
  2. Has the purpose of their visits been to recruit people for the Rhodesian Army.
  3. How many males under the age of 35 years have been granted passports to travel to Rhodesia from Australia during the past 6 months.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) According to records of visa applications maintained by the Australian Embassy in South Africa authority to visit Australia has not been issued to any known member, past or present, of the Rhodesian Police Force or associated forces.

In no case in which authority to visit Australia has been granted to a person from Rhodesia has there been any indication that the purpose of the visit has related to recruitment for the Rhodesian Army.

  1. According to information supplied by my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, applicants for passports do not necessarily indicate on their application forms all the countries they propose to visit whilst overseas. It is not known whether any male Australian citizens under 35 years have obtained passports with the intention of travelling to Rhodesia.

Aboriginal Unemployment (Question No. 562)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Aboriginals are unemployed.
  2. What is this figure as a percentage of the total Aboriginal workforce.
  3. Has the Government wound down the activities of the Aboriginal Employment Section in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations.
  4. Is the Government considering abolishing the Aboriginal Employment Section.
  5. Did the Government make election promises to increase the number of people involved in Aboriginal affairs, and increase job opportunities for Aboriginals throughout Australia; if so, how are these promises being implemented.
Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. At end March 1976, 10 484 Aboriginals were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as unemployed.
  2. About 30 percent.
  3. Staffing and financial restraints have been imposed on all Commonwealth Departments. These restraints have affected the services ofthe Department of Employment and Industrial Relations including those provided to Aboriginals. Recently, however, the Government has decided to give special consideration to those activities of the Department directed to the placement of people in employment. This will allow the removal of travel restraints for the work of Vocational and Assistant Vocational Officers related to employment assistance for Aboriginals. Additionally, action is being taken to improve the staffing of Vocational and Assistant Vocational Officer positions.
  4. No.
  5. The Government was and is concerned to increase employment opportunities for Aboriginals and for all those who are unable to find employment. Hence the Government’s concern to reduce the present intolerable level of inflation and to stimulate a depressed private sector. Moreover, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, with the agreement of the Minister for Social Security and myself, has established an inter-Departmental committee to examine the problem of unemployment among Aboriginals and to report by the end of July 1976.

Abortion Costs (Question No. 577)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does Medibank meet any costs associated with abortions carried out on women in Australia; if so, what costs are met by Medibank.
  2. What is the total amount outlayed by Medibank for each item listed in ( 1 ) to women in each State of Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Health Insurance Act provides that where medical expenses are incurred in respect of a professional service rendered by a legally qualified medical practitioner, medical benefits are payable in accordance with that Act. The services attracting medical benefits are indentified in the First Schedule to that Act.

There is no item which refers specifically to induced abortion. However, the Schedule does include a number of gynaecological procedures necessarily performed for medical reasons other than abortion, but which may result in the temination of pregnancy. In processing claims for benefits for such procedures, it is not possible to identify cases involving elective termination of pregnancy (abortion) either for medical or other reasons from those in which spontaneous miscarriage has already occurred.

The main item that would be applicable in relation to abortions is item 6469- evacuation ofthe contents of the gravid uterus by curettage or suction curettage.

  1. The estimated total benefits paid by Medibank in each State during the period 1 July 1975 to 20 May 1976 in respect of item 6469 are:-

Aboriginal Unemployment (Question No. 615)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister considered the recommendations on Aboriginal unemployment of the House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. Does the Report recommend that the Aboriginal special works projects should be greatly expanded and the former Department of Labor and Immigration immediately fill all vacant positions in the Aboriginal Employment Section of the Department.
  3. Does the Government intend, contrary to the recommendations of the Committee, to (a) reduce expenditure on Aboriginal special works projects, and (b) abolish the aboriginal Special Employment Section of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. (a) The administration of the Special Work Projects Scheme is at present the responsibility of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

Transport Safety (Question No. 634)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Miniser for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of comments made by the President of the General Aviation Foundation, Mr Laurence Gruzman, Q.C., in the Sydney Sun-Herald of 16 May 1976, that the true causes of air, sea and major land crashes in Australia are often obscured by Department of Transport investigators.
  2. Is the Government considering the Association’s recommendation of the establishment of an independent National Transport Safety Board to conduct all crash investigations in Australia: if so, when will the Government’s inquiries into this proposal be completed.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, and I do not propose to comment on general and unsubstantiated accusations of that nature.
  2. 1 understand that Mr Gruzman, who I believe is a past president of the General Aviation Association, was acting only in a private capacity when he convened a meeting recently in Canberra attended by some elements of the transport industry. I have not received from the meeting any recommendations. I would comment however, that the principle that the functions of accident investigation should be separated, and seen to be separated, from the other functions of my Department has been accepted for many years. I indicated to Mr Gruzman sometime ago that it was intended that the Government review at an appropriate time the machinery for accident investigation.

Aboriginal Hearing Defects (Question No. 642)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article in the Brisbane Courier Mail of 10 May 1976, in which it is claimed that statistics provided in a paper to be presented by two Brisbane medical practitioners to an international ear disease conference in the United States of America in May indicate that only thirty per cent of Aboriginal children in Queensland have normal hearing; if so, has the Department of Health undertaken any research that would indicate the extent of ear abnormalities amongst Aboriginal people in Australia.
  2. Has the Department provided any funds, either through direct grants or via State instrumentalities, for research, and to treat hearing defects in Aboriginal people.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

My Department has been and remains extemely concerned about the high prevalence of ear abnormalities among the Aboriginal population. In conjunction with the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs research has been sponsored into the high occurrence of ear infections among Aboriginal children, the basic causes of the disease and the most effective preventive measures.

  1. In general, except in the Northern Territory where the Depanment of Health has the direct responsibility, financial assistance to State Departments of Health and research workers is provided through the Depanment of Aboriginal Affairs following consultation with my Department.

From 1968 to 1972 the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, as it then was, provided funds fora research program- ‘Field and Hospital Studies into the health of Aboriginal Children’ conducted by the Depanment of Child Health, University of Queensland. As a result of this research, a further investigation into ear disease and hearing disorders among Queensland Aboriginals was initiated in 1971. For this purpose a direct grant was provided for two years by the Commonwealth to the Queensland Depanment of Island and Aboriginal Affairs. This investigation, which was conducted jointly by the Depanment of Child Health and the Audiology Section of the Speech Therapy Department, Queensland University, resulted in the development of a Hearing Conservation and Treatment Program for Aboriginals, funds for which were and still are provided by the Commonwealth Government. The diagnosis and treatment of ear disease and hearing defects are an integral part of the Aboriginal Health Programs which are funded by the Commonwealth Government.

Further research programs aimed at improving the effectiveness of treatment measures are being considered for the Northern Territory.

Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd -Portland (Question No. 649)

Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide sufficient information so as to clarify the future plans of the Blue Circle CementPortland organisation, which provides most of the employment opportunities in the town of Portland, New South Wales.
  2. ) Is the Minister aware that, as a result of this company having retrenched 35 employees in 1975 and the prevailing uncertainty about the company’s present intentions, there exists a general disquiet in the Portland area about the future for those working in, or dependent upon, this enterprise.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Because of a declining market and excessive stocks Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd retrenched 35 of its 200 employees at its Portland plant in October 1975. At the same time the number of operative kilns was reduced from three to two. The company has no present plans for expansion or contraction of production at Portland or elsewhere and does not envisage any reduction in the current level of employment.

Construction Industry Projects (Question No. 651)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the typical lead times from project initiation to completion and occupation of the following major types of projects ofthe construction industry: (a) primary school, (b) secondary school, (c) new hospital, (d ) high-rise office block, (e) suburban factory block, (0 suburban warehouse, (g) regional shopping centre, (h) new refinery, (i) minerals processing, (j) major urban road construction and (k) sewerage treatment works.
  2. For the types of projects identified in (1), what are typical times involved in each of the stages of (a) preliminary investigations and negotiations, (b) planning and design and (c) construction.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It is impossible to generalise about the time taken from project initiation to occupation. The times taken for each ofthe stages would be significantly affected by such things as size, cost, complexity, environmental considerations and the approvals mechanisms.

If the honourable senator has a specific project in mind I would be glad to assist in providing an answer.

Construction Industry Projects (Question No. 653)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the capacity of the planning and design sections of the non-residential construction industry, as measured by employment of, say, architects, quantity surveyors, planners and engineers, etc., at the mid-point of each year 1970-1975 inclusive.
  2. What is forecast to be the capacity level of these same sections of the non-residential construction industry at June 1976.
  3. How long is it expected to be before the level of capacity of these same sections of the non-residential construction industry as existed in mid- 1 974 is reached again.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) As far as I am aware, no specific data relating to the planning and design capacity of the non-residential construction industry has been compiled for the years 1970-1975 inclusive.
  2. The absence of base data precludes the making of a forecast of capacity levels in the non-residential construction industry.
  3. See (I) and (2).

Medibank Review Committee (Question No. 658)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated total cost of the Medibank Review Committee.
  2. How many people are involved in the inquiry and what are their salaries and/or sitting fees.
  3. What are the estimated administrative expenses.
  4. What are the total estimated travel costs and allowances.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. $92,500. This amount includes an apportionment of the salary costs of the members of the Medibank Review Committee and ofthe staff which comprised its Secretariat.
  2. ) The salaries of the members of the Committee were:

Mr A. S. Holmes $3 1 ,000 plus $ 1 ,500 allowances Dr S. Sax-$3 1 ,000 plus $ 1 ,500 allowances Mr N. F. Hyden-$24,90(

The Committee’s Secretariat consisted of six permanent public servants. They were:

Additional minor administrative assistance was provided on an ad hoc basis by staff of the Department of Health; this was estimated to have cost $5,000.

  1. $3,000.
  2. $7,500.

Aircraft: Premier of Queensland (Question No. 664)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did an aircraft, on which the Premier of Queensland was aboard, land at Canberra on Saturday, 8 May 1976 or Sunday, 9 May, 1976.
  2. If so, (a) what time did it land, and who was on board and (b) did this aircraft leave Canberra on 9 May 1976, and if it did, what time did it leave and who was on board.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Aircraft Beech 200 VH-SGT, registered to Secretary, Premier’s Department, Queensland Government, landed at Canberra airport on Saturday, 8 May, 1976.
  2. (a) VH-SGT landed at 7 p.m. Records held by the Department of Transport show that there were two persons on board but in accordance with usual practice, only the name ofthe pilot in command Captain B. Young was identified on the flight plan.

    1. VH-SGT departed Canberra at 6.08 a.m. on Sunday 9 May 1976. Again, only the name of the pilot in command Captain B. Young was shown on the flight plan.

Handicapped Schooling (Question No. 676)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Is the Minister aware that no organised or long-term planning for handicapped schooling has been achieved because of the lack of assurance of the $4 for $ 1 subsidy by the Australian Government; if so, will the Minister undertake to alleviate this situation as soon as possible.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

There is no intention to abolish or reduce the benefits or level of assistance available through my Department to voluntary organisations providing facilities for handicapped children and adults. However, there has been an unprecedented demand for funds towards meeting the cost of new services which has necessitated deferring the approval of many of these claims.

In addition to our commitment to continue funding existing approved services for the handicapped (e.g. sheltered workshops, activity therapy centres and residential accommodation, as well as training centres) which will involve expenditure in the vicinity of $27m during 1 976-77, there are some 250 claims which, if approved, would incur more than an additional $32m in new capital works alone, plus ancillary subsidies for furnishing and equipping the premises and providing staff salary subsidies. In recognition of these organisations’ need to develop their plans for new projects, I am having this whole question reviewed as a matter of urgency and I hope to be able to announce shortly an acceptable program which will permit organisations to go ahead with their planning of new projects.

Timorese Refugees (Question No. 683)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that many of the 300 Timorese refugees at present living in Darwin wish to make application for emergency housing and are prevented from so doing because they do not hold permanent resident status.
  2. Will the Minister indicate whether a decision has yet been made on the issue of permanent visas to these people or whether some other arrangement can be made to allow them to apply for emergency housing.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 have been informed that to date 24 applications (involving 120 persons) from Timorese evacuees seeking emergency housing in the Darwin area have been accepted by the Housing Commission of the Northern Territory. The grant of resident status in Australia will enable the persons concerned to be considered equally with other applicants for the allocation of emergency housing.
  2. On 28 May 1976 the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs announced that Timorese evacuees in

Australia, who wish to do so, may now make application for the grant of resident status.

Social Security Appeals (Question No. 716)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In how many cases have decisions of the Department of Social Security and/or the Commonwealth Employment Service been reversed by Social Security Appeals Tribunals.
  2. What were the original grounds for termination of benefits in these cases.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No decisions have been reversed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunals as they have a recommendatory role only.

However, 524 appeals against decisions to reject or terminate payment of unemployment benefit have been upheld during the period 10 February 1975 to 31 March 1976 as a result of recomendations by the Tribunals.

The original decisions in all cases were made by the Department of Social Security. The Commonwealth Employment Service does not decide whether a person is eligible for unemployment benefit. Its duty is to work test claimants and report to the Department of Social Security on whether claimants pass the work test.

  1. Not all of these cases were appeals against decisions to terminate payment of unemployment benefit. Some were in respect of decisions to refuse claims. Appeals statistics do not show the grounds for rejection or termination of benefit but the great majority of cases would be related to the claimant’s failure to satisfy the work test.

Alice Springs Railway (Question No. 729)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are officers from the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, and the Department of Transport, to visit Alice Springs on 29 May 1976 to investigate the possible resiting of the rail head in conjunction with the new standard gauge link from Port Augusta to Alice Springs; if so, will the Minister ensure that the people of Alice Springs are kept well informed as to the present position of the inquiry and also ensure that reasonable notice be given by any person inquiring into the matter.
  2. What is the present position in regard to the planning ofthe new rail head and has any consideration been given to prior submissions to government.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Officers of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, the Department of Northern Territory and the Australian National Railways met in Alice Springs on 3 1 May to discuss the draft environmental impact study relating to the future location of the Alice Springs Railway Terminal. Every opportunity has and will continue to be made to keep the people of Alice Springs informed of developments.
  2. Discussions are continuing between officers of the Department of Transport, Australian National Railways, the Department of Northern Territory and the Department of

Environment, Housing and Community Development in relation to the future location of the Alice Springs Railway Terminal. Full consideration has been given to all prior submissions to government.

Travel Industry (Question No. 752)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Trade Practices Commission revoked the authority of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents to fine members and regulate the travel industry; if so, (a) for what reasons was this action taken; (b) what result will the decision have on the travel industry; and (c) what means will in future exist for regulation ofthe travel industry.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Trade Practices Commission has not revoked any authority that the Australian Federation of Travel Agents may have to fine members and regulate the travel industry. However, the Commission has declined to issue a notice of clearance (pursuant to section 92 ofthe Trade Practices Act 1974) and also dismissed an application for authorisation (pursuant to section 90 of the Trade Practices Act) in respect of the code of ethics and rules of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents. Reasons for these decisions by the Commission are contained on the public register maintained by the Commission.

Ministerial Offices (Question No. 175)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What requests for the installation of additional furniture or other equipment have been made by Ministers or Ministerial staff in offices available for Ministers or Ministerial staff use anywhere in Australia since 12 November 1975.
  2. 2 ) Which of these requests have been approved.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Responsibility for furniture and equipment for Ministers is snared by all departments to some degree.

My Department provides furniture only for Minister’s State offices, except where located in the Minister’s department, but not in Canberra. It provides equipment only for my office.

Table A below provided by my Department sets out details of requests for furniture by Ministers or their staff for Ministers’ State offices which had been, or were being, processed as at 28 May. Minor items such as crockery, ashtrays have been excluded from the table.

Table B sets out details of equipment provided for my offices in Canberra and Perth.

My Department does not have information about furniture provided for Ministers at Parliament House or in Ministers’ offices located in their departments. Nor does it have information about equipment provided for other Ministers’ offices.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 June 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760603_senate_30_s68/>.