Senate
10 November 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1777

PETITIONS

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 262 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal Claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions, Aborigines should not be penalised;

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control of Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on need as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Lands Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 197S Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament.

A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 159 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Extend the freeze . on_ European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal Claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions. Aboriginals should not be penalised.

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control of Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament.

A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Dripstone High School

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– At the request and on behalf of my colleague from the Northern Territory, Senator Robertson, I present the following petition from 5118 citizens of Australia:

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

That demographic figures show there is an urgent need for a new high school in Darwin.

That tenders for Dripstone High School should be called immediately. We call on the Government to make provision for construction to commence on Dripstone High School this financial year.

That failure to complete a fourth high school in Darwin by 1979 will create severe accommodation problems and prejudice the opportunities of Darwin’s secondary school age students receiving a fair and reasonable education.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Fraser Island

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 122 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 natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as pan of the World

Nature Heritage, and whereas the island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

That the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island.

That the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Child Care Services

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 36 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 1976-77 Budget allocation of $73.3m for child care amounts to less than $23 per child per year which is totally inadequate.

That in 39.4 per cent of married couple families, both parents work and of these 59 per cent have dependent children.

That 38.6 per cent of female heads of families work and of these 64 per cent have dependent children.

That present government childcare programs are heavily biased in favour of pre-school programs, 70 per cent of the funds being destined for pre-schools which only provide part-time services for children and do not cater for the needs of working parents. That existing government childcare facilities, schools and other government buildings which could be used for childcare programs are underutilised.

Your petitioners humbly pray that urgent consideration will be given to:

An increase in funds for childcare services throughout Australia;

An equitable distribution of funds to cover all the childcare needs of the community;

The cessation of the wasteful useage of sessional preschool buildings; instead these buildings to be used also to cover the full range of childcare needs;

The wider utilisation of government buildings or pans thereof, e.g. schools, hospitals and government offices for appropriate childcare facilities.

Petition received and read.

Religious Freedom in the U.S.S.R.

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 22 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 whereas all people criminate, have the right to life, civil liberty and religious freedom;

And whereas we Australian citizens of Ukrainian descent are dedicated to the Ukrainian Autocephalic Orthodox Church in Australia and New Zealand protest and condemn the constant harassment and violation by U.S.S.R. authorities particularly of our devotees and clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

We demand instant release of all illegally imprisoned and exiled orthodox people and clergy and the return of their citizenship rights as stated in the U.S.S.R. Constitution including the right to follow and practice a religious belief and the freedom for leaving the U.S.S.R. travel overseas.

We also demand the release of our Orthodox Priests W. Romaniuk, M. Fedorak A. Sokolan, B. Zalyvak and many others and restoration of their rights and dignity.

We demand restoration of freedom of religion in the U.S.S.R. and return of Churches for worship also restoration of monasteries, seminaries and other religious institutions which have been convened into institutions of antireligious propaganda.

Your petitioners humbly pray, that the Members in Parliament assembled, will take steps at diplomatic level with the Government of the U.S.S.R. to allow freedom of Religion in U.S.S.R.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Means Test

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 72 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 those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a right and not a charity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

International Captive Nations Year

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 39 citizens of Australia:

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

That whereas this nation through its duly elected Houses of Parliament is deemed to abide by the true aims and principles of the United Nations Chaner and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And whereas such Chaner and Universal Declaration purport to uphold the fundamental and permanent right of every country and of every race to genuine free elections and to proper self-determination.

And whereas the peoples and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, amongst others, described as the Captive Nations because they are under the forcible occupation of troops of a foreign power or are compelled to accept a puppet dictatorship under pain of military invasion by the troops of a foreign power should that dictatorship ever be seriously challenged, are indisputably denied these basic human rights.

So therefore it is a matter of national honour and integrity, of moral and Christian duty, and of international justice and humanity, to publicly and constitutionally acknowledge these basic human rights of the peoples of the Captive Nations, and this is in course of being demonstrated by free peoples and their governments throughout the world being now called upon to treat the whole of 1977 as being ‘International Captive Nations Year’.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will accordingly take all appropriate steps to publicly declare immediately possible that the calendar year of 1977 shall be treated as ‘International Captive Nations Year’, in keeping with the world-wide movement amongst free nations everywhere.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Rent Increases in the Australian Capital Territory

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 91 citizens of the Australian Capital Territory:

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

That the rent increases on Government houses due to take effect from the end of October will create many anomalies and cause undue hardship to a great number of Canberra residents.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament asembled, should request the Minister for the Capital Territory to review his policy on rent increases and rescind rises due to commence on Thursday, 28 October, 1976.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Uranium

Senator KEEFFE:

– I present the following petition from15 citizens of Australia:

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

That the use of uranium as a source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and environmental degradation.

That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.

That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposing of radioactive wastes, nor is there likely to be.

That the export of uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.

That the export of uranium from Australia discourages importing countries from investing research and development funds in finding viable alternatives.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately cease the mining and prohibit the export of uranium until perfectly safe methods of final disposal for radioactive wastes have been guaranteed; will greatly increase expenditure on research into safe, clean and inexhaustible sources of energy; and will aid underdeveloped countries in their efforts to secure a fair share of the world ‘s energy resources, while at the same time honouring its obligations to the future of humanity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator GEORGES:

– I present the following petition from 282 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should:

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 1 2 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal Claims. The hearing of the Aboriginal Claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions, Aboriginals should not be penalised.

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control by Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on need as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

d ) The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest itself be reviewed by both houses of parliament.

A provision thatland-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator SIBRAA:

– I present the following petition from 58 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal Claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions, Aboriginals should not be penalised;

Amend the Bill to ensure:

a) The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control by Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on need as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Lands Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 197S Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both houses of parliament. (!) A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Means Test

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 those who have reared and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledged that a pension is a ‘right and not a charity’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Thomas, Senator Mulvihill and Senator Walsh.

Petitions received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1 976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal need for land in the Northern Territory.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

  1. Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions, Aboriginals should not be penalised;

  2. Amend the Bill to ensure:

    1. The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.
    2. The control of Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.
    3. The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on need as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.
    4. The restoration of all powers vested in Lands Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.
    5. A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament.
    6. A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if the wish.
    7. The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Georges (2 petitions), Senator Young and Senator Jessop.

Petitions received.

Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme

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

That the Commonwealth Government restore the Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme immediately for the benefit of those people who live away from the seaboard.

Your petitioners believe that the matter is urgent.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

States Grants (Schools) Legislation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. Pass, immediately, the State Grants (Schools) Legislation for the year 1977 as recommended by the Australian Schools Commission in their report for the rolling triennium 1977-79.
  2. In no way alter the present role and administrative functions of the Australian Schools Commission.
  3. Encourage the Australian Schools Commission to develop and implement without restrictions, a philosophy of educational funding independent of Government pressures.
  4. Guarantee continuing parent and teacher representation on the Australian Schools Commission through the two recognised national bodies, namely, the Australian Council of State School Organisations and the Australian Teachers Federation who represent the vast majority of children in Australia attending government schools.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

  1. That the use of uranium as a source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and environmental degradation.
  2. That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.
  3. That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposing of radioactive wastes, nor is there likely to be.
  4. That the export of uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.
  5. That the export of uranium from Australia discourages importing countries from investing research and development funds in finding viable alternatives.
  6. That only the overdeveloped industrial nations will benefit from Australian uranium and the gap between these countries and the energy-starved third world will increase yet further.
  7. That the securing of land rights by Australian Aborigines, promised by successive governments, is prejudiced by uranium mining.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately cease the mining and prohibit the export of uranium until perfectly safe methods of final disposal for radioactive wastes have been guaranteed; will greatly increase expenditure on research into safe, clean and inexhaustible sources of energy; and will aid underdeveloped countries in their efforts to secure a fair share of the world ‘s energy resources, while at the same time honouring its obligations to the future of humanity.

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

Petition received.

Education

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 recent budgetary allocations endanger the quality of Australian education, especially for disadvantaged groups, and, in particular, for migrants, Aborigines and tertiary students from poor backgrounds.

Your petitioners believe that all persons admitted to institutions of tertiary education in Australia have a right to adequate living conditions and that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to protect that right.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. That the quality of education in schools and ternary institutions be not eroded but extended through the provision of adequate funds.
  2. That in view of the sub-standard living conditions forced upon many tertiary students as a consequence of a totally inadequate student assistance scheme, there is an urgent need for a substantial increase and indexation of grants provided under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme to the level of a living wage, and, further, that the needs-based grants scheme be in no way jeopardised by any other program of student assistance.
  3. That in order to preserve the quality of higher education in Australia and so as to prevent discrimination against disadvantaged groups there should be no introduction of fees for overseas students, second degree students, higher degree students or any students.

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

Petition received.

page 1781

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE MARITIME COLLEGE, LAUNCESTON

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. I ask him whether he recalls, on 4 November in answer to a question by Senator O ‘Byrne concerning the Maritime College at Launceston, making this statement:

If the State Government-

That is, the Tasmanian Government- desires, as the honourable senator no doubt does, to help in this construction, a simple gesture would be to make available to the Commonwealth Government part of that land which is held at the moment as State Crown land.

Is it not a fact that no request has been forthcoming from the Commonwealth Government to the Tasmanian Government to make land available for the construction site? I also ask him whether he recalls saying in the same answer:

As a first step I invite the Tasmanian Government to make available the land which it holds and which is free for it to make available, so that the $453,000 of capital money which is included in the Appropriation Bills now before the Senate can be applied not to the purchase of land but to the preliminary construction.

I now ask the Minister: In view of the offer by the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Neilson, to the Prime Minister yesterday that if the Commonwealth could not afford to buy the land the State Government would give it to the Commonwealth, will the Minister now give an assurance that Mr Neilson ‘s offer will be taken up and that the $453,000 capital money can be applied immediately for the purpose of preliminary construction?

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

-I well recall the question. I am delighted at what is a highly successful result of an initiative which I was able to take.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– If honourable senators opposite who laugh will contain themselves the facts will emerge. For some months discussions have been taking place between my Department and the Tasmanian Government concerning the question of the land and the land area. It is true that the precise site on a piece of land adjacent to the Newnham College has not been determined because the interim council has just been set up. It is true that on 4 November I indicated to Senator O ‘Byrne that if a piece of land now in the possession of the State Government were made available free, then the money that is provided in the Budget could be made available for capital development. I was present with the Prime Minister yesterday when he asked Mr Neilson, the Premier of Tasmania, whether, since he had asked us to develop the Maritime College, Mr Neilson would make the land available. The Prime Minister indicated that following that we would then use the money that we had for site development. Mr Neilson indicated as the result of the request by the Prime Minister that he would do so. We indicated that as soon as the particular site was settled we would then apply the money in whatever form of labour intensive work we could do to achieve 2 things, namely to get the Maritime College afloat and -

Senator Devitt:

– Watch it.

Senator CARRICK:

-Well, it is 70 miles upstream and perhaps that is the wrong phrase to use, as I think Senator Wriedt, as a former mar.riner might agree. It was agreed that we would look to that matter including, of course, labour intensive development. I have set out to direct the attention of the chairman of the interim council, Mr Swanson, to the agreement that was reached yesterday. I will invite by letter the interim council to give the matter its consideration at its first meeting which is to be held in a few days time. So the answer is: Yes, we will hurry it up.

page 1782

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DISPUTES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware that the governments of the United States and Russia are currently attempting to negotiate a treaty to deal with the arbitration of international business disputes? If the Minister is so aware, can he inform the Senate whether the Commonwealth Government intends entering the negotiations with the express view of becoming a party thereto and, if so, what benefits does the Minister foresee that Australian business will derive from such a move?

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

-Neither of those nations has asked me to become involved in these negotiations at the present stage. In this area you are really in a situation of international law, which is properly the province of the Attorney-General. The benefits that would flow out of international agreements in these areas are things like repatriation of capital in difficulty, royalty payment exchanges, facilitation of trade, payments of debts incurred between one country’s traders and another country’s traders. It is the same general broad Trade and financial pattern internationally as you would get within a nation. It certainly would be an advance in world trade and understanding. I hope it succeeds.

page 1782

QUESTION

FAR WEST ABORIGINAL PROGRESS ASSOCIATION

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has refused to fund the Far West Aboriginal Progress Association, a South Australian organisation, unless that organisation removes 2 persons from its committee? Can the Minister inform the Parliament the reasons- to be terribly charitable I use these words- for this unusual state of affairs?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I am not aware that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has refused to fund the Far West Aboriginal Progress Association unless it removes two of its members. I shall refer the matter to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and ascertain whether there is any information that he can give to the honourable senator.

page 1782

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE ORE DUMP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security: In view of the serious concern being expressed over the possible dangers to people who have been in the area of the exposed uranium tailings dump in Port Pirie, is the Minister now able to say whether the matter is a State or Commonwealth responsibility? In the event of any sickness resulting from exposure to radioactivity at this dump, will the Government make every endeavour to ensure that such persons are duly and fully compensated?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did answer briefly a question in regard to this matter yesterday and mentioned that it was primarily a matter for the Government of South Austrafia. The information which I have in regard to this question does indicate that the average level of radioactivity in the area was very low and that the National

Health and Medical Research Council recommendation was that exposure should not be more than 500 millirems in one year. There was evidence of children playing in areas of low radioactivity but they would need to play there for more than 1000 hours in one year to exceed the prescribed limit. One small spot in the area showed the highest level of radioactivity and there are plans by the Mines Department to bury the piles of rubbish there at present.

The Minister for Mines in South Australia, Mr Hudson, made a statement in the South Australian Parliament yesterday afternoon outlining the plans to cover the areas concerned. No Press release was made of this but a copy of the report is being obtained by the Minister for Health. The matter now seems to be one of engineering concern in determining the methods of cover, but the Atomic Energy Commission has agreed to act in the capacity of consultant to the South Australian Government. We shall keep the Senate informed of further developments in this matter as the Minister for Health receives information. I shall refer the matter of compensation to the Minister for Health or to the appropriate Minister to ascertain whether there is any comment to be made on that.

page 1783

QUESTION

JACKSON POLLOCK PAINTINGS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to Senator Webster in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts: Is he aware that a large painting by Jackson Pollock called Lavender Mist was sold recently through a London dealer to the National Gallery of Art in Washington for well over US$2m? By comparison, does this not make the Whitlam Labor Government’s acquisition of Blue Poles an astute purchase? In view of this how does he now explain away his Government’s extravagant use of language in referring to the purchase of Blue Poles as irresponsible, corrupt, a scandalous waste of money, dull, uninteresting and showing poor business acumen?

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

- Mr President, I happen to represent the Prime Minister in these matters.

Senator McAuliffe:

– It is not on the book.

Senator WITHERS:

-Did not you know that? If the honourable senator looks up the Hansard for the last couple of weeks he will see that I have answered some questions in this area, not Senator Webster.

Senator McAuliffe:

– It is not on the list you put out.

Senator WITHERS:

-I represent the Prime Minister in this place except in a couple of limited areas. Senator Carrick represents the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs and I think Senator Durack represents the Prime Minister on Women ‘s Affairs via Mr Macphee.

Senator McAuliffe:

– We have never been advised.

Senator WITHERS:

– I am advising you now. I thought the Senate would have twigged to this because I have answered questions on this subject. Senator, the information you relate is not new to the Senate. Even though I do not read even Hansard I recall this matter being raised. No doubt it was whilst you were abroad on parliamentary business. So the Government is well aware of this purchase because one of your colleagues raised it some time back. Whether the painting is bigger or smaller than Blue Poles is not, I think, of great relevance because as I understand things in the art world one does not buy paintings for so much a square inch or a square metre. That was the sort of inference in the last question-that our painting was X metres by Y metres and that this painting was only a quarter of that size and therefore we could arrive at some value for it. But I have never known works of art to be sold by the square foot or the square metre -

Senator Missen:

– Or the square senator.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is quite right. But whether or not someone makes such a purchase is a matter for his judgment. People who oppose the purchase by the group to which the honourable senator refers may well have used the same language as we used here last year. But that is a matter of judgment concerning each individual purchase.

page 1783

QUESTION

MIGRANT EDUCATION

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Education noted the headlines in the latest issue of Education, the journal of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, stating that migrant education for adults and children is still at the end of the educational queue? Would the Minister again inform this chamber and the people of Australia of the facts on migrant education spending by the Fraser Government in language which could be understood even by the editors of the journal?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There has been a great deal of misunderstanding on this case. Natural misunderstanding arose because people looked at a line entry in the Budget and thought they saw that an expenditure of some $20m last year on migrant education had been reduced to $ 10m this year. So a great deal of criticism was engendered which was entirely wrongly based on the thesis that the allocation for migrant education had been cut in half. In fact what had happened was that in the interim essential funding of child migrant education had been passed to the Schools Commission. There is of course an entry of some $20m to $21m, from memory, with regard to the Schools Commission program. The overall situation is that migrant education, rather than suffering is in fact being sustained- and being sustained at very real levels. It is improving in its general content as compared with past years.

page 1784

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and refers to the decision earlier in the year by the Government not to pay unemployment benefit to school leavers over the long vacation. Is it a fact that 1 S November has been set as the cut-off point beyond which school leavers will not receive unemployment benefit except in exceptional circumstances? Will this not penalise those students who stay on to complete their final year properly? Also, has this policy been extended to university graduates, meaning that university graduates will be unable to receive unemployment benefit until February in the same way as school leavers? Was this decision ever announced by the Government?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– There was an announcement earlier this year with regard to unemployment benefits for school leavers. Statements were made by the Government that people leaving school generally will not be paid unemployment benefit until the commencement of the new school year. This will be applied having regard to the commencement date of government schools in each State and Territory. Exceptions will be made to meet cases of genuine hardship. With regard to university graduates, a university graduate may apply for unemployment benefit as soon as he leaves the university. Payment will commence from the seventh day after the date of lodgment of his claim. This has been the position in past years and there is no proposal to vary it.

With regard to university undergraduates, that is, those who are proceeding to a further year’s study, their position is covered by a legal opinion to the effect that undergraduates are not unemployed during the long vacation. For some years now they have not been paid unemployment benefit during that vacation. If a university student who has not completed his course states that he does not intend to resume his studies, it has been the practice not to pay unemployment benefit until his intentions are clear. In other words, he is still regarded as a full time student until such time as enrolment for next year has closed and he has not re-enrolled. This practice will continue but the question more directly referred to graduates. I am able to state that university graduates will receive the unemployment benefit from the seventh day after the date of lodgment of their claims.

Senator GRIMES:

– I desire to ask the Minister a supplementary question. I referred in my question to the date of 15 November. Will those people who leave school before 15 November be eligible for the unemployment benefit? Will those who leave after 15 November not be eligible for the unemployment benefit?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think a statement was made earlier with regard to the application of the date of the commencement of the unemployment benefit. I will check that but it is my understanding that those who leave within a month of the end of the school year will be treated differently from those who leave earlier than that. I will clarify that matter for the honourable senator.

page 1784

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: EMPLOYMENT OF ABORIGINES

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. My question refers to vocational officers and assistant vocational officers concerned with finding employment for Aboriginals- these officers are employed by the Commonwealth Employment Service in Western Australia- and to the vehicles provided for their use. I ask the Minister: Are further such officers to be appointed to reduce the excessive level of unemployment amongst Aboriginals in Western Australia? I remind the Minister that the present Government reduced the availability of vehicles to such officers when it took office although restrictions were lifted in May. What vehicles were made available to such officers in December 1975? What vehicles are now available? Are there any restrictions applying to their use which were not applicable in December 1975?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– There are 9 vocational officer and 4 assistant vocational officer positions currently manned in Western Australia. There are 2 vocational officers and 2 assistant vocational officers based at Perth; 2 vocational officers at Kalgoorlie; Geraldton and Northam each have one vocational officer and one assistant vocational officer; Bunbury, Port Hedland and Albany each have one vocational officer. At both Perth and Kalgoorlie 2 vehicles are allocated full time to the Aboriginal Employment Section and at each of the other centres one vehicle is allocated full time, making 9 vehicles in all. Each vehicle has an allocation of 400 kilometres a week averaged over the year, except at Port Hedland where the allocation is 700 kilometres. In December 1975 the Aboriginal Employment Section had 1 1 vehicles with an allocation averaging 500 kilometres. I feel a bit of sympathy for the Department of Defence which is still using miles.

The reduction in allocation has been justified in terms of a rationalisation of visit programs. In centres where assistant vocational officers are stationed vehicles are shared and this takes account of the fact that each officer spends some of his time working in the Commonwealth Employment Service office to which he is attached. There is also the fact that visits to some of the more distant areas can be more effectively and economically performed by using local air services. If the implication in the honourable senator’s question is that vocational officers may not be provided with the travel resources necessary to perform their work, the Minister would like to assure him that his department constantly is monitoring the needs for these resources and is able to make adjustments as necessary. There are 4 vacant positions in the Aboriginal Employment Section in Western Australia. These are now in the process of being filled in line with the Government’s policy of progressively extending the facilities for employment assistance to Aboriginals. When these positions are manned the necessary additional travel resources will be made available.

page 1785

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SENATE PRACTICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to you, Mr President. I ask: When a document is tabled in the Senate, is some marking placed on the document to permit its easy identification as the original document which was tabled? Did you, Mr President, on 1 8 February table a document entitled Australian Senate Practice- Fifth Edition written by the Clerk of the Senate? Did the Senate order the document to be printed? Is the printed copy of Australian Senate PracticeFifth Edition distributed this week the original document tabled and ordered to be printed or has there been substantial alteration to the document that the Senate ordered to be printed? If substantial alterations were made, would that not be contrary to the order of the Senate?

The president- It is a fact that revisions are made from time to time. This has been the practice over many years. There may be variations between the document tabled and the book produced because of certain revisions. That is all. Also, computerised typesetting can have an effect on the subsequent presentation of the draft material. But the fundamentals remain. There is every right here and at Westminster for variations to be made.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Can I obtain a copy of the document which was tabled and ordered to be printed?

The president-Senator Cavanagh, I understand that you have already been supplied with that document.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I dispute that.

The president- You dispute that that was the document?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

The president- I shall investigate this matter. point Mcleay aboriginal settlement: water supply

Senator messner:

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to a question asked last week by Senator Keeffe regarding the water supply problems at Point McLeay Aboriginal settlement in South Australia. I draw the Minister’s attention to last Monday’s collapse of the water tank at Point McLeay caused by defects in the piping system. This apparently will leave the inhabitants without a water supply for the coming summer. As there is now an even stronger possibility that gastro-enteritis will break out at Point McLeay this summer, will the Minister urgently request her colleague to ensure that the situation is rectified as soon as possible?

Senator guilfoyle:

-I understand that on Monday the foundations of the main water tank subsided and that the system is now unusable and for the moment this has resulted in the toilets and showers being inoperative. However, I understand that there is an adequate supply of drinking water. The South Australian Engineering and Water Supply Department is taking emergency action to remedy the situation and a health surveyor from the South Australian Department of Public Health is going to the mission today to keep a close check on the health aspect. At present there is no danger to the health of residents of the mission and none is expected. The honourable senator may also be interested in knowing that the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs has provided approximately $300,000 for the construction of a water reticulation system at this mission. The construction is scheduled to commence in 2 weeks time and is expected to be completed in four to five months. As far as the dangers from outbreaks of gastro-enteritis are concerned, I understand that whatever precautions have been able to be taken have had attention and the early construction of the new system, we believe, will overcome the difficulties that may have arisen.

page 1786

QUESTION

SOVEREIGNTY OVER OFF-SHORE AREAS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Has the Prime Minister written to the Premier of Western Australia, in response to the Premier’s proposal that the State should have sovereignty over offshore areas, informing the Premier that the Government has had regard to the advice received from its law officers that the Commonwealth could not legally accede to the State’s request on this matter? If so, does this mean that the present Government unequivocally endorses the legal judgment of the former Labor Government? Will the Minister guarantee that the Government will continue to resist Sir Charles Court’s repeated incitements to go outside the law?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked me, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General, whether the Prime Minister has written to the Western Australian Premier. The question would not seem to have anything to do with me or with the Minister I represent. In any event, the matter of communications between the Prime Minister and State Premiers is one about which the Prime Minister himself will no doubt be making information available.

Senator WALSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister’s reply, are we to take it that it is standard practice for the Prime Minister to write to State Premiers on legal matters without consulting the AttorneyGeneral?

Senator DURACK:

– I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

page 1786

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community

Development. I refer to the report in the Australian of 9 November regarding the catching by Taiwanese operators of more than 1 million giant clams per year from an area within the Great Barrier Reef and the estimate by Dr Endean, vice-president of the Great Barrier Reef Committee, that at least 40 Taiwanese boats have been operating regularly in this area. What action is proposed to safeguard the ecology of the Great Barrier Reef and to avoid the extinction of these giant clams? What action can the Government take to prevent this continued poaching in Australian waters?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The question that Senator Missen poses is significant. If the matters as stated are correct, there would be a profound potential for alteration of the ecological balance within the Reef area itself. Personally, I am not aware of the extent to which foreign fishing vessels, including Taiwanese vessels, are poaching in the Reef area. I should imagine that the question concerns a number of departments, including the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. Because the question is important I will direct it to my colleague the Minister and to any other Minister concerning the poaching aspects and seek a reply.

page 1786

QUESTION

ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether it is a fact that new capital spending in the private sector is slower in 1976 than it was in 1975. Does this lag indicate that the investment led recovery claimed by the Government early this year has not materialised and that the Government has now revised its economic strategy to suggest that an investment recovery will not come until the end of 1977? In the circumstances, has the Government considered abolishing the 40 per cent investment allowance and the double depreciation concession for the purposes of reducing the deficit which, as was said yesterday, at present exceeds the deficit as at this time last year? Has a recognition of the failure of this part of the Government’s economic policy led to the credit squeeze announced on Sunday by the Treasurer?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I will start from the bottom in this rather tangled web. There is no credit squeeze. There is a sensible monitoring of the money supply. If honourable senators opposite had done this when in government, the disaster that the present Government inherited might have been avoided. A lot of things the honourable senator has said are the sons of things which are said by people who try to run economies on a daily temperature taking basis and so get into trouble. One needs to use a bit more sense and restraint and to look at events on a longer time span. The honourable senator’s question will go on notice.

page 1787

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LABORATORIES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he recalls the emphasis that has been placed by Senator Messner and myself upon the importance of the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories in South Australia as a facility whereby research and development are adapted for industrial purposes? Is he aware of the tripartite basis upon which this institution was established, whereby the Federal Government, the State Government and industry provided funds for its establishment and also a guarantee of work for that institution. Following representations to the Prime Minister and other Ministers involved in the activities of these laboratories, has the Government made a decision regarding its involvement in this unique research institution, bearing in mind that the Federal Government has fallen a little behind the other partners with respect to the financing of that institution?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not know how accurate the latter part of the honourable senator’s question is. I thought that there were 3 cosponsors of the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories and that each had equal shares. As I understand the position, arrangements are in hand for urgent discussions among the 3 copartners concerning the future of AMDEL.

page 1787

QUESTION

ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, follows the one asked by Senator Gietzelt. I think the Minister might have given more consideration to the question. Neglecting certain aspects of it, I ask him: Does he believe that the decision by this Government to introduce an investment allowance over a period of, I think, 8 years- or 6 years, anyway- was taken on a daily temperature basis, as he referred to it? In view of the facts as enunciated by Senator Gietzelt showing that the economy has not responded to that investment allowance program, is the Government intending to persist with its assumption that by the continuation of this investment allowance program there will be a response from the business community before demand picks up?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am always as careful as I can be to get accurate information in response to what appear to be sensible queries. Equally, I resist comments which I think are false. If one compares the national account figures at the end of June this year with the figures for the previous June, which I suggest is worth doing, one will see the long term recovery trend clearly established. One will see the investment patterns being established. A large number of surveys come out all the time. I can refer to a number of them. There is the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia-Bank of New South Wales survey; there is the Chamber of Commerce IncorporatedNational Bank of Australasia Ltd survey; there are the surveys that come out from the group headed by Dr Ironmonger. Various people are commenting, for hire, in the market place. When one goes through all those surveys some clear things are established. The profitability trend is up; the activity trend is up; the consumer demand is moving but not at the rate one would like immediately, though the trend line is showing itself about where it ought to be. The economic growth projections of the Budget appear to be working out at this time, based on the June figure. That is about as precise as I can be. I have always been very concerned about Australia trying to run its economy on daily temperature taking. I suggest to anybody involved in this business that constant changes of policy and constant changes of Treasurer do not add to business confidence.

page 1787

QUESTION

CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF FUNDS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory been drawn to statements in the media, attributed to Major-General Stretton, that of a total of $ 15m raised for victims of Darwin’s cyclone Tracy about $7m has not been accounted for? Can the Minister indicate whether the statement is true?

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

– Following cyclone Tracy many donations were made to provide relief for the stricken people of Darwin. Of the funds provided, $8,156,353 was received by the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust and disbursed by it. The trust fund was established in early 1975. In accordance with the trust deed, regular monthly reports and financial statements have been tabled in the Parliament. I recently tabled reports for the months from February to June 1976. That trust account is now being wound up, the accounts will be subject to audit, and the final report will be tabled in this Parliament. Other amounts were paid by groups to other groups in Darwin which may or may not total the $7m referred to by the honourable senator. These did not go through the trust, and the accountability of these must lie outside the trust and with those parties who handled the moneys. It is known, for instance, that the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd gave about Sim to the Salvation Army. The Red Cross Society received a very large amount. Other bodies, such as Rotary, Lions International and the Returned Services League, all dealt with money through their own organisations. I believe that the final report of the Trust will be quite a valuable document and one of importance. It may be a valuable guide to any future situation arising from such a natural disaster as occurred in Darwin. The Senate will be aware of the first report of the Trust, which indicated a need at the time for all moneys to be accounted for through one trust. This is perhaps one of the lessons which we have learned.

The Darwin cyclone was a massive disaster which required a tremendous relief operation. I believe that no one should be condemned for mistakes made with good intent and with good purpose, because the whole of the Australian community rallied to the assistance of Darwin. It is quite easy to be wise after the event, but we have learned that certain things that happened should not be allowed to occur in the future. I am not aware whether the $7m mentioned has been accounted for. It may have gone through an accounting process. If it has not gone through an accounting process, we should not assume that somebody misappropriated it or absconded with it simply because it would have been money outside the Trust and handled in good faith by organisations such as those I have mentioned.

page 1788

QUESTION

SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his several capacities. Firstly, I ask him in his capacity as Minister for Administrative Services and therefore responsible for the servicing of the needs of royal commissions whether it is the intention of the Government to release the report or reports of the Royal Commission into the Security and Intelligence Services conducted by Mr Justice Hope. If so, when? Secondly, I ask him in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the report based on the findings of the Chief Ombudsman of New Zealand, Sir Guy Powles, in today’s Canberra Times that ‘it could be reasonably assumed that there are up to 36 ‘official’ Soviet intelligence operatives in Australia plus of course a number of operatives not attached to the official structure and an even larger number of agents in left-wing organisations, emigre groups and the like’. What is the Minister’s comment on this claim? Furthermore, is he able to confirm or deny another item in the newspaper report that a former Pravda correspondent in Canberra, Mr Yuri Yasnev, had been publicly cited as a KGB contact man with an Irish Republican Army terrorist group in Dublin?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-As to the first question, it will be a matter for decision by the Prime Minister whether the report of Mr Justice Hope ought to be released. I just pay the royal commissioners; I do not have any direction over their reports. As to the second question, I have not seen the newspaper article referred to which was published in today’s Canberra Times. If the New Zealand Ombudsman has some evidence I would imagine he would forward it to the proper authorities either in New Zealand or in this country.

Senator Harradine:

– He has already done so.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Harradine asserts that the Ombudsman has done so. I do not know whether he has or he has not.

Senator Harradine:

– He made a report on it.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Harradine says he made a report, but I have heard a lot about these reports. He most probably made an assertion or allegation. That is somewhat different from adducing evidence. As I have said in this place many times, it is a favourite habit of people around here to get hold of a newspaper assertion or allegation and treat it as a matter of fact. If Sir Guy Powles has information including names of people and so on, I would hope that he would supply it to his own country for passing on to us, because we have a joint interest in this matter. I do not know to whom I should refer the last part of the question about the Pravda correspondent. I doubt whether the Department of Foreign Affairs would be able to provide the answer, but I will ask my ministerial colleagues to see whether I can obtain further information on that matter for th? honourable senator.

page 1788

QUESTION

HOBART ATHLETIC TRACK

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I preface it by saying that I am well aware of the Minister’s own interest in running regularly each morning and no doubt the Minister is aware of my similar interest. I hope that he does not feel that I have a vested interest in asking this question. Is the Minister aware that athletes were training on the Hobart athletic track in March 1976 but that the track, to which the Commonwealth contributed about $150,000, has not yet been opened for regular use? Is the Minister aware that the track was to have been opened on 30 October last and is he able to say when it will be opened? Is it true that the real reason for the present delay in opening the track is that certain officials of the Hobart City Council are adopting a ‘go slow’ tactic so that they can have a special opening just prior to the Australian championships in March 1977, which will be a full 15 months after the track was due to be completed? Is the Minister also aware that there has been an orchestrated attempt to stop people asking legitimate questions about the progress of the centre and that one Hobart City Council official when questioned said: ‘You have waited 10 years. Another 6 months will not matter’? Does the Minister agree with that type of attitude?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have to confess to a modest 20-minute jog of a morning, much to the distraction of the local canines I am bound to say. Amongst my papers here I have some information concerning the Domain athletic track in Hoban. As I understand it, the Commonwealth Government made 3 grants towards its construction, the first in 1973-74 of $60,000, the second in 1974-75 of $175,000 and the third in 1975-76 of $105,000, making a total of $340,000. Contributions by the State Government and by the Hobart City Council were to make up the full cost. The Hobart City Council has requested further assistance to help bridge the gap between Commonwealth funds to date and funds apparently available from the City Council, the State Government and Tasmanian Amateur Athletic Association sources. The City Council has indicated several times during the 3-year period the difficulties it has perceived likely to be engendered by escalating costs. I am not aware of the internal politics that the honourable senator has sketched. I think it would be a great pity if the opening of the track were delayed by internal politics. I will direct the honourable senator’s comments to my colleague in another place and ask him to investigate the matter.

page 1789

QUESTION

ADELAIDE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the delay in the distribution of the 1976-77 Adelaide telephone directory and to the fact that this directory has been available here at

Parliament House for approximately 4 weeks. Will the Minister make inquiries as to when the distribution of the Adelaide telephone directory will be completed and as to what has been the cause of the delay in the distribution which is almost 2 months later than usual?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I know the frustration of honourable senators when they do not have telephone directories, which are part of their work equipment. I was not aware of the delay. I will immediately seek information from my colleague.

page 1789

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO

Senator DAVIDSON:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, relates to ethnic radio. Can the Minister give details of the South Australian Advisory Committee on Ethnic Radio, and in particular details relating to its authenticity? Is he aware that already some fifteen to twenty ethnic groups are using radio station 5UV in Adelaide? Has the Minister received any representations from the Ethnic Communities Council in South Australia, which claims to represent some 25 000 to 30 000 people, relating to ethnic radio and its programs? Will he arrange for me to receive information concerning the current position of ethnic radio in South Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Davidson’s interest in ethnic radio is well known. It would be obvious that the details he has sought in his question could not be available to me immediately. This is an important question. I shall seek the information as soon as possible and let him know.

page 1789

QUESTION

PUBLIC BROADCASTING: RESTRUCTURING

Senator RYAN:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, refers to a statement made by the Minister in the chamber yesterday regarding the restructuring of public broadcasting. There were many alarming and contradictory intentions revealed in that statement, but there is one particularly confusing aspect on which I seek clarification, that is, the intention to legislate for 2 women commissioners on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I ask the Minister: What precisely does the Government intend to achieve by such a provision? Does the Minister agree that the present provision for one woman on the Commission is outdated and discriminatory and does not reflect current attitudes to women in positions of influence? Does the Minister agree that to provide for only 2 women on the Commission would be just as discriminatory in that it would suggest that without such a provision, ungenerous as it is, no women at all would be appointed? Would not such a provision be treated as an upper limit and thus prevent more than 2 able women being appointed to the Commission; or is the provision merely a strategy to enable the Government to sack the staff representative, Marius Webb, and replace him with a partisan female appointment, while making a transparently token gesture towards equality of the sexes?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The Government’s attitude is quite clearly that there should be equality of opportunity for women in all aspects of society, and it will direct itself to that end. The Government intends to introduce legislation in the very near future- certainly in this sessionwhich will indicate its intentions in these matters. I suggest to the honourable senator that she bides her time and waits for the legislation. During the course of the debate on that legislation she will find the basis of the Government’s policy. Let me make it perfectly clear that the Labor Party has a long history of seeking intrigues in every kind of policy matter. It is now trying to seek intrigues in this matter. This matter is one of genuine reform.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The statement made by the Minister is totally out of place when allegedly he is replying to a question. I think that statement ought to be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– To which statement are you referring?

Senator Keeffe:

– He was accusing honourable senators on this side of the chamber of being totally involved in intrigue, or he used words similar to that.

Senator CARRICK:

-It is quite clear that I have not breached any standing order. Having said that, I point out that what I said was that the Labor Party seeks to find intrigues in any action that is taken; that it has a mind that looks for intrigues. Lest any offence is taken by Senator Keeffe or other honourable senators, I will be happy to withdraw the statement. It was not meant to be offensive to any individual at all. It was descriptive of the convolutions of thinking.

page 1790

QUESTION

ENERGY SOURCES

Senator KNIGHT:

– I ask the Minister for Science a question on the development of alternative sources of energy in Australia, particularly in view of the fact that Australia is one of the best placed nations to undertake research in, and possibly to develop, solar energy. Can the Minister indicate why Australia, according to the information that I am able to obtain, is now spending some twenty times as much on research and development in the field of nuclear energy as it is on solar energy? Can the Minister say whether research on solar energy and other alternatives to nuclear energy are being or will be expanded in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to say whether twenty times as much is being spent in Australia at the present time on research into nuclear energy than is being spent on solar energy. The honourable senator asks about the development of solar energy. I have responded in the Senate previously that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, being the major research institute in Australia, is involved in this field. I refer the honourable senator to a submission made by the CSIRO to the Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources which contains a great deal of information relating to the work that the CSIRO is doing in this field. It should not be taken that the $800,000 which the Solar Energy Studies Unit of the CSIRO in Melbourne is expending this year on solar research is the total amount being expended in Australia. Indeed, under the Australian research grants scheme, which is administered by the Department of Science, grants of some $150,000 were made last year to individuals for the purpose of solar energy studies.

At the present time the CSIRO is concentrating its resources on the types of research which may produce benefit for domestic water heating, industrial water heating, space heating and cooling, power production and heat storage distillation, controlled environment horticulture heat storage and the production of energy from crops, forests and other organic materials, which is of particular importance in Australia at the present time. If there is any other information that I can bring to the honourable senator and he places a question on notice, I shall secure it for him.

page 1790

QUESTION

HOSPITAL AGREEMENTS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question comes properly within the province of the Minister for Health, but it is framed around a statement attributed to the Prime Minister relating to the new hospital agreements, so I am in a quandary as to whether or not my question should be directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health.

Senator Withers:

– Try both. We will sort it out.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I shall try both. I ask: Is the report in the Melbourne Sun today correct in attributing to the Prime Minister a statement that the Federal Government had a $34m cheque ready to hand to the Victorian Government but the money could not be paid over until Victoria had signed the new hospital agreement with the Federal Government? If the answer is in the affirmative, why is the Victorian Government refusing to sign the new hospital agreement?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did not read the report in the Melbourne newspaper this morning, but I am aware that the Federal Government is holding the funds for the Victorian Government awaiting the signing of the hospital agreement. All other States have signed the agreement with the Federal Government and as soon as Victoria signs the agreement the funds can be made available to that State. I am unaware of the detail or of the areas subject to dispute between the Victorian Government and the Federal Government but I shall check with the Minister for Health and ensure that the honourable senator is given the answer.

page 1791

QUESTION

KAKADU NATIONAL PARK

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. By way of preface I refer to the Save Colong Bulletin which refers to discussions between the Minister, his senior officer, Dr Boden, and me on responsibility for the Kakadu National Park. On a previous occasion the Minister stated that the matter would await the second report of Mr Justice Fox. I now put it to the Minister In the light of the report that Mr Justice Fox conferred with the Prime Minister yesterday, does he still stand by the assurance that the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, will alone define the boundaries of that park?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am unaware of the nature of the conversation between Mr Justice Fox and the Prime Minister yesterday. I would be very surprised indeed if this matter were canvassed although of course it may have been. The information which I gave the honourable senator, I think during the Estimate Committee hearings, is the latest information I have to hand.

page 1791

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SENATE PRACTICE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. It relates to your answer to

Senator Cavanagh about the book by Mr Odgers. Would you provide the Senate with details of all the revisions claimed to have been made to the document which was actually tabled in the Senate on 1 8 February and which the Senate agreed should be printed? Mr President, whatever the practices, I put to you for your consideration that, if there are major revisions to a document, they should be reported to the Senate. It should be for the Senate again to give assent to the printing. I do not know the position but I put that proposition to you to ensure that without the consent of yourself and/or the Senate there are no major revisions to a document which has been tabled.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must say to the honourable senator that I have no doubt that the document as tabled is the document which constitutes the fifth edition. There has been quite a serious inference in a few questions this afternoon and I am not happy about them in that respect. I shall make a statement on this matter a little later in the afternoon. I have the greatest respect for the integrity of our Clerk and I am concerned deeply at any inference which questions that.

page 1791

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. In view of the announcement that major changes will be made to the trade agreement between Australia and New Zealand by further progress towards free trade, can the Minister advise what steps will be taken to ensure that those primary industries affected by the present New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement will not be sacrificed in the future changes?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-After question time I shall be delivering on behalf of the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade, Mr Howard, a statement on the Australia-Papua New Guinea trade position. That allows me to pick up the honourable senator’s point in that Mr Anthony, who is on sick leave and I have been the people looking after the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement discussions. We had a series of discussions here with officials including Mr AdamsSchneider and Mr Tallboys the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand not long ago. I believe we are scheduled to have further discussions in New Zealand in or about April. In the meantime, all that is happening is that talks are going on between officials. Nothing has been concluded; nothing is definite. I would be pleased to have any further information from the honourable senator which makes him or his constituents feel that there are problems needing examination. We are gathering together all data at the moment.

page 1792

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator SIBRAA:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In the light of figures cited by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which estimates that real farm income will decline by 36 per cent over the next 12 months, can the Minister say what action the Government is considering taking to relieve the critical situation which now confronts most sections of Australia’s primary industries?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I have had for many years- long before coming here- a very considerable respect for the work of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I have not read the particular document to which the honourable senator referred although it has been referred to in the Press. I do not know the date of issue of the publication. I do not know the projection forward. I do not know on what the projection is based, whether it be on commodities prices or declining output because of drought and problems of that kind. Until I know all that, I really could not be more helpful at the moment than to ask the responsible Minister to give me what data he can to assist the honourable senator.

page 1792

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAMESE VESSEL IN DARWIN HARBOUR

Senator SHEIL:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory: Is it a fact that a South Vietnamese vessel arrived in Darwin harbour today without arrangement or permission and carrying some 50 persons rumoured to be refugees? Has the Minister any information on this matter?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have information here from the office of the Minister for the Northern Territory which indicates that a South Vietnamese boat entered Darwin harbour this morning. Apparently the Royal Air Force picked the boat up as it was heading for Darwin.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Royal Air Force?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Well, I have it noted as the RAF. Customs and Health Department officials apparently have had the vessel under surveillance. The health authorities are now looking over the vessel. It was carrying some 50 to 60 refugees. I understand the refugees are to be placed in quarantine. The Senate can be assured that emergency services in Darwin have been alerted and they are looking after the needs of those refugees.

page 1792

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMED FORCES: RESIGNATIONS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Is it a fact that 435 officers resigned from the Australian armed forces between December last and the end of August this year? Does this figure indicate that the rate of resignations means that just as many officers will leave the armed forces under the Liberal-National Country Party Government as did under the previous Labor Government, which had to contend with the winding down of our forces due to the ending of our commitment in Vietnam?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator has asked me a statistical question the answer to which I do not carry in my head. I ask him to put his question on notice. I further ask that the balance of questions be placed on notice.

page 1792

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I should like to reply to a question asked yesterday by Senator McLaren about the River Murray Commission’s annual report. I have information on a piece of paper in front of me, Senator McLaren, and I hope it makes sense to you because it does not altogether make sense to me. It says: ‘River Murray Commission, 300 copies’. I do not know whether 300 copies of the report I tabled were printed or whether the River Murray Commission received 300 copies. I think, in fact, there were 300 copies of the one tabled. Of those, 28 deposit copies were put in public libraries and university libraries. There were 60 copies put in the bookshops for sale. The parliamentary paper version will be ready in about three to four weeks and provision is being made in it for 7 1 8 free issues and another 100 copies for sale through the bookshops. As a matter of interest, so far only one copy of the report has been sold and that was in the Albury-Wodonga area. I hope that answers most of the honourable senator’s question.

page 1792

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ARTS

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Senator McAuliffe was a little surprised earlier that I should answer a question on the arts.

Senator Devitt:

– We all were.

Senator WITHERS:

– Are you surprised that I have answered anything? I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the fact that I answered a question on 2 November which appears at page 1441 of Hansard. Senator Messner asked me a question and it commenced:

My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister.

He then asked a question about the arts and I answered him. On the following day, 3 November, as reported at page 153 1 of Hansard Senator Archer asked me a question which commenced:

I ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister who is the Minister responsible for the Arts.

I suppose those questions were directed to me as the Prime Minister’s representative in this place. I did answer questions on the arts both on 2 November and 3 November. I shall continue to take those questions.

page 1793

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– During question time today Senator Grimes asked me a question with regard to the unemployment benefit for school leavers. I offered to clarify the position for him. I would like to add to the answer that I gave earlier that where a student ceases school within 28 days before the end of the school year the view is taken that he should continue to be treated as a student for unemployment benefit purposes. Thus he is not placed in a better position than a student who continues at school until the end of the school term. Where a student claims that he terminated his studies more than 28 days prior to the end of the school year and that he intends to join the work force, it is necessary to look at the circumstances of the individual case to establish whether he has ceased to have been a student.

page 1793

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Telecommunications Commission for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1793

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) I present the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on the sixty-second series of variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) I seek leave to make a brief statement in connection with the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KNIGHT:

-This report deals with 32 proposals to vary the plan of layout of the city of Canberra. It is the sixty-second such series of proposals to be referred to the Committee by the Minister for the Capital Territory. The Committee has been asked to deal with a large number of proposed variations during this current period of sittings. For instance, we reported to the Parliament on the sixtieth and sixty-first series only on 5 October last. We were requested to deal as quickly as possible with the present series to enable construction work to proceed on some of the items early in the new year. This has meant that we have not been able to give the detailed consideration to some of these proposals that their importance seems to warrant. In particular, we were asked to approve a number of variations that would have the effect of converting sites previously designated for development for medium density housing to permit development of those areas by the construction of standard detached housing. The Committee takes the view that it should obtain more information from the National Capital Development Commission on the Commission’s long-term policies for medium density housing in Canberra before it signifies approval to 3 proposals presented in the current series. The proposals in question involve a change in land use from medium to low density in areas close to shopping centres in Wanniassa in Tuggeranong, the Kippax Centre in Holt and at Latham in Belconnen.

The Committee has adopted a similar approach to a proposal put forward in this series for a new road to link the Campbell Park office complex with the Russell offices. The Committee is not satisfied that the new road is necessary or that the new office blocks could not be served by modifications to existing roads. In our report we request that implementation of these 4 proposals not proceed until we have examined them further and reported on them to the Parliament again. We would expect to do this early in the autumn sittings of 1977. We have requested that the Minister postpone the action he would normally take on receiving our report, which is to table the instrument of variations in both the Houses of Parliament, until the Committee has had the opportunity to give further consideration to these particular matters.

I should also mention two other proposals of importance contained in the series now before the Senate. We were asked to approve a proposal for an access road off Canberra Avenue to serve a site for a tannery and other as yet undetermined industrial uses in the Jerrabomberra district. This is near the existing abattoirs. In the long-term it is proposed to site other works in this area- of about 9 hectares- which like the tannery have the potential to cause some environmental problems. The Committee was satisfied that the selected site is sufficiently distant from land-users likely to be affected by the tannery. We were assured by officers of the Department of the Capital Territory that in the construction and operation of any plant to be developed in the area, laws for environmental protection would be rigidly enforced. We expressed some concern that the Clean Air Ordinance is still only in draft form and has not yet become law. We recommend in our report that development of the tannery not be approved until the ordinance has come into force. Other proposals contained in the current series which will be of interest to senators are those that will permit the development of the Belconnen Town Centre- in particular the proposed major shopping mall and the commencement of work to improve substantially parts of the Monaro Highway.

Finally, I should add something about the procedures we adopt when considering variations. When notice is given by the Minister for the Capital Territory of his intention to vary the gazetted plan, members of the public have 12 days in which to lodge objections to any proposal. It has been our custom when examining the proposals to call before the Committee those persons who have made formal objections. By this means the Committee can inform itself on community attitudes to proposals. On this occasion we facilitated an exchange of views between objectors and officers of the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Capital Territory. This seemed to us preferable to the procedure adopted in the past of discussing the objections separately with the official witnesses and the objectors themselves. We will adopt this practice in future whenever the importance of a particular matter would appear to warrant such a procedure. We have also asked the Minister to consider a new procedure that would ensure that, in future, consideration of variations by the Committee can be regularised so that they would come before us twice a year- once in the autumn sittings and once in the Budget session. This would obviate some of the problems which have occasionally arisen in the past with the Committee being asked to hurry its consideration of variations to meet planned development schedules. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 1794

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria)by leave- A similar statement to this has been made in the House of Representatives by the Hon. Kim Beazley, MP, who is Deputy Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. The principle of the statements was agreed to by the Committee. The statement is as follows: On 2 November the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) presented a petition to the House of Representatives on behalf of a number of Australian citizens concerning alleged harassment of Jews residing in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and of Jews who seek to emigrate to Israel. At the time of moving that the petition be printed the honourable member outlined to the House his intention to submit the petition to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for examination. I understand that the forms of the other place allowed him to do that.

I now inform the Senate that the Committee has considered this request and agreed under section la of its terms of reference to undertake an inquiry into the subject. Owing to commitments on current inquiries the Committee cannot undertake this investigation immediately but anticipates that it will be able to do so early in the coming year. The terms of this petition open up a very wide subject and the Committee will shortly determine its strategy for the conduct of the inquiry.

page 1794

PAPUA NEW GUINEA-AUSTRALIA TRADE AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AGREEMENT

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Mr President, I am making this statement on behalf of the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade, the Hon. John Howard. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of this statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

-I move:

The Acting Minister for Overseas Trade visited Port Moresby from 6 to 8 November to sign the Papua New Guinea- Australia Trade and Commercial Relations Agreement on behalf of the Government of Australia. Sir Maori Kiki signed on behalf of the Government of Papua New Guinea. A joint press statement was issued by Sir Maori and the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade following signature of the Agreement on 6 November. The Agreement will come into force when notes are exchanged between the Government of Australia and the Government of Papua New Guinea notifying compliance with their respective legal requirements. Trade between Papua New Guinea and Australia has always been an important feature of the special relationship which exists between the 2 countries. Since 1926 Australia has accorded special duty free entry to Papua New Guinea products. In 1950 Australia obtained waivers from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to accord extensive duty free treatment to Papua New Guinea primary and processed primary products. At the present time 95 per cent of Australian imports from Papua New Guinea enter free of duty.

Papua New Guinea is an important market for Australian exports. In 1975-76 Australian producers exported approximately $170m worth of goods to Papua New Guinea. This represented 49 per cent of Papua New Guinea’s total imports. Papua New Guinea is Australia’s eleventh largest market for all exports and the third largest market for manufactured goods. Until the Agreement just signed comes into force trade relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea will continue to be governed by the Memorandum of Understanding relating to interim trade and commercial arrangements. The Memorandum, which was signed in December 1973, was intended to cover trade relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea in the period between self-government and independence. It was extended in April 1975 to cover the period between independence and the conclusion of a more permanent trade and commercial relations agreement between the 2 countries.

Objectives of the Agreement

Most of the trade between Papua New Guinea and Australia has traditionally been free of duties and other restrictions. It was therefore appropriate that both countries should enter into a free trade agreement. The Agreement was drawn up on the basis of the following 3 aims: To continue and extend the duty free and concessional conditions of access for Papua New Guinea exports into Australia; to allow the Papua New Guinea Government to develop new industries and to protect them from import competition; and to enable the Papua New Guinea Government to pursue its social and economic objectives through the encouragement of capital inflow consistent with its investment guidelines. It was recognised by both countries that Australia, in entering into this Agreement, should retain the right to protect its industries where it is considered that they are threatened with serious injury by imports from Papua New Guinea. It was also recognised that the Agreement should accord with Australia’s GATT and other international obligations.

Consistent with the aims outlined above the objectives of the Agreement are: To further the development of the area through the expansion and diversification of trade; to further the development and use of the resources of the area in accordance with the respective social and economic objectives of the member states; to further the development of the area by the promotion of direct investment which is consistent with the foreign investment policies and priorities of the recipient member states; to promote and facilitate commercial, industrial, administrative and technical co-operation between member states; and to contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and to the progressive removal of barriers to it. Accordingly the Agreement provides that a free trade area is established consisting of Papua New Guinea and Australia and that subject to certain exceptions specified in the Agreement trade between the member states should be free of duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce.

Safeguards for Australian Industry

At present Papua New Guinea’s exports to Australia consist mainly of foodstuffs and raw materials. However, Papua New Guinea has indicated its intention to establish new industries. Australia can assist in this development by allowing the products of Papua New Guinea industries to enter Australia duty free provided adequate safeguards are available to protect Australian industry. The Agreement, therefore, provides that Australia accord duty free entry to imports from Papua New Guinea on all but some 270 highly sensitive items. In addition there are 210 items, which are specified in the agreed minutes attached to the Agreement, and in respect of which Australia may take unilateral protective action if damage is caused or threatened to an Australian industry producing those goods. In those items where duties on a wide range of industrial and other products have been eliminated for Papua New Guinea, safeguards to protect Australian industry are included in the Agreement where serious injury is caused or threatened. There are also special provisions covering rules of origin, deflection of trade, dumping or subsidised trade and the suspension of obligations in exceptional or emergency circumstances.

The Australian Position under the Agreement

Whilst the Agreement meets the requirements of the free trade provisions of the GATT it is not the intention of the Australian Government to ask the Papua New Guinea Government to discriminate in favour of Australia as against third countries. Australia will receive no better access than any other country. The Agreement provides no special conditions in relation to Australian investment in Papua New Guinea. In this respect the Agreement is similar to the Lome Convention under which the European Economic Community grants non-reciprocal tariff preferences to a large number of developing countries and to which Papua New Guinea has received approval from the Council of the Economic Community for accession. At the same time Australia’s most favoured nation position in Papua New Guinea is protected under the Agreement by the provision pursuant to which each Government agrees to accord the other treatment no less favourable than that accorded to any third country.

Trade with Third Countries

Any diversification of trade affecting third country suppliers to the Australian market will be gradual and will take place over a long period of time. Papua New Guinea is not expected to move in the foreseeable future to develop industries other than those based on its traditional exports. With regard to developing countries, nothing in the Agreement precludes Australia from continuing the liberal access it has already granted developing countries through its generalised scheme of preferences, or from making a positive contribution to the development of international trade through the GATT.

Other Matters

Other matters covered by the Agreement include, inter alia:

Consultation on the contribution of direct Australian investment to the social and economic development of Papua New Guinea in accordance with that Government’s foreign investment policies and priorities;

Industrial, technical and administrative cooperation; the promotion of trade; consultations on the supply of scarce essential commodities; the encouragement and facilitation of commercial contracts; the association of other States with the Agreement; and the periodic consultation and review of the operation of the Agreement.

The Acting Minister for Overseas Trade has arranged for copies of the Agreement to be placed in the Library for the reference of honourable senators. He intends to table the Agreement in the House in the near future and he understands that legislation will be introduced in the House as soon as possible to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff Act and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. Once this legislation is passed through both Houses the Australian Government will be in a position to exchange notes and thereby to bring the Agreement into force.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1796

QUESTION

MOUNT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY CO. LTD

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I seek leave to amend the notice of motion standing in my name by leaving out paragraphs (2) and (4) and inserting in lieu thereof the following paragraphs:

  1. That the Committee consists of six senators, three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one independent; if no independent nominates, the position to be filled by a senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  2. That the quorum of the Committee be three.
The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator RAE:

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That a select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the circumstances surrounding the operations of the Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd and its associated companies and, in particular, the nature of any assistance from the Commonwealth Government which is both practical and warranted and which will alleviate the social and economic dislocation of the Queenstown area of Tasmania.
  2. That the Committee consist of six Senators, three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Independent; if no Independent nominates, the position to be filled by a Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  3. That the Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
  4. ) That a quorum of the Committee be three.
  5. That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  6. That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
  7. That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.
  8. That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to meet and transact business in public or private session, and to meet during the sittings of the Senate.
  9. That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. A daily Hansard shall be published of such proceedings of the Committee as take place in public.
  10. That, unless otherwise ordered, the Committee report to the Senate on or before 9 December 1976.
  11. That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may send its report to the President of the Senate or, if the President is not available, to the Deputy-President who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation and, in such event, the President or Deputy-President shall lay the Report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.
  12. That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

I seek leave to make a statement relating to the matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator RAE:

– This general matter was referred to in detail in an urgency motion debated in this chamber yesterday, after I gave notice of motion at the commencement of proceedings yesterday. As is well known and as was explained yesterday, there is a social and economic crisis in the Queenstown area on the west coast of Tasmania, arising out of the operations of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd and its proposal to retrench some 400 of its employees. Many suggestions have been made as to the causes and the possible solutions. The facts appear to be somewhat confused. There has been considerable politicking in relation to it. I believe that an all-Party Senate select committee will provide an opportunity for all those involved to state their views and to state their case, which will enable the Committee to find the facts and to assess the prospects of measures which may alleviate the social and economic dislocation of the area. The establishment of this committee will enable the interests of the people in the area to be protected, free from the political football aspects which appear to have been developing in relation to the matter. I am delighted that this motion will be supported by all honourable senators.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I seek leave to make a brief statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-I am glad to hear the remarks of Senator Rae because it is important that this committee take a completely apolitical and objective approach to its findings on this matter. I know from past experience with Senator Rae on Senate committees that that has always been his approach. I am sure that that is the feeling of the Senate as a whole. The last thing we would wish to see would be any select committee demeaned by an individual Party approach which might in some way cloud the objective judgment of the committee in the report that would eventually be brought back to the Senate. Paragraph (8) refers to the committee meeting during the sittings of the Senate. I place on record that the Opposition has some reservations about that. We are not opposing it on this occasion because of the urgency of the matter raised. We make it clear that we would not regard this as a precedent, nor do we believe that it is a good practice that committees meet at the same time as the Senate is meeting. On this occasion we believe it is warranted in view of the nature of the inquiry.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-I ask for leave to make a brief statement on this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DEVITT:

– In view of the fact that both sides of the Parliament will come together in a decision to set up a select committee to inquire into all facts, questions and matters related to the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, and in the light of the human question involved- that is, the tragedy to so many people in the mining area of the west coast of TasmaniaI put the suggestion, in which there may be some merit and for which I hope there may be some acceptance, that in view of the fact that the committee will go into action immediately, that the company, for the time being, not persist with the issue of the dismissal notices for these 400 people. I presume that the committee will go into action immediately. We will expedite the work of the committee to the maximum degree. I make a plea in the Senate that the company not proceed with the issue of the dismissal notices. That would allow us to examine the matter without any question in the back of our minds that immediately, and even before the committee goes into action, 400 workers, their families and other sections of the community will be affected. In other words, much of the work and value of this committee, I think, would be destroyed if the company were to proceed with its announced intention to dismiss 40 per cent of its work force. I put that suggestion. I hope somebody might pick it up and give it further consideration in view of the fact that we are approaching Christmas time, the time of the year when people tend to have a greater regard for human relationships and human feelings. Perhaps we can inject that thought into the whole question. Maybe we can prevent this disaster from taking place. The committee, in the light of a cool, clear, deliberate examination of all the questions, could make a proper judgment of the situation and a report to the Parliament which would adequately cover the situation.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-I seek leave to make a brief statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator HARRADINE:

– I thank the Senate. I refer to a statement that I made yesterday about Senate committees. I referred to the notice of motion which was moved yesterday by Senator Rae. I asked what was the use of establishing a Senate committee when probably the earliest that it would report back would be in 6 months. I did not know at that time that Senator Rae intended to move a further motion which would contain a requirement that the committee report back by 9 December. I support the formation of the committee. I agree with Senator Rae’s statement that it should be free from politicking. I notice that an Independent is to be appointed. I certainly will be nominating.

Senator Wriedt:

– You have a good show of winning.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I have a good show of winning. I concur with Senator Devitt’s statement. Some of these men are due to be dismissed on 14 December. It would be very wise for the company to have regard to the terms of reference of the Senate committee. I think it should withdraw the dismissal notices, pending the report of the Senate committee. The test will be whether the Government acts on the committee’s findings.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1798

QUESTION

SITTING OF THE SENATE

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

– I move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at is rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 1 1.45 a.m.

The purpose of this motion is to allow those honourable senators who so desire to attend the Remembrance Day ceremony at the Australian War Memorial. It is not often that 1 1 November falls on a Thursday. As far as I understand, the last time in fell on a Thursday was in 1971, and the Senate started late that day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1798

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1976-77

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 9 November.

Department of Science

Proposed expenditure, $167,694,000.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– When the Committee adjourned last night I had raised a matter about a question which I put to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) on 24 August this year and an earlier question about general relationships and communications between his Department and the Natural Disasters Organisation. The question arose from a report in a newspaper on 23 August. It referred to the second earthquake tremor in Darwin. My question was:

The article stated that the Bureau of Mineral Resources in Canberra did not learn about the tremor until yesterday because its telegraphic equipment connecting Darwin with the Bureau in Canberra had not operated since the Darwin cyclone. Is the Minister able to bring us up to date on these matters? Will he look again to ascertain whether the Natural Disasters Organisation has the best equipment possible to enable it to perform its national duties?

The Minister promised to give the information. He later said it was a matter for another Minister. He referred it to another Minister. On 19 October he sent me a letter which seems to prove that the Press report was correct. If it was correct and that situation still applies, something should be done about it urgently. The letter that Senator Webster wrote to me is as follows:

You will recall your question without notice on 24 August, and my answers both then and on15 September, relating to the Natural Disasters Organisation. Copies are attached.

Subsequently you asked me to seek a reply from the Bureau of Mineral Resources to that pan of your question dealing with channels of communication between Darwin and theBMR.

I am now able to advise that the seismographic recorders at the Bureau’s Darwin office had to be removed after Cyclone Tracy damaged the office. They were resited at Manton Dam, some miles from Darwin.

Previously, the reading equipment only was sited at the dam, and readings were telemetered by telephone line to Darwin and recorded there. Under this arrangement readings were visually available immediately in the Darwin office.

Now, officers have to travel to the dam daily to check the readings, and this accounts for the delay you referred to. 1 am informed that the intention is to return the recorders to Darwin when the office there has been repaired.

I appreciate that this matter is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it would appear that the Press report is correct and that presently, unless there has been some alteration recently, records are not available immediately to the organisation in Canberra as they should be. The Minister would have been made aware of this matter last night. He may be in a position now to advise whether the situation has changed. I understand that the dam in question is some 40 miles from Darwin. This matter is fairly important and should be considered as such.

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

- Senator Bishop raised a question in relation to weather information being made available to the Natural Disasters Organisation and another question concerning the Bureau of Mineral Resources. I apologise to Senator Bishop for the information he sought not being quickly made available to him. The Department of Science responded immediately to his question on weather information. I can affirm- this was verified by Mr Killen ‘s office as late as yesterdaythat the Natural Disasters Organisation has available to it not only sufficient weather information but also sufficient other information to enable it to perform its duties properly.

The second question raised by Senator Bishop, the one I was not able to answer quickly, related to another Minister’s portfolio. In response to the comment that Senator Bishop has just made, I inform him that Mr Anthony’s office has advised me that in regard to the question of information from seismographic recorders in Darwin officers of the Bureau of Mineral Resources are currently in Darwin restoring the line referred to in my letter to him on 19 October. I am assured that the line will be operative again as from the end of this week. I hope that information serves Senator Bishop’s purpose.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of the Northern Territory

Proposed expenditure, $59,599,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I refer the Committee to the reference made by Estimates Committee E to division 460 on page 4 of its report. I wish to make brief reference to one component of this vote for $600,000. It was explained that something of the order of one half of this sum was intended for a contingent liability due to a suit in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory with regard to consultants fees but that the other half was due to be used for a back-up of town planning because the Department of the Northern Territory, which normally has a sizeable town planning force, was not able to support the Darwin Reconstruction Commission in its activities.

It was explained that it was found that the consultancy work that was intended to be contracted out could be provided by the Department of Construction. Therefore the Committee reported that it was of the opinion that there was every justification for reducing this vote by $600,000, on the basis that $300,000 was for consultancy work which would be done by the Department of Construction and so relieving the necessity for that liability, and that the other half of the $600,000 was premature inasmuch as no judgment has yet been entered in regard to the writ to which I have referred.

I bring this Committee’s attention to page 22 of the Estimates Committee ‘s report. It sets out a further communication that was received from the Commission by Estimates Committee E and supplements the information that I have tried to summarise. It states that when estimates were prepared by the Commission it was proposed to place a number of projects involving town planning with consultants because of staff limitations. Fees for these projects with other tasks alsoroposed for consultants were estimated at 600,000. 1 mention that because it seems to be a subject of some doubt whether the Committee was correct in deducing that $300,000 was the correct figure to attribute to the work that has been taken over by the Department of Construction. Reference is made to the writ, and the communication concludes by saying:

We recently offered Treasury reduction in appropriation division 460 from $3,020,000 by $200,000 because of reduced staff ceiling.

I submit that the whole matter of this $600,000 is so indefinite that this Committee ought not to be asked to provide that amount.

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

– Estimates Committee E was well aware of the great interest shown by Senator Wright in this matter. The type of scrutiny in which he engaged should be acceptable to honourable senators. I think the question in Senator Wright’s mind arises out of the method by which an estimate is prepared. Let me quote for Senator Wright a Treasury directive as to the general principles which shall be observed by departments in preparing estimates. It states:

  1. Estimates for all items of expenditure shall represent a realistic assessment of the sum that is expected to be spent having regard to the information available to the department at the time of preparation. Estimates for supplies and services shall be based upon current or known costs and in no circumstances shall any provision be made for possible rises in costs. Where an item is for a type of recurring expense, e.g., office services or travelling and subsistence, it is appropriate to budget on the basis of experience.
  2. Estimates shall not include amounts in respect of proposals which are so far from firm that it is not possible to form any real estimate of what payments, if any, will be made.
  3. Estimates shall be furnished under the heads of expenditure and items used in the annual Appropriation Acts and the Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure of the then current financial year or as otherwise approved by the Treasurer or his delegate, i.e., where new or additional appropriation is required.

I will not quote point (d). I inform Senator Wright that the proposition of expenditure being proposed in an estimate which at the time of our investigation is found to be not required should be applied to that criterion which I have mentioned and some forgiveness made to departments that include amounts which, Senator Wright correctly pointed out, should not at this stage be included. The answers given by the officers to Senate Estimates Committee E and indeed the answers which the Committee found wise to publish in its report of October 1976 to the Senate point out why those amounts were included. I have received a letter from the Minister for Northern Territory, Mr Adermann, which reads in part as follows:

I have read the relevant transcript in the Hansard of evidence given by the General Manager of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission (Mr Arch Jones) and a separate explanation which he has submitted to me . . . Mr Jones has explained to me that on the basis of his understanding when the Budget bids were submitted to Treasury for scrutiny, town planning personnel needed to give effect to section 8 of the Darwin Reconstruction Act 1975 were not available either in the Department of the Northern Territory or the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. Accordingly, funds were sought, and provided for in the Budget, in order to commission private consultants. Subsequently, the DRC was able to locate personnel with appropriate town planning qualifications in the Department of Construction and, of course, the services of these officers will be utilised rather than having recourse to outside consultants. However, an amount of $64,000 for consultancy work has already been committed and a further $30,000 for specialised work contributing to the planning activity will be required.

In relation to the second point which Senator Wright raised again I have a note from the Minister. It states:

  1. . consistent with normal practice, $500,000 of the appropriation under Division 460 have been frozen and will not be utilised without the specific approval of the Treasurer and myself.

The Minister has asked me to assure Senator Wright who raised this matter- the Senate should be very glad that he has raised it- that no authority has been or will be given to reserve funds against the contingent liability of an adverse judgment in a disputed claim. I hope that that answer is satisfactory to the honourable senator.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I want to make a few brief comments on the remarks of Senator Wright. His remarks today were rather moderate, in direct contrast to the remarks he made in this chamber last Wednesday when, if my memory is correct, he stated that this vote should be returned to its place of origin for reconsideration. I interjected and asked whether he had the numbers and he replied: ‘Yes, if required. ‘ There was quite a lot of publicity in the Press to the effect that 16 Government senators were going to support Senator Wright in moving to have this particular vote returned to its place of origin for reconsideration.

Senator Wright:

– That was the hatching process.

Senator McLAREN:

– It may have been, but apparently the egg was not fertile, because we find Senator Wright today being very moderate in his remarks. I asked by way of interjection whether he had the numbers. I knew all along, of course, that he was only blowing off steam. Last Monday when returning to this place by way of Commonwealth car I noticed an advertisement at one of the petroleum stations in Glen Osmond Road. It was advertising Golden Fleece petroleum and it reminded me of Senator Wright when he made his remarks last Wednesday. The advertisement was written in large letters and talked about -

Senator Webster:

- Mr Chairman, I wonder whether this has anything to do with Estimates Committee E. I am anxious to proceed with this matter which relates to finance.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) I take Senator Webster’s point. I was listening very carefully, and Senator McLaren would not have been allowed to continue much longer. I take it that he is dealing with division 460. 1 would like him to address his remarks to that division.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am dealing with the same line in the report of the Committee which has just been quoted by Senator Wright who referred to page 6 of the Committee’s report. He said that there was every justification for reducing this vote by $600,000. It is that to which I am relating my remarks. To tie them up I have to relate them back to Senator Wright’s attitude in this chamber last Wednesday when he tried to convince this chamber that he had the numbers to return this vote to the other place for reconsideration. I was going to say that he reminded me of that advertisement for Golden Fleece petroleum which says: ‘hiss, ping, clang, cough and splutter’. That is just the way Senator Wright operated in this chamber last Wednesday. Perhaps he would be prepared to explain what has happened in the meantime to change his mind.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Just to make the record quite clear let me say that the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) has stated that $500,000 of the $600,000 is frozen and will not be used without specific instruction.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I would like to make one or two points. The first relates to division 457, Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Executive- Staff and Services, item 01 of subdivision 2- Salaries and allowances. It is disappointing to see that no allowance has been made for a superannuation scheme for members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I take this opportunity to air the situation briefly. Some 18 months ago the Remuneration Tribunal went to the Northern Territory and made very firm recommendations that members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, like other members of Parliament, should have a superannuation scheme and a disablement allowance. Honourable senators may not realise that members of the Assembly have for many years received little by way of salaries and privileges. One of the things that has been most marked has been the lack of a superannuation scheme. As I said, the Remuneration Tribunal made a very firm recommendation to the Government that a scheme should be brought in as quickly as possible and that it should be back-dated. To date nothing has been done. I attended at the Remuneration Tribunal some 2 weeks ago, and its members were rather surprised that no action had been taken, seeing that a very firm recommendation had been made. As this is a firm recommendation, I would like to see the members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly given the right to have a disablement and superannuation scheme. I would like to see something done about it immediately.

I refer now to division 459 which relates to Northern Territory Police and in particular to subdivision 1 dealing with salaries and payments in the nature of salary. As I said before when the Committee was discussing the matter with the officers of the Department- I repeat it now- I believe that the standard of law and order in the Northern Territory is insufficient. I do not intend going into the whole story of the establishment and so on, but I make the remark that the establishment of the Northern Territory police force must be reviewed along the lines of the McKinna report, which was the result of an inquiry into the Northern Territory police force some two or three years ago. Very few of the recommendations contained in that report have been carried out. One of the main recommendations that he made was to the effect that one-man police stations in the Northern Territory must cease to exist and that the police force strength must be increased to allow for one-man police stations to become 2-man police stations. That recommendation was made because of better means of communication, better roads and so on. But in the Northern Territory, like anywhere else these days, there is increased violence, and it is most unfair to ask a man and his wife to endeavour to keep law and order in some of these isolated areas. It is an impossible task. Also in these isolated areas which have only one policeman the occasion often arises when he has to leave his post. That occurs for very many reasons. I can assure the Senate that when that happens, in many places all hell breaks loose, and that is the only way in which to describe the situation. So I am once again airing the situation. Despite across the board cuts, and despite the fact that some people may think that the standard of law and order in the Northern Territory is sufficient, I say that most definitely it is not.

I think we have to recognise the isolated communities of the Northern Territory. I refer to such places as Bathurst Island, Oenpelli, Elcho Island and other places which have communities of some 800, 1000 or 1200 people. They have no police protection. It has been their plea to the authorities for the last two or three years that police posts be established in those places to give them some semblance of law and order. I say some semblance of law and order’ because places like Oenpelli are in a very poor state. AH forms of violence take place there, because of the lack of control over liquor and so on. The result is that many people are injured, women are bashed. If honourable senators want to hear more and see more about this situation I refer them to the report of the committee that visited the Northern Territory recently in which those facts are mentioned. However, I expect and hope to see due regard given to the situation next year.

I now refer to the situation to which Senator Wright referred, namely, the appearance of Mr Jones, General Manager of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, before the Committee. I am relating my remarks now to division 460 which relates to the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. There was some misunderstanding during the hearings of this Committee about that amount of $600,000. Following the hearings of Estimates Committee E, a telex has been sent in these terms:

Re Darwin Reconstruction Commission division 460. You asked about $600,000 allocation for consultants. Following information supplements my verbal statement 12 October. When estimates prepared Commission proposed to place number of projects involving town planning with consultants because of staff limitations. Fees for these projects with other tasks also proposed for consultants were estimated at $600,000.

Subsequently we were able to obtain services of suitable planning staff in Department of Construction thus reducing amount required. However about same time we were served with writ by former consultants Technic 10 for about $700,000 (who have now offered to settle at approximately $300,000). As result of policy decision by Commission the services of this firm and four others were prematurely terminated from 30 September 1975. Claims by others were settled in 1975/76. Having regard to Commissions limited access to additional appropriation and advice from senior counsel it was considered prudent to not reduce the $600,000. We recently offered Treasury reduction in appropriation division 460 from $3,020,000 by $200,000 because of reduced staff ceiling.

However I would agree with the comments made by Senator Wright as Chairman of Estimates Committee E that the explanation provided in relation to that particular line of expenditure was certainly open to question. As you can see, Mr Chairman, there has been considerable confusion.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Senator Robertson has asked me to bring 2 matters to the attention of the Committee in his absence today. One matter concerns the small amount of increase in the appropriation for library services. Last year the appropriation was $200,000 while the expenditure was $169,432. This year the appropriation is $180,000 which represents an increase of only about $10,600 over the expenditure last year. Apparently during the inquiry of the Estimates Committee Senator Robertson asked some questions. He was told that the estimate aimed at one book per head of population, whereas the national average is 2.S books per head. There is provision for a very slight increase in funding. Senator Robertson has informed me that the cyclone hit the library in Darwin very hard and there is a great need for books in remote areas as well as in Darwin itself. Senator Robertson would like some assurance from the Minister that something can be done to remedy the problem that exists.

The other matter he asked me to raise is along similar lines to that raised by Senator Kilgariff. He asks that something be done immediately to increase the personnel m the Northern Territory police force. I join with Senator Kilgariff on Senator Robertson’s behalf in making the request that urgent consideration be given to making the lot of the police in the Northern Territory much easier by giving them sufficient staff to enable them to carry out the duties which they are obliged to perform.

The other matter with which Senator Robertson is concerned is this: Senator Robertson had asked by way of question on notice:

What steps are being taken to allocate funds to the Department of the Northern Territory so as to enable the Department to give financial assistance to victims of bush fires in the Northern Territory?

The answer he received the other day from Senator Webster, on behalf of Mr Adermann, was in these terms:

No funds are provided to the Department for bush fire relief, nor have any requests for special financial assistance for damage or loss resulting from bush fires in the Northern Territory been received by either my Department or myself.

I understand that the Northern Territory has suffered some very serious bush fires in recent weeks and months. Perhaps it is too early yet for the people who have been affected by them to make some claim for compensation or assistance. I ask the Minister, if he can, to make some funds available so that when those claims are made in the near future there will be no undue delay in meeting them.

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

– I shall deal with the matters in the order in which they were raised. First of all, Senator McLaren raised what I think is more of a political matter when referring to Senator Wright’s comments. I think Senator McLaren should feel quite pleased with the effort he made in attending Estimates Committee E. I do not think he was a member of that Committee but he was present during a great deal of its hearings. It is my belief, as it is the belief of Senator Wright, that he played an important part in drawing attention to matters of general concern to the Senate and to members of Parliament in their responsibility to the public. Those matters have been brought forward in the report of Estimates Committee E.

I do not think that criticism of any comment that Senator Wright may have made is valid. He played a very full pan on behalf of the Government in bringing forward matters that required attention. Indeed, his satisfaction is noted in the answers that I was able to provide for him and for Senator McLaren concerning the control of quite sizable appropriations which appeared in the estimates of the Department of the Northern Territory. Senator Wright mentioned one or two matters which I think I have answered satisfactorily. Senator Kilgariff commented on 3 areas. One related to the provision of a superannuation scheme for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. That matter has been noted in Hansard I will ensure that the Minister receives a copy of the comments. The honourable senator has vast experience of the Assembly of which he was a member. Since he has been a senator he has demonstrated his interest in members of the Assembly. Senator McLaren and Senator Kilgariff instanced problems relating to the Northern Territory Police Force. If my memory serves me correctly the evidence produced to Senate Estimates Committee E was that there has been quite a large turnover of staff in the police force since the cyclone due to accommodation shortages and probably unattractive conditions. There is extreme difficulty in obtaining recruits because of accommodation at the present time. Staff ceilings have to the best of my knowledge had no immediate effect on the recruiting of staff. In short, the staff ceilings on the police force in the Northern Territory are not restricting police staffing at the present time. That matter will be brought to the attention of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann). Both honourable senators referred to the fact that all people in the Australian community have not the same level of service. When various members of the Senate attempt to show that there should be equality in various areaseven if it relates to voting- they should pay attention to the fact that has been raised here this afternoon, that is, that all citizens in Australia have not the same facilities available to them at government level.

The other matter raised by Senator McLaren, I think on behalf of Senator Robertson, was the lack of library facilities in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that there is no permanent building for a library in Darwin and at the present time there is an acute shortage of staff. We would all hope that that situation can be overcome in the near future. Whilst I cannot state the number of books per head of population that should be aimed at in the Northern Territory there are certain factors relating to the proportion cited by the honourable senator which ought to be considered. I shall ensure that the attention of the Minister for the Northern

Territory is drawn to the comments that Senator McLaren has made relating to library facilities.

I do not accept Senator McLaren’s comment that money should be held in reserve until such time as bushfires occur in the Northern Territory. If I remember correctly, an earlier answer to the honourable senator from the Minister for the Northern Territory was to the effect that no applications had been received by him for assistance for anybody who had been adversely affected by bushfires within the last few months, but I shall bring to the attention of the Minister the comments of Senator McLaren.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Mulvihill:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The question is: That the proposed expenditure be passed.

Senator McLaren:

– Just that particular line, or the whole vote?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Divisions 455 to 460 involving a sum of $59m odd.

Senator Webster:

– The Northern Territory vote.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– We will then go on to deal with divisions 255 relating to the Darwin Reconstruction Commission which is not included in this appropriation.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Darwin Reconstruction Commission

Proposed expenditure, $3,470,000.

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

– I think I have already answered the comments made earlier by Senator Wright which probably relate to this division.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I refer very briefly to the Darwin Reconstruction Commission under division 255. As the Committee would know, this Commission has a short life. It is expected that in the next year or two it will have fulfilled its responsibilities and it will be absorbed into other organisations- I hope into a single housing construction authority incorporating the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, the Northern Territory Housing Commission and Department of Housing and so on. The point I make is that although this organisation will be short lived it attracted in its first year of operation a tremendous amount of criticism. It had a most difficult job. Today we can see the results of the efforts of many dedicated people who have been assisting in the rebuilding of Darwin following cyclone Tracy. It was indicated I think in answer to a question in the Senate a few weeks ago that under the rebuilding program the Commission is producing about 6 to 8 houses a day 7 days a week. I just take the opportunity to point this out because the DRC has had tremendous troubles with staffing and criticisms. In fact I think it was rather a top heavy commission to take on this job in the first place and was not quite necessary. The job could have been done by Territory departments. Despite that, the Commission has done a tremendous job. With the rate of progress in construction being carried out by the DRC we can see in Darwin many houses being made available. As I have indicated, it is no mean achievement to see about 40 to 50 houses or more now being handed over each week. It is to the Commission’s credit.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In view of Senator Kilgariff’s remarks about the Darwin Reconstruction Commission I would like to join with him in congratulating the Commission on the work that it has done but I would not join with him in the criticism he has made of the setting up of the Commission in the first place. I well remember the problems we had in this chamber when Labor was in office and we were trying to get through legislation to set up the Commission. I think it was vitally necessary, and it has proved to be so. Senator Kilgariff said that probably some of the departments in the Northern Territory could have carried out the work just as successfully as the Commission has done. That is where he and I differ, because I do not think they could have done anywhere near the job that the Commission has done. I want to be placed on record as differing with Senator Kilgariff who said there was no need to set up the Commission, because I think it was a piece of legislation that was well worth while and it has proved to be successful.

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

– I note the comments of the honourable senators. I am sure that those who have been associated with the Darwin Reconstruction Commission will be quite pleased with the comments that have been made.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of Construction

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 88,273,000.

Buildings, works, furniture and fittings (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $74,800,000.

Repairs and maintenance (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $49,500,000.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Mulvihill:

– It has been suggested that divisions 220, 224, 245 and 246 be dealt with in globo.

There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I seek your guidance, Mr Temporary Chairman. I want to make some remarks about the estimates relating to the provision of government housing in the Australian Capital Territory, for both rental and purchase. Some of the figures to which I will be referring appear in the divisions you have just suggested we deal with in globo and some of my remarks will pertain to the estimates for the Department of the Capital Territory.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Your remarks will come within the ambit of divisions 220 and 224.

Senator RYAN:

– My remarks are general and they apply to both of these areas. I should like to take this opportunity to make the point that the allocation for government housing and for finance for housing in the Australian Capital Territory is inadequate in the present climate. I should also like to express my criticism of the measures introduced by the Government to increase revenues from rental housing, from mortgage payments by people with Commissioner for Housing mortgages and from the increase in rates. The combined effect of the increase in rental the increase in interest rates and the increase in rates has caused hardship to many Canberra families. It is hardship which is not offset by the present Government’s making available once more the sale of government houses.

These measures have led also to a great deal of unemployment in areas related to home building. I should also like to point out that the allocations for government housing in the Australian Capital Territory have not been adequate in providing for special needs in housing such as emergency housing. There has been a decline in the number of houses allocated to families in distress and a tightening up of guidelines which has meant that many families in distress and seeking emergency housing have not been able to qualify for this housing. The evidence for the problem of homelessness in the Australian Capital Territory is quite substantial. The cases of women who go into women’s refuges, for example, are usually complicated by the women’s inability to get rental housing at a rate they can afford to pay. Other decisions by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) such as the closure of a number of low-cost government hostels including the closure of the only truly low-cost accommodation facility- Reid House- have meant that many people on low incomes now have great hardship in finding adequate low cost accommodation.

With regard to the increase in rents, the Minister took an across-the-board decision which has caused many anomalies. I should like to draw the attention of the Senate to some of those. Although I have no argument with the proposition that new brick houses going on to the market now should be rented at rates that relate to market values, I am very critical of the increase in rents on very old government houses, some of which are 40 years old, some of which are fibro or weatherboard and which have had very little maintenance done on them in the last few years. Such houses are often occupied by tenants who have more or less paid off the value of the house in their many years of tenancy. Of course the tenants are now faced with rents similar to those being charged on new brick houses.

I have had a very large number of complaints brought to me by constituents. I should like to draw the attention of the Senate to a few of them. One low income family with 6 children had a rent increase from $19.40 a week to $29.40 a week. Honourable senators may be aware that the income barrier for rental accommodation is $197 a week with no allowance for dependent children. So we have a very low income family with a lot of children which is faced with a 50 per cent increase in rent. Single people with low incomes who live in old bedsitters have had their rent increased from $14.35 to $25.90 a week- a 60 per cent increase. Another low income family earning $126 a week with an unemployed husband has had its rent increased from $16.20 to $32 a week- nearly a 100 per cent increase. There are many other cases in the same vein. The rents on 8800 houses and flats have been increased. The increase ranged up to $ 1 5 or $ 1 6 a week. Apparently there is an expected increase in revenue from government rentals of $2. 35m.

I suggest that the increase in revenue is not compensated for by the hardship caused to families who, without much prior warning, and certainly with no prior warning by the coalition parties before the last general election, have to face these vast increases. Similarly with interest rates there has been a drastic increase for a number of families. There would have been an increase for more families if the Department had not backed down with respect to some mortgage agreements because the Public Service union- the Adminis.tative and Clerical Officers Association- threatened to take legal action on the grounds that the increase in certain mortgage agreements was illegal. The Department did back down. Nevertheless, there has been a drastic increase for some people. An estimated $ 1 .72m is expected to be gained for revenue by the increase in interest rates. I point out that in one particular case where interest rates had been increased from 6lA per cent to 9% per cent, the monthly repayment has risen from $66.52 to $93.45. On a 45-year loan of $12,000 the increase in the total repayment is $13,000.

There has also been a decrease in the number of houses available for rental by people in the Australian Capital Territory. I cite figures from the Department which show that in September 1975-76, 169 houses were available for sale. A year later, 97 houses were available. Similarly, with rental allocations in September 1975-76 869 houses were available and in the following year only 697 were available. So not only has there been an increase all round for tenants and home owners in the Australian Capital Territory, but there has been a decrease in the number of houses available.

I should like to make a few remarks on the effect this has had generally on the building industry and the people employed in or apprenticed to that industry. There has been a serious decline in the number of apprenticeship positions available. I shall cite figures from the Master Builders Association of the Australian Capital Territory on intakes into the group apprenticeship scheme. From 1970 to 1973, 100 per cent of the applicants were placed. In 1974 this figure fell to 70 per cent; in 1975 it fell to 50 per cent; and in 1976 only 13 per cent of applicants for the group apprenticeship scheme could be accepted.

We have also had the new phenomenon of apprentices in the Australian Capital Territory being retrenched. In this year 61 apprentices have been retrenched and of” these 2 1 were in the building trades. Unemployment of people working in the construction industry has been particularly high. Again, I would relate this to the Government’s general attitude to rental of housing and to interest rates which have been so high as to prohibit a number of families who intended to build this year from being able to proceed with their intentions.

I conclude my remarks by saying that I do not consider that the increased revenues which will come from these extremely severe conditions imposed on rental dwellings, on Commissioner for Housing loans and on other mortgages held by the Department of the Capital Territory will compensate for the hardship, the disruption, the unemployment and the lack of apprenticeship training possibilities that have resulted from the Government’s general housing policy in the Australian Capital Territory.

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

– I again acknowledge that Senator Ryan was an active participant in Estimates Committee E and I thank her for her attention to detail then. The existence of some of the problems which the honourable senator has mentioned would be readily agreed to by every member of the Government. Conditions today are not as we would all wish them to be. I think that Senator Ryan, being an Opposition senator, must feel that she, herself, takes some responsibility for any one of the propositions that she has laid before the Senate this afternoon. Indeed, it is not the wish of this Government that interest rates are as high as they are now. Senator Ryan will be readily aware that the escalation in interest rates occurred during the past 3 years when the Government, of which she was an interested party, was in office.

Senator Devitt:

– Cannot they be altered?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Yes, they can be altered.

Senator Wright:

– Why do not you call it the Labor Government?

Senator McLaren:

– We are proud of the fact that it was a Labor Government.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I note the point made by Senator McLaren that he is proud of the fact that it was a Labor Government, but I ask him to reflect on some of the things that came out of the 3 years of that Labor Government. I really do not believe that even Senator McLaren is proud of some of those things.

Senator McLaren:

– I am not proud of what happened 12 months ago tomorrow.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator McLaren is raising another matter. I think the points that were raised by Senator Ryan dealt mainly with economic measures which have taken place- indeed of necessity- during the last few years. I say again that it would not be the wish of any government or any government senator that such measures should have to be implemented. I feel that some of the comments made by the honourable senator may not be appropriate but if they are I hope that she will hasten to advise Mr Staley of the things she has said. For instance, Senator Ryan said that families in distress have not been able to qualify for housing. If she has details of particular instances of this occurring, I hope she will refer them immediately to Mr Staley. I am quite sure that Mr Staley would be extremely anxious to know of such cases. Senator Ryan referred to the allocation of houses. The fact is that basically expenditure on housing loans, for instance, is well below the previous pro rata figure, mainly because insufficient applications have been received, thus not enabling the money to be allocated.

The honourable senator referred to emergency housing which is allocated on a needs basis and the criteria, as I understand it, have not changed since the Emergency Housing Committee was set up some 3 years ago. I understand that the Emergency Housing Committee examines all applications for emergency housing which the department refuses. I am given to understand that the committee is composed mainly of private citizens. If the points raised by Senator Ryan are valid I hope that she will immediately draw the attention of the Minister to them. In fact, I would be pleased to receive the information in this Senate and to convey it to Mr Staley. Another matter raised by the honourable senator was the increase in rents. My understanding is that the rents have been based on a market value and all rents have been structured well below the actual market value of any particular house. Again I say to the honourable senator that if she is aware of any instances where that is not so I would be pleased to convey them to Mr Staley and to the department to be examined immediately.

I am advised that rents have been increased on the basis of rental valuations of samples of houses. The rentals fixed have been assessed by discounting the valuers’ figures to a level which will allow government rentals to still be below the ruling market values at the present time. Whilst the rental increases may appear to be steep, as Senator Ryan mentioned, an adequate rebate scheme operates. I understand that the scheme is more generous than any provided by the States, particularly the rebates for this year. I hope I have dealt with all the points raised by Senator Ryan. I should like to reiterate that Senator Ryan played a full part in drawing the attention of the Estimates Committee to many of those points which are noted in the Committee’s report to the Senate.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I should like to clarify one point with the Minister. He made the observation that the basis of rentals was below what one would normally expect, or words to that effect. Is the Minister able to inform the Senate of the percentage basis upon which rentals are struck in relation to the capital valuation of a property?

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

- Senator Devitt referred to the capital value. Both he and I may be able to understand what he means by that. If I am stating the situation correctly, the rentals have been fixed by discounting the valuers’ figures and, I think, that is probably a market rental value. I do not know whether that comment is right. I do not think I understand it.

Senator Devitt:

– You can understand my dilemma.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Mulvihill:

– Does Senator Devitt understand it?

Senator Devitt:

– Not yet, but I think I will shortly.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am advised that a market rent has been struck and that has been discounted. This Government will listen to any proposition at any stage which is put to it about an injustice within the community. The Government is desirous of hearing about any anomalies that exist in the community. I have made the offer to all honourable senators that if they are aware of any injustices within the community I will be pleased to hear about them and to refer them to the Minister for the Capital Territory (MrStaley).

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek your guidance, Mr Chairman. Are we simply dealing with construction in the Australian Capital Territory at this stage or can we deal with any matter concerned with the Australian Capital Territory?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-We are dealing only with the estimates for the Department of Construction at the present time. Perhaps, Senator McLaren, I missed the import of your question. We will be dealing with the estimates of the Department of the Capital Territory next but I am advised that now we are dealing only with construction matters.

Senator McLAREN:

– I seek your guidance, Mr Chairman. Senator Ryan wanted to talk about construction and her questions in part related to the Australian Capital Territory. I want to know whether we are dealing only with construction in the Australian Capital Territory because there are other matters that I wish to raise dealing with the A.C.T.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Perhaps the Minister can help us.

Senator Webster:

– The matter is basically in your hands, Mr Chairman. So far as I am concerned, if a matter is to be raised on the construction of houses in the Australian Capital Territory I think it is appropriate to do so now.

Senator McLAREN:

– My questions do not relate to construction in the Australian Capital Territory.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– If Senator McLaren’s questions do not relate to the vote for the Department of Construction, we will pick them up when we deal specifically with the estimates for the Department of the Capital Territory.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed Expenditure, $64,304,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Senate Estimates Committee E had to refer to several items in its report and I propose to ask this Committee of the Whole to consider three of them. The first concerns an item for consultants’ fees in the tourist industry. It is division 210.2.08, referred to on page 2 of our report. There it appears that consultants’ fees have been expended to the extent of $ 120,000 in obtaining reports on basic material as to tourist factors in the Australian Capital Territory. It was proposed to ask in this appropriation for $19,000 for a further consultancy fee for the examination of those reports and then interpretation to the Department. We pointed out that in the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Board on Tourism it had been stated:

The Stage One report … is expected late this year . . .

That is the one for $ 120,000.

Whether Stage Two is, as originally planned, undertaken by a consultant or, bowing to Budget constraints -

That is a graphic phrase-

  1. . less ideally by an inter- or intra-departmental group, it is important that the fruits- and the expense- of the work so far done should not be wasted.

The Committee ‘s report continued:

The committee is in doubt as to the necessity to employ consultants for this work and is of the opinion that in the present atmosphere of constraint the suggestion that the work might be done by an intra-departmental group should be adopted.

The other matter I raise is a bit more contentious. It deals with the city omnibus division. The same Committee, when examining the Estimates in May, pointed out that the Government subsidy to the Canberra omnibus service increased from $1.8m in 1973-74 to $3.6m in 1974-75. It is proposed to ask for a subsidy in this appropriation of no less than $5.4m. So the appropriation goes up by stages of a neat $1.8m a year. If that were simply associated with the astronomical inflationary figures that we have been experiencing in the last 3 years it would be bad enough; but as we pointed out in May, we were informed of the alarming fact that timetables proposed to ensure economies in the bus service were not able to be implemented because of an industrial dispute which had resulted in a loss of savings of $600,000 in the year.

Mr Deputy Chairman, I am not here to invite your arbitration as to any industrial dispute, nor am I an advocate for either side, but we both should weep to think that a cost of $600,000 is being inflicted upon the taxpayers- fellow unionists- to increase the exorbitant amount of $5.4m as a subsidy for the Canberra bus service. It is no answer to me to be told that other metropolitan bus services are wasting money to the same degree. I volunteer the fact that to my complete surprise the Tasmanian metropolitan bus transport body last week produced its annual report in which the loss was stated as $5.5m for Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Burnie. That sum transplanted to Queenstown at present would be very useful. When I advocate economy I have these matters in mind. I am sad to note that the Department of the Capital Territory has advertised for extra drivers, which I believe is to yield to the union demand. That, on all the facts as I see them, will require an expenditure of $600,000 for the year.

I come to the third item. I shall be brief. I am advised that this comes under division 214. It refers to the escalation of capital works prices. Firstly, I deal with the astronomical increase in the National Gallery program. It started 2Vi years ago when the original contract sum was $13. 168m. We are told that the rise and fall clause to July 1976 has increased the cost by $1 1.2m, and fixed costs associated with the extended period of contract amount to $3m. The total cost to date that the Parliament has to provide for this job is $27.368m. I know the difficulty of exciting any interest in this matter but there will be less money for parliamentarians’ salaries in the Northern Territory and elsewhere if this sort of thing goes on. A project began not 3 years ago at an estimated $ 13.5m will now cost $27m. It is an absolute tribute to the inflation that was created; or else complete irresponsibility.

There is another factor about it and that concerns the integrity of government accounting and records. The works program that was presented to our Committee showed under the column Amount Authorised’ the amount of $26.4m. We went back to previous annual reports and the report of 1973-74 showed the amount authorised as $ 13.2m. The following year the amount authorised was shown as $ 15.1m and the following year- that is to say the present year, the year for which the records will stand as holding the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) and the Government responsible, 1975-76- the amount authorised is shown as $ 13.2m and the increase as $ 13.2m. Does the Minister see the significance of that, avalanching the whole increase into that year and saying that the amount authorised was $ 13.2m?

But when we come to the works program that we were asked to consider the figure stated as the amount authorised is $26.4m. That is an inaccurate and untrue record unless the document is to receive an interpretation which does not occur to me upon its plain reading. So the integrity of the record has to be looked at and then the completely outrageous increase from $ 13m to $27m for this building in 3 years betokening either outrageous inflation or unjustified irresponsibility. In view of that, Mr Minister, I am going to ask you, through the Deputy Chairman, to state that you will provide this Committee, before the Parliament rises in December, with a short statement from the responsible body indicating what are the justifying factors for this huge increase.

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

– I shall deal with the three matters raised by Senator Wright, which are of importance. I shall do my best to respond to him. It may be noted that the information that appears in Hansard generally gives the response of the Department of the Capital Territory to those matters which have been instanced by Senator Wright as not being satisfactory. Those matters have been raised in the report of Estimates Committee E. It is now for the Committee of the Whole to further investigate them. This is the proper place in which they should be debated because, as I have said, they are mentioned in the Committee’s report.

I turn to division 210.2.08 which deals with consultants’ fees. As I understand it the Estimates Committee does not dispute the need for the study. The amount of $ 1 9,000 included in the Department’s estimates for 1976-77 is for the employment of a consultant to undertake stage 2 of an on-going study of the needs of visitors and of the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory. The amount of $19,000 represents the minimum amount required to provide specialist assistance to departmental officers in undertaking stage 2 of that study. It was always envisaged- this was brought out at the Estimates Committee hearing, as the honourable senator will know- that significant officer involvement would be required to undertake this stage of the study. The severe staff restraints imposed on the Department have forced the modification of stage 2 to a minimum study with the use of consultants to provide the specialist skills not otherwise available.

Without the ability and finance to obtain these specialist skills to assist in the development of the modified stage 2 work, the stage 1 data will rapidly become unreliable and will not be able to be used because essential linkages and continuities will be broken. The Estimates Committee has recommended that the suggestion that the work might be done by an intradepartmental group be adopted. Of course, this was one of the alternatives suggested by the A.C.T. Advisory Board on Tourism and was no doubt intended to be helpful and certainly reflected its view that stage 2 was essential. However, it was made without knowledge of the Department’s position under staff ceilings. Because of the effect of ceilings and of the need for specialist skills, resources are available only to carry out stage 2 on a modified basis but, nevertheless, on a basis which will ensure that the benefits of the earlier work are not lost. I am sure the honourable senator would not want the benefits of that earlier expenditure to be lost.

Senator Wright:

– I think the work has very little merit

Senator WEBSTER:

-That is a view which the honourable senator expressed at the Estimates Committee hearing, and I acknowledge the attitude he adopted there. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) is conscious of the Government’s policy regarding the use of consultants, and he assures that he will explore every avenue to carry out the work in the most effective and economic way. He appreciates the comment that has been made in the Estimates Committee report.

The next matter that Senator Wright raised on his own behalf related to division 210.3.10- City Omnibus Service, loss on operations (for payment to the Australian Capital Territory Transport Trust Account). There was a great deal of debate on this matter in the Estimates Committee hearing. I wish to speak on this matter only so that I can verify and support the comments which the honourable senator made relating to the expenditure in this matter. The level of subsidy requested by the Canberra bus service recognises the need to provide a public transport system offering a standard of service attractive enough to encourage more people to use this mode as an alternative to the private motor car, particularly for the journey to work. This approach is consistent with world-wide trends. By placing more emphasis on public transport there will be less pressure for more road capacity and more money and land for car parking space. I believe that these things have to be taken into account, and that the honourable senator would acknowledge the wisdom of this. Improvements in frequency and route coverage and the introduction of new services, it is believed by the Minister for the Capital Territory, are long overdue. The bus fleet has been built up to enable these changes to be made and drivers need to be recruited to put the changes into effect. The level of subsidy is not inconsistent with levels elsewhere, and the honourable senator acknowledged that point. Likewise, it is believed that costs are comparable. However, the level of revenue needs to be lifted, and to achieve this fares were increased responsibly in September last for the second time in 12 months. Fares for school bus travel were reintroduced in September to give an estimated saving of approximately $500,000 in a full year. By offering a more attractive bus service and by giving better bus service information it is hoped to lift the level of revenue still further. A definite attempt is being made by the omnibus service to do that, and to do it responsibly.

The bus service is an area where labour costs represent more than 70 per cent of the expenditure, and industrial disputes involving stoppages can effect both expenditure and revenue. These can result in a loss of patronage as people are forced to change their travel habits, and often it takes some time to win back passengers after normal services are resumed. Thus, there can be a further impact on revenue. Consistent with the Government’s aim to rein in the growth of expenditure in the public sector, the amount sought by the Department in 1976-77 was subject to specific scrutiny by the Government, and the endorsement by the Government of this subsidy of $5,410,000 recognised the need to pursue a balanced transport strategy for Canberra. A reduction could distort that strategy and put in jeopardy moves to prevent saturation of the road system and the town centres by private motor cars. The Estimates Committee in its report stated that it is of the opinion that the full amount of the subsidy requested is not justified and that some reduction should be made. However, the Committee does not state by what amount the estimate should be reduced nor on what basis it should be reduced. I am advised that the Minister for the Capital Territory has fully justified this estimate to the Government and that the Government is satisfied that the amount requested is needed. Therefore, in the opinion of the Government the estimate should stand.

Senator Wright has asked for a specific response from me to the points he made regarding the National Gallery. I assure him that I will attempt to give that response. I believe that when I read in Hansard what he said I will find that he wants a 3 page or 4 page statement relating to the cost escalation that has occurred in the building of the National Gallery. Although the figure of $26,368,000 has been derived from information given to the Estimates Committee, the actual situation as at 30 June was that the original contract in April 1973 was for $ 1 3,263,000. Rise and fall adjustments add $8,755,000 and adjustments to provisional quantities add $4,461,000 making a total of $26,479,000. The rise and fall adjustments reflect inflation. I am advised that the building industry cost increases as applicable to buildings-that is not civil engineering- in 1970-71 were 6.148 per cent; in the following year they were 1 1.566 per cent; in 1972-73 they were 9.501 percent; in 1973-74 they were 16.856 per cent; in 1974-75 they were 16.47 per cent; and in 1975-76 they were 15:6 percent.

I turn now to the average wages on the Gallery work. I think these figures indicate the intense interest which the Department takes in attempting to see that costs are controlled. On 19 April 1973 the average wage was $109.01 a week. On 30 June 1976 the average wage was $215.44 a week. In those figures there is somewhat of a justification for the escalation in cost as applied not only to wages but also to materials. I say to Senator Wright that material increases as per the cost index in that same period were in the vicinity of 68 per cent. I shall attempt to obtain the information that the honourable senator requires. His comments in drawing attention to the requirement to control expenditure do a service to the Committee, to the Department and to the Public Service.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I want to comment on Senator Wright’s statement about the City Omnibus Service. If my memory serves me correctly, he said that one of the problems being faced by this Service was the fact that it was being held to ransom by the unions. That seems to be typical of the attitude of honourable senators opposite. Senator Wright is always to the forefront. Whenever there is an industrial dispute he and his colleagues endeavour to lay the blame at the feet of the unions. There are always 2 parties to any industrial dispute. One party can never be held totally responsible. The unions particularly cannot be held totally responsible. I do not agree with Senator Wright on that matter. I think the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) has given him an adequate answer as to why that extra expenditure is required.

The Minister has answered Senator Wright ‘s question about the Department of the Capital Territory advertising for 49 extra drivers. The thing that should be uppermost in the Department’s mind is the safety of the passengers that the Service carries. We should not be trying to economise by cutting down on the number of drivers or on the service. It is all very well for members of Parliament to criticise public transport. Very few members of Parliament ever use public transport- in this city anyway. They would not have any idea of the inconvenience of the travelling public in getting around this city which has no railways and no trams, such as other cities of the Commonwealth have. All Canberra has is a bus service. All governments are of the opinion that we should be encouraging more people to use public transport and so get more private cars off the road. I hope that governments are successful. I venture to say that perhaps within the next 25 years all public transport will be free. That will be a very low cost to the community if we can get private motor cars off the road.

I want to deal with another avenue of transport in the Australian Capital Territory. I have raised in the Senate many times the use of taxis in lieu of Commonwealth cars. Can the Minister say whether the Department of Administrative Services is to take over the control of the Commonwealth car fleet in Canberra? If so, is it correct that the number of cars in the fleet is to be reduced to 40? Is it also correct that the Department of the Capital Territory has issued another 10 hire car permits? Is this the reason for the decision to cut down on the number of cars in the Commonwealth car fleet? What check does the Department have on hire car permits to see that the car which is licensed to carry passengers for hire is the only car used for the purpose and that not more than one car is used by the permit holder to carry passengers who are charged for their carriage?

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I refer to division 210, subdivision 2, item 08. My comments refer to a study of tourism and tourism in Canberra city. There was quite a discussion about tourism in Canberra with officers of the Department of the Capital Territory at a meeting of Estimates Committee E some two to three weeks ago. I have a tourist industry background. To me it appeared that if more interest were taken in tourism by authority in Canberra perhaps there would be a much bigger return to the city than it is getting now. I was quite surprised to learn from the discussion with the officers that the revenue- the money from the Budget- and the expenditure came very close to balancing. The only point I make is that now the Government is becoming more and more aware of the advantages of tourism in Australia there is a necessity to encourage Australians to see Australia and there is a necessity to encourage Australians to see Canberra. I suggest that there is ample scope in the system here to encourage more people to come here. Perhaps there would be a better balance of payments, if we wish to put it that way, if it could happen. Tourism in Canberra has every right to be encouraged.

I refer now to the City Omnibus Service. I tried the service a few times in the last few weeks. I found it an excellent bus service. I suppose one could say that it is one of the better services if not the best service in Australia. It is disconcerting to see the tremendous cost of public transport to authority these days. Officers of the Department who appeared before the Estimates Committee were no doubt endeavouring to contain costs as much as possible. The subsidy this year is about $5.4m. No doubt next year there will be an increase. One can agree with their concern. The problem in Canberra, as far as I can see, is that there is an extremely difficult situation. It is a matter of passenger coach transport- public transport- versus the private car. There appears to me at the moment to be some sort of balance. If one wants to encourage a greater use of public transport certain things would have to be done. The public car parking areas in Canberra are on very valuable land. The revenue from parking fees would in no way compensate for the lost rental from this valuable land. However, I believe the transport problem here is a most difficult one. To me it appears to be in some degree of balance at the moment. An endeavour to take away the car parking spaces will have complications. The main point on which I wish to speak is my concern, similar to that of the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Wright, about the erection of the National Gallery and High Court buildings. Once again there was considerable discussion with the officers of the department. As the Chairman of the Committee indicated, the original contract sum for the National Art Gallery was $13. 168m, and the total cost is now up to $27.368m, which is an increase of some 100 per cent. The rise and fall provision added $ 11.2m and the fixed costs associated with the extended period of the contract added $3m. The cost of the High Court building was originally estimated at $ 1 5m. When it went to contract it was $ 1 9m. The estimated cost now is $28.084m. This is once again a tremendous increase. We realise that in these days the rise and fall variation within contracts has increased tremendously because building costs in the last 2 years have risen astronomically.

There are one or two points about the whole matter that need airing. I think I am correct in referring to the fixed costs associated with the extended period of contract for the National Art Gallery. It is my understanding that last year, when the Australian economy suffered severely from Budget cuts under the previous Government, a lot of government works were slowed up, curtailed or cut out. Slowing up the work on the National Art Gallery caused inconvenience to the contractor and the sub-contractors for the simple reason that it disrupted the work. A penalty rate was charged by the contractor. If I remember rightly- I do not have the figure in front of me- something like $4,000 a day was charged because of the slowing up of the job. In my estimation this added something like $750,000 to the cost of the project. If my figures are incorrect, I would like them to be corrected.

Since I spoke to officers who appeared before the Estimates Committee I discussed a week or two ago with officers of the Department of Construction the estimated cost of a project. The original contract sum for the National Art Gallery was $13m, but over a period, for various reasons, the contract price increased. It is not the fault of the officers of the National Capital Development Commission, but I suggest that what is happening in many cases is that the client department asks for additional fixtures and fittings and for changes in the contract which are extremely costly. One can see that evidence in the High Court building. This evidence was given to Estimates Committee E:

When we let the contract it was a little more than $19m. Since then there has been rise and fall on the job and there have been some significant additions to the contract. One, for example, is the security of the courts- the security provided around the buildings.

My understanding is that that was an extremely costly addition. If I remember rightly, security measures were taken with the windows up to a height of 60 or 80 feet. It appears to me that a lot of the fault arises because once the original contract price is fixed there are so many additions to the contract that the price increases tremendously.

I presume that the projects to which I have referred went before the Public Works Committee as they were to cost over $2m. I presume that in evidence before the Public Works Committee it was indicated that the estimated contract sum for the National Art Gallery was $ 1 3m. It has increased to $2 7m. It is completely wrong that a project should go before the Public Works Committee- I am only supposing this; I can be corrected if I am wrong- for confirmation by the Government for the funding of some $13m and that eventually it should be necessary to increase that sum by 100 per cent. If a project goes before the Public Works Committee there should be provided an estimate as close and as firm as possible of the cost of the projects so that the Committee can make a recommendation to the Government and the Government can know exactly what it is up for. You cannot tell me that projects would then be allowed to slip through which cost some 100 per cent more than the original estimate. As I said, it is an interesting point I would like the authorities in government to take up this point. I am suggesting that in some cases when a project is put forward only a basic price is given. In the case to which I referred it was 13m. When the initial application was made for funds, was the Government told that so much more money would be required? I doubt it. From talking to Department of Construction officials in the last fortnight it is my understanding that the Department of Construction is looking at procedures whereby a project budgeted for at a certain amount will have to be constructed at that amount and no additional funds will be available to client departments if they want to add this and that. This situation warrants the scrutiny of government to ensure that large projects like those I mentioned do not get out of hand. I suggest that this is what has happened.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-As a member of Estimates Committee E, I think I ought to make some comment about the matters that have been reported to this Committee of the Whole arising out of the examination by Estimates Committee E of the estimates that came under its purview. In regard to division 2 10.2.07, which relates to the cost of computer services, I raised in the Estimates Committee the question of the advisability of doing a cost-benefit analysis of the results of the installation of computers. I understand that this may have been commented on some days ago. I have a recollection that the matter had an airing somewhere or other. I believe- I am sure the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) can answer this very quickly- that in fact a parliamentary committee or an interdepartmental committee has been set up or is to be set up to do an analysis of the cost of the installation of computers.

We have had them for three or four years in the various departments. Some are hired and some are shared by a number of departments. Others, one assumes, have been installed for the exclusive use of a particular department. Quite frankly, I have not been able to identify clearly the particular benefit that is derived from the installation of these machines. I can remember somebody telling me some years ago that the great benefit was that whereas previously a piece of paper would float around for 6 days it would float around now for only 24 hours; but I could not relate that to any particular benefit in terms of the efficiency of the administration of the Government. I think it is good if there can be a reduction of 5 days, but there must be some ongoing benefit or some more clearly identifiable benefit. I am sure the Minister can answer the question which I posed in the Estimates Committee and which I now raise again as to whether in fact some detailed and special analysis has been made of the value of computers and the relationship that exists between the various departments using them to ensure that the maximum efficiency is being obtained from the installation of these machines.

I pass to division 2 10.2.08, which relates to the engagement of consultants to do the final phase of the analysis of the tourist study that was undertaken. We find that the item of $19,000 is approximately 15 per cent of the original sum. In other words, we have now expended 85 per cent of what would be the total sum on an analysis of tourism in the Australian Capital Territory. I do not have any really strong views about this matter but, whilst I support the view of the Estimates Committee, I believe that, if we can find within the Public Service the people who can carry out this final study, that is well and good, but I would hate to see the situation arise where, if that were not possible, the whole study would collapse for the sake of the expenditure of that final 15 per cent of the total sum. It may even be less than that, but on my very quick calculations it comes to about that figure. When one considers that 2 million tourists pass through this city one realises that this is a very important program. We ought to know all that we can possibly know about the subject which presumably will be an ongoing benefit not only for this city but also for other cities.

I turn now to subdivision 3, item 10- City Omnibus Service. Even taking into account the fact that industrial disputes accounted for $600,000 of the total loss of $5,410,000- it represents approximately 1 1 per cent of the total- the cost to the taxpayer of the operation of the omnibus service for Canberra equates reasonably with comparable situations in other parts of Australia and other parts of the world. That being the case, one must accept that the system must have operated more efficiently than has been the case elsewhere. That is really just a comment on the side. Canberra is certainly the best planned city in Australia and it is one of the few really well planned cities of the world. From my experience as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I have seen the quality of planning not only of the layout of the city of Canberra but also of the services that go with it. So one expects that the bus services for the city have been planned in equal detail and with an equal study of the benefits to be gained.

I think we have to be tough where this problem arises, not only here in Canberra but elsewhere in Australia and elsewhere in the world. I think that we are pussy-footing with this public transport problem. Here we have a city with well planned services- I agree with Senator Kilgariff that there are excellent vehicles on the road- and we have an under-utilisation of public transport. As I see it, at the present time we do not have an over-capacity of buses but an under-usage. I think that this city, as other cities, is being cluttered with private vehicles. Canberra is an affluent city and I suppose that its proportion of vehicles per head of population is equal to anywhere in Australia. It is natural and convenient for people to hop in their motor cars and go anywhere they want to go but they should not expect the taxpayer to provide parking areas and to provide for sufficient development of the road systems. If a public transport system is provided it ought to be used. It is time that we here and elsewhere in Australia got tough and said that public transport services must be used and that people should park their private vehicles outside the city so that the whole place does not become cluttered up with them. There has to be found some other means of ensuring proper and full utilisation of the system that is provided here.

It is all right to criticise the planners from time to time, but they plan according to what they anticipate to be the needs of the city. The Parliament in its wisdom might bring down some legislation to prevent private vehicles from coming into the city but unless the development of these services has been planned we will be in trouble again. So the planners have ensured that there is an adequacy of bus services. As I said before, we have to take steps to ensure that the people use those services.

The only other comment I want to make is in regard to the item to which Senator Wright referredthat is, the National Gallery. The escalation of its costs reminds me of the FI 1 1 aircraft. I take issue with the use of the word ‘authorised’. In my study of this matter and from the replies which I received from the departmental officers- I want to put on record that throughout they were very courteous and helpful- I cannot for the life of me accept that the figure that was put before us under the heading of ‘authorised’ had been authorised in the generally accepted sense of the word, such as authorised by the Parliament or by some authority having the power to authorise. The point was made fairly clearly during the meeting of the Estimates Committee that this was a rather extravagant use of the word authorised’ and that perhaps in future we may find a different expression used. It could be confusing to anybody picking up these papers and seeing that this amount has been authorised. As I said, I found it very difficult to accept. I know and it was explained to me and to the other members of the Committee that that terminology has been used over the years, but if we are to have a correct appreciation of the subject another expression should be used.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– As a senator for the Australian Capital Territory I thought that the Committee stages of the consideration of this Bill would be an appropriate time to discuss in some detail the question of Australian Capital Territory bus services since it has been raised in debate and in the report of Senate Estimates Committee E. I would like to add something to what has been said by a number of other honourable senators, including the Minister for Science, Senator Webster. I think it has to be recognised as fundamental to any discussion of this question that Canberra and the ‘new towns’ of the Australian Capital Territory represent a new and relatively rapidly developing city. Only now are we beginning the development of a comprehensive public transport system in the Australian Capital Territory. Planning was first undertaken for this major development in the early 1970s. It was only in July 1974 that the Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission agreed on a transport policy and the objectives that ought to be pursued. This was published in summary form, and for completeness of the record I ask that that summary of objects of the transport policy for the Australian Capital Territory be incorporated in Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Mulvihill:

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

The document read as follows-

TRANSPORT POLICY

In July 1974 the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Capital Territory agreed on a transport policy which is based on the following objectives:

Develop transport facilities which best serve the complex pattern of activities necessary to the well-being of the community.

Encourage the development and use of a high quality public transport system.

Provide for freight and essential private car movements at minimum cost to the community, and with minimum impact on the social and physical environment.

Promote public safety and amenity, and the conservation of resources.

Ensure public understanding of, and support for, the transport policies developed.

The major elements of this policy, to be implemented within the framework of the Y-Plan, were defined as follows:

. The early build-up of new employment centres adjacent to public transport terminals will continue so as to reduce progressively the need for excessive travel. More medium density housing will be constructed close to employment centres and along major public transport routes.

Conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles will be minimised by the construction of time-and-space segregated walkways. Traffic-free pedestrian precincts will be extended in town centres.

Cycling will be promoted as a transport mode by the construction of a metropolitan cycle path system serving education, work and recreational areas. Priority of construction of individual sections will be determined by safety and functional considerations.

Local bus services will be improved through the provision of frequent, attractive and reliable services which minimise waiting and travel times for all users. Where appropriate, public transport will be given priority of movements over private transport on busy roads and at junctions. A bus stop will be provided within easy walking distance of every household.-

An express intertown public transport system will be developed, operating on a reserved right-of-way as necessary. Its stations will cater for interchange with pedestrian, feeder bus, taxi and park-and-ride traffic movements.

Growth of the flexible working hours system will be encouraged to promote more efficient usage of the transport system, especially public transport.

Freight distribution centres will be planned and developed so as to optimise the efficiency of distribution and to minimise the intrusion of local and interstate commercial vehicles on residential and town centre streets.

The extent, location and design of the highway network will be such as to minimise energy consumption, provide a high level-of-service for off-peak freight and private car usage, and protect the natural and social environment. Major roads will be developed to provide for inter-suburb, town bypass and town access movements with the minimum of traffic intrusions onto residential streets.

Unnecessary use of the private car for commuting purposes will be discouraged. Any shortfall in peak-period road capacity or parking space will be offset by the provision of improved public transport facilities. The provision of car parking in the main centres will be maintained at the minimum necessary to protect the environment and promote public transport usage.

Priority of parking space location and provisions will be given to short-stay parkers, so that the parking needs of shopper, visitor and business car users will be met within reasonable walking distances of the main retail and business centres.

All public parking in the main centres will be strictly controlled, and a pricing mechanism will be used to maintain the integrity of the short-stay parking facilities.

The public transport system will be operated in an efficient and cost-conscious manner, while providing a high level of service to all sections of the community. It is recognised that the public transport system fulfils a social need, and that its provision and successful operation may require continued financial subsidy.

Integral to the implementation of this policy is the recognition that: the parking control measures must be strictly enforced; capital and operating funds must be made available to provide the public transport facilities which will cater for any planned shortfalls in Central Area parking provision; the combination parking control/public transport package’ must be acceptable to the public at the various stages of its implementation.

This last criterion can only be met if the public transport system is expanded as a substitute for the increasing demand for (unprovided) parking spaces.

Senator KNIGHT:

– It is because of the development of a more extensive public transport system for the Australian Capital Territory linking Canberra and the new towns of Woden, Weston, Tuggeranong and Belconnen that the subsidy has risen very rapidly in the last 3 years. One has only to look at the figures to concede that the operating deficit has grown rapidly. This is explained by the fact that this is a rapidly developing city in which the infrastructure is being established and the population is relatively dispersed. I make the point also that this is occurring at a time when we in the Australian Capital Territory are trying to encourage and ensure in the future greater use of the public transport system. Special bus lanes have already been established on a couple of main roads and a rapid transit system of roads will commence operating in the near future. At present about 18 per cent to 20 per cent of commuters in the Capital Territory use the bus service. Our aim is that in the not too distant future about 40 per cent of commuters will use those buses. As I have mentioned, a rapid transit system is planned. We have extended our bus fleet and we are increasing the number of drivers, and this is essential if we are to effectively serve the newer areas of the Capital Territory such as Tuggeranong and Belconnen. I think it has to be remembered that all of this development has important implications with respect to urban development in the Capital Territory, the environment, the use of motor vehicles, the need for roads and parking areas, and the maintenance of those roads and parking areas, and that buses are in fact the sole basis of our public transport system in the Australian Capital Territory.

I think it is also worth noting in this context that in the 3 years between 1973 and 1976 the number of commuters using the buses in Canberra has increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent, which in fact is a very substantial increase and represents a rate of increase which we hope might continue. It will mean that many more people are using the public transport system and are thereby relieving the pressure on our roads and parking areas. It is worth noting also that in the year between 1974-75 and 1975-76 the number of passenger journeys in the Capital Territory increased from roughly 12 million to 14 million. So community acceptance and community use of the public transport system is increasing rapidly. I think this helps to explain or to justify, if you like, the increase in the operating deficit that is occurring as we get the public transport system established here. I leave aside, because I do not think there is any need to mention them, the other important questions that affect the deficit, including inflation and the capital costs involved in providing new equipment and in establishing the important economic infrastructure that goes with a public transport system, such as new roads, bus stations and so on.

I think Senator Devitt has reiterated this afternoonand done so very effectively- some of the points that he made on that subject during the hearings of Estimates Committee E. I would like to read to the Committee what Senator Kilgariff said during the hearings of Estimates Committee E:

There appears to be nothing available in the future that can take the place of the bus transport system. The vote is a difficult one inasmuch as I see no alternative.

He went on to say:

From what I have seen of the situation, the departmental people are running a show to the best of their ability but they just cannot win, so under the circumstances I see no alternative. The money is required.

I think that also reflects what Senator Kilgariff said this afternoon. It is an eminently reasonable assesment. During the hearings of Estimates Committee E the departmental officer concerned provided a good deal of relevant information in regard to subsidies for bus services. I wish to read just one statement that was made to the Committee:

I think public transport is one operation that has traditionally become a public sector operation because the private sector can no longer meet it, and the question is whether you provide it at all. If you reduce services, then the most depressing effect is upon the captive rider who has no other means of travel and who therefore is immobilised in the community.

I simply want to emphasise the context in which the increase in the operating deficit in the Canberra buses has occurred. This is a rapidly developing city with a relatively rapidly increasing population. While we are establishing an infrastructure and a new rapid transit system for buses, and while we are seeking to meet the problems of a relatively dispersed population located in the ‘new towns’ of the Capital Territory, we have to make the effort to ensure greater use by the community of the public transport system. As has been observed by many people, that is a problem which is common to almost every major city in the world, and of course, to Canberra. Given the stage of development in Canberra and in the Australian Capital Territory and given the importance in a rapidly growing city of this kind of an effective public transport system, I do not think that the rate of increase in the subsidy or the level of the subsidy is surprising.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 1815

CHANGES TO EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement relating to changes to education administration in the Australian Capital Territory.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

– The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Ordinance has been passed by the Executive Council and I shall table it in the Senate as soon as possible after it has been gazetted. In the meantime, the Government has announced a number of changes in the arrangements for primary and secondary education and for technical and further education in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government has decided that there should be greater community representation on the permanent Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. The new body will have 15 members compared with the present Interim Authority’s 10 members. The Government believes that up to now there have been limited opportunities for the wider community to contribute to the Interim Authority’s decision making, and to date many sources of information and ideas have not been available to assist in the administration of education in the Australian Capital Territory.

The Schools Authority Ordinance will operate from the beginning of 1977, and the composition of the new Authority will be as follows: Fourteen part-time members nominated as follows- three by the Australian Capital Territory Teachers’ Federation; two by the Australian Capital Territory Council of Parents’ and Citizens’ Associations; one by the Canberra Pre-School Society; two by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly from its elected members; six by the Minister for Education; and one full-time member who will be the Chief Education Officer.

Changes in the composition of the Authority will strengthen the basic philosophy of education in the Australian Capital Territory in having even more community involvement in the decision-making body administering the Australian Capital Territory government school system. A high degree of community involvement was proposed in the 1973 report entitled A design for the Governance and Organisation of Education in the A.C.T., prepared by a panel which was chaired by Mr Philip Hughes, who is Chairman of the Interim Authority. In the 3 years since that report was made the Interim Authority has confirmed that philosophy and it is the Government’s intention to further it through the provisions of the Schools Authority Ordinance. From the beginning of 1 977 the Authority will have broad functions in relation to the establishment and conduct of government preschools, primary schools, high schools and secondary colleges in the Australian Capital Territory and in the provision of related services.

Other provisions in the Ordinance will ensure than any proposal affecting staffing standards, procedures and overall numbers of professional teaching staff will be introduced after consultation with and the approval of the Minister. The Department of Education will continue to be responsible for relations with and policy concerning non-government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. The Interim Authority will continue to function until the end of 1 976.

The second major issue with which I wish to deal is that of arrangements for further education in the Australian Capital Territory. In accordance with the Government’s policy of decentralisation of decision making and community participation in education, the major feature of the new arrangements would be councils for the four further education institutions which the Australian Capital Territory will have in 1977. These comprise the Canberra Technical and Further Education College, Bruce Technical and Further Education College, Canberra School of Art and Canberra School of Music. The Councils will have both managerial and advisory responsibilities, and will include representatives of staff and students. Substantial responsibility will be devolved to the institutions, where the community-based councils will operate. The terms of reference and composition of each council will be announced shortly.

In addition the system will include adult migrant education which will be integrated within the services provided by the Canberra TAFE College and the Bruce TAFE College. The Department of Education will be responsible for the administration of Further Education in the Australian Capital Territory. To co-ordinate present activities and future developments a Director of Further Education will be identified within the Department. He will be supported by a small administrative unit. Changes in the administration of technical and further education have been made necessary by the decision of the Commonwealth Government to assume wider responsibility in this area. For many years the New South Wales Department of Technical Education has administered the Canberra Technical College, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Department of Education. The Government appreciates the services which the New South Wales authorities have provided and the long association between the Commonwealth and New South Wales departments will not be completely terminated as the New South Wales Department will continue to supply various services in the next few years while the new Australian Capital Territory system is in its developing stages. There is also a need to provide for new institutions such as the Bruce TAFE College to be established in 1 977, and for the Canberra School of Art, which became a separate institution earlier this year. The Canberra School of Music will also be included in these new arrangements. Developments overseas and elsewhere in Australia indicate a growing need to co-ordinate the administration and operations in the post-compulsory and further education areas. Such an approach is particularly necessary in the Australian Capital Territory because of the current growth of the system and also its relative smallness.

A standing committee on further education will be established to co-ordinate the activities of the councils and to deal with some of the wider aspects of further education. The standing committee will be convened by the Department of Education and will have responsibility for advising it on the operation of the further education system. The standing committee on further education will include the chairman of each council and the principal or director of each of the 4 institutions. There will be representation from other areas involved with further education including the relevant activities of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. For broad planning purposes in Australian Capital Territory education, the Department will develop consultation arrangements involving other educational agencies including the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the non-government schools, as well the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, the Department of the Capital Territory, and the National Capital Development Commission.

Arrangements are being made for teachers in the further education field to have the opportunity of transferring to the Commonwealth Teaching Service and to work in a satisfactory professional career situation. The employment of teachers under the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act will allow the flexibility needed to meet the diverse needs of teachers in further education. The conditions which will operate for further education teachers from 1977 can be regarded only as a beginning. The councils of the institutions, the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Teaching Service, the Department of Education, and the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation will continue to explore the requirements of further education staff and develop conditions which are most suitable for the institutions and staff” working in them. Teachers in the School of Music and nonteaching staff at all institutions will continue to be employed under the Public Service Act.

The Government has recognised the need to provide adequate funds for further education in the Australian Capital Territory and will continue to give this priority consideration. As an indication of what has happened in this area expenditure on the defined government further education system in 1976-77 will total about $16m compared with $ 14m in 1975-76 and $8m in 1974-75. 1 present the following paper:

Changes to Education Administration in the Australian Capital Territory- Ministerial Statement, 10 November 1976. and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1976-77 In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $64,304,000.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– This afternoon Senator Wright referred to the difficulty of comparing operating deficits or subsidies for various cities. But I believe some comparisons can be made between other capital cities and Canberra. These indicate quite clearly that the operating deficit in the Australian Capital Territory is not substantially greater in any case, and in some cases it is less than in other capital cities. If one takes comparable cities such as Hobart, Launceston and Burnie- those figures have to be taken togetherand Perth and Canberra then I think it is quite clear that those cities have public transport systems with similar operating deficits. The figures for Sydney and Melbourne, as I indicated earlier in the Senate, in fact are higher than the per capita subsidy in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Wright:

– The figures are comparable.

Senator KNIGHT:

-As Senator Wright states, the figures are comparable. For the completeness of the record, I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard indicating the subsidy per capita, the subsidy per passenger journey and route kilometres per capita for the year 1 974-75 for various capital cities.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator KNIGHT:

-I agree that there may well be a case for looking at the whole question of operating deficits or subsidies for public transport systems in any capital city. I believe that these should certainly be kept under continuing scrutiny.

Senator Devitt:

– Do you think we should be more insistent upon the use of the public transport system?

Senator KNIGHT:

-I think that aspect has to be kept under review. As to the operating deficit, if savings or reductions can be made, I think they ought to be made. But as a senator for the Australian Capital Territory I have to make it clear that I oppose any action which would jeopardise the efficient and effective development of the public transport system in the Australian Capital Territory to serve the people of the Territory. I believe that the arguments I have presented and the figures I have presented indicate that the public transport system here is not unduly subsidised and that is does in fact face special problems. Any reduction in the subsidy might only mean substantial additional costs for roads, parking facilities and other related facilities that go with the development of alternative means of transport.

In conclusion, I turn to a related but essential question. I refer to comments made by Senator Wright last week when he offered the Senate ‘a few thoughts’ about Senate procedures. He referred particularly to section 53 of the Constitution in that respect. Senator Wright concluded by saying that there is nothing in our system of government ‘that would prevent the development of a practice in this Senate of requiring objectionable items in Appropriation Bills to be reconsidered by the Government’. He went on to say that the Senate should consider ‘its undoubted constitutional power of request for amendment to be exercised on the appropriate occasion’. I agree that the Senate should indeed consider those matters. But having said that, recognising that Senate Estimates Committees are a vital part of the operation of the Senate and indeed of the Parliament, it raises a very important issue. If any Estimates Committee are to suggest reductions in presenting reports, they will have to present detailed arguments and evidence lying behind the suggestion for a reduction. The hearings of committees will have to be held in such a way that those appearing before the committees- public servants- are given an opportunity to present every aspect of a case even if it means that the committee goes back to a particular subject subsequently. I think in such cases there is also a need for the Committee to give some indication of the scale or the amount of the suggested reduction and some indication of the extent of the over-expenditure or the overestimate of the appropriation as proposed. I raise that point only because it relates essentially to the role of the Estimates Committees in this Senate and to their significance in the parliamentary system and because I think it is an important aspect relating to the comments made by my colleague, Senator Wright. I think that all of us in the Senate have to consider such factors very carefully.

I noticed earlier that the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) indicated with respect to earlier comments on the Canberra bus system that the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) has in fact re-examined this proposed expenditure and believes that it is justified. I simply conclude by saying that I agree.

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

– I wish to respond to several of the matters that have been brought forward. Senator Knight mentioned his interest in a matter and referred to comments that were made by Senator Wright. Senator Knight in his last comments, indicated what may be required by an Estimates Committee in the future. It is interesting for the Senate to note that Estimates Committee E perhaps more than any other commitee so far as I know took an initial interest in the activities within the A.C.T. which has not been taken before. Under Senator Wright’s chairmanship, before Estimates Committee E met formally, it toured the developing areas of the Australian Capital Territory and made itself familiar with the general problems and the developments of this capital city. That was an innovation which ran before the general discussions of Estimates Committee E.

Senator Devitt:

– It had a moderating influence too, I notice, on the tone of the report.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Devitt suggests there may have been a moderating influence. As we have come back into the Committee of the Whole I do not know whether we have seen any particular moderating influence in the volume of debate. The Estimates Committee generally, having had that initial tour of inspection, had a meeting to discuss, as I understand it, the appropriate points of the estimates over several days in accordance with a procedure designed to reduce the debate in the Committee of the Whole.

I noted the points made by Senator Knight. I shall see that they are directed to the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley). He, of course, is well aware of Senator Knight’s particular interest in this matter. Senator Kilgariff, in mentioning one or two matters, said that he had a tourist background. I would think it would be wise for Senator Kilgariff to make it clear that that was not by experience in touring, but because he has had more practical experience than it has been the fortune of most honourable senators to have in the area of tourism. I note the points that he has made.

Senator Devitt drew the attention of the Committee to the item related to actions and functions of computers. This was a direct reference to the report of Senate Estimates Committee E. I have a statement here and perhaps instead of my reading it out I could just explain that it is a statement that responds directly to Senator Devitt ‘s query as to the actions which the Department of the Capital Territory, indeed the Government as a whole, is taking towards the development of computers for the national accounts. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a paper on the actions and functions related to the use of computers in the Public Service.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

ACTIONS AND FUNCTIONS RELATED TO THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

  1. . Early this year, the Government directed the Public Service Board to examine the expenditure on computers planned by departments with a view to reducing or delaying some of this expenditure. This examination is expected to result in substantial savings over a number of financial years.
  2. In addition the Government requested the Interdepartmental Committee on ADP to investigate the potential for rationalisation of computing resources throughout the Service. This formidable task, which involves a number of senior departmental officers, is currently proceeding. The Government also directed that a special Interdepartmental Committee examine the question of the rationalisation of computing resources in the Welfare/Health area- the work of this Committee has been finalised.
  3. Since 1961 the Interdepartmental Committee on ADP, in association with the Public Service Board, has been involved in the co-ordination of the introduction of computer systems into the Service. As part of its normal role, the IDC on ADP requires that the cost/benefit aspects of every departmental computer proposal be carefully investigated before it considers the proposal. In this context the proposed usage of computers by the Department of the Capital Territory was examined and supported by the IDC.
  4. Of significance also is the fact that, in 1974, the Public Service Board made available draft guidelines to departments on the approach to be taken on cost/benefit analyses of ADP systems. The guidelines are presently being reviewed and will be formally published as soon as possible.
  5. Further, the Public Service Board, as part of its role under Section 17 of the Public Service Act relating to efficiency and economy, has also instituted a series of post implementation reviews of departmental computer installations and ADP systems. The first such review is currently under way in the Bureau of Meteorology and it is planned to carry out two such reviews each year. The reviews are directed towards establishing the efficiency and effectiveness of ADP operations in the terms of achievement of original objectives, the effectiveness of ADP systems and their integration into departmental operations, the efficiency of computing equipment utilisation, etc.
  6. It might well be said that the wide-ranging review activities mentioned above in sum amount to an inquiry on the scale envisaged by Senate Estimates Committee E.
Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator McLaren raised several points and I will attempt to answer them. He queried whether responsibility for transport could be transferred to the Department of Administrative Services. I am advised that at the present time a move is under consideration to place control for transport in another area- that means the Department of Administrative Services. This is purely under consideration. In mind are the general moves that are being made towards self-government in the Territory. There is no suggestion of any reduction in the size of the car fleet at the present time. Senator McLaren referred also to hire car plates. For his information, I indicate that 10 additional car hire plates are to be balloted to Australian Capital Territory residents in December this year. The decision to issue these plates is to meet the demand from private sources. It is not for the purpose of taking up any government work. The Department of the Capital Territory does police the limit but, of course, is restricted because of the staff ceilings that are imposed. I am advised that the department is aware that loopholes exist by which some operators function but these are being examined at the present time. I think that I have answered the main questions raised by Senator McLaren.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I thank the Minister for the answer he has given me. In response to his reply I should like to ask him whether the department could implement some strict safeguards to ensure that the permit holders for hire cars do not in any circumstances use more than one car for the carriage of passengers. If these people are caught using more than one car there ought to be a penalty whereby they lose the licence for the permit they hold.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I should like to make a few comments. Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was interested in what Senator Kilgariff said. He referred to the Public Works Committee and its approval of construction of various works for the Commonwealth. He raised the question of whether it was proper, when the Committee had approved the construction of the National Gallery at an estimated cost of $ 13m, for the cost to rise to over $26m. I am not competent to answer that question but I think it needs some consideration by the legal luminaries in this Senate to determine the actual legal position. The requirement is that all projects costing more than $2m have to be submitted to the Public Works Committee and, of course, they cannot be proceeded with unless they have the Committee’s approval.

Accordingly the Public Works Committee meets to examine the whole project and decides, for example, that it will approve the building of a school, say, at Katherine at an estimated cost of $13m. If that cost escalates to $26m I do not think that it is a project which the Public Works Committee has approved. If the Committee had been aware at the time of its investigations that the project would have cost $26m it may well have been that the Committee would not have approved the project. If that is the correct legal interpretation of the powers of the Government and the operation of the Public Works Committee, it could well be that many projects undertaken and completed in Australia have been undertaken illegally. Perhaps it is a question which the Auditor-General could pick up on the expenditure that has been incurred on a project which required expenditure exceeding that approved by the Public Works Committee due to the fluctuation in cost. Perhaps this matter will never be questioned legally simply because no-one is sufficiently interested in it, even having the power and authority to take it to court. The Government has done something which does not comply with the Act.

I think it is important to politicians who have agreed to establish a committee that when the committee makes its findings after considering all relevant evidence, those findings should be adhered to. Having made its findings and approving a project costing $13m I do not think that could ever be interpreted as the committee ‘s approving the project at double the cost. If the original estimate of the project increases I do not think it can be claimed that the Public Works Committee has given its approval for the project. Has the Minister any legal men advising him now who could indicate to the Senate what the position is when we find an escalation in cost, as Senator Kilgariff has mentioned, and whether the Government has any justification for going on with the project?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise in response to the comments of Senator Cavanagh. I recall that when I was Minister for Works and had the responsibility of piloting a new Public Works Committee Act through this Parliament it was then attempted by me to embrace statutory construction committees within the jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee. But that failed and the interpretation that was insisted upon with regard to the ambit of the Public Works Committee investigation was works which were directly undertaken by the executive government of the Commonwealth as distinct from their statutory authorities. This National Gallery having been constructed by the National Capital Development Commission, it escapes the scrutiny of the Public Works Committee. It simply goes into the bloc vote of the National Capital Development Commission and, therefore, has no upper limit that is authorised.

It is not to be taken from anything that I have said that I agree with the implication of illegality that Senator Cavanagh put forward as to a project that undergoes the scrutiny of the Public Works Committee and is approved at $ 13m and can be constructed only at a cost of$26m. In my view, speaking instanter in response to that suggestion, it would be the fact that the increased money would not be authorised except by an Appropriation Bill such as we are passing and then it would become authorised. With regard to the escalation of costs as to particular items both in the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, which has a bloc vote, and the National Capital Development Commission, which has a bloc vote, it may be taken into account in discount of the tedium that I have inflicted on the Committee that we take some credit for having handspiked out of these bloc votes particular items that do demand scrutiny. A vote beginning at $13m, increasing at this stage to $26 m or $27m- and before it is finished I will guarantee it will be $35m- is an excellent illustration of unpardonable waste of people’s money.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I take a little further what Senator Wright has been saying and ask the Minister: Is $26m a realistic estimate? I ask this because there was considerable speculation last year- more than 12 months ago- that the cost had risen at that time to about $26m. Because of the way this particular project has been proceeding, I find it hard to imagine that a realistic estimate is not perhaps closer to $30m at this stage. When was the estimate of $26m made?

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

– Just quickly in response to the points that have been raised, Senator Cavanagh ‘s queries were in general answered by Senator Wright. Projects of the National Capital Development Commission are not scrutinised by the Public Works Committee. The NCDC is a statutory authority and therefore it is exempt from the scrutiny of the Public Works Committee. I noticed Senator Wright’s words in relation to a guarantee that the cost will escalate much further. He stated that he views the increases as being quite unpardonable. I doubt very much whether Senator Wright could hold to that view. I think it is appropriate that he makes the point. But Senator Rae’s question and my earlier answers which now appear in Hansard indicate that the original figure of $ 13m was a 1 973 figure. It is most regrettable that to 30 June 1 976- if I may prompt Senator Rae in his questionthe figure had risen to $26.479m. I had earlier read into Hansard that the original contract in April 1973 was for $ 13.263m, rise and fall adjustments have amounted to $8. 755m and there have been adjustments to provisional quantities.

I believe another senator commented on the extra work that was required which further increased the figure by $4.46 lm. Earlier this afternoon I indicated to honourable senators the actual increases that had occurred year by year in relation to inflationary tendencies. If my recollection serves me correctly I indicated that inflation alone had raised the figures by 75 per cent or 78 per cent and indeed that since the job had started wages had actually doubled. I suggest that there is good reason to suppose that any work that was running over the same period could well draw the same comment from Senator Wright in relation to cost increases being unpardonable. But unfortunately we have that inflationary factor in our society at present. As Senator Wright knows, the present Government is attempting to alleviate that situation. I thank honourable senators for their comments relating to the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to take this matter a bit further because the discussion has not clarified it in my mind. Senator Kilgariff raised what I thought was a most interesting point. Senator Wright explained that because the National Capital Development Commission is a statutory authority its projects do not come under the scrutiny of the Public Works Committee. This does not fit in with my ideas of what the Committee should be examining. But leaving aside the projects of statutory authorities in which the Public Works Committee does not have a say, there is an Act of this Parliament that states that any work in excess of $2m cannot be proceeded with unless it receives the approval of the Public Works Committee. Take the instance of a school- if we relate the figures Senator Kilgariff used- at Katherine.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I said Canberra.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Take it to be at Canberra as long as the school is built by the Government. This would confuse the issue because it would be built by the statutory authority here, and I like Katherine better than Canberra. Take the case where the Government wants to build a school at Katherine. As it will cost in excess of $2m the project has to go to the Public Works Committee and the school cannot be built unless it receives the approval of the Public Works Committee. That Committee considers the facts. If it has before it a submission that the school would cost $26m it may say that the building of the school does not warrant that expenditure and therefore it would reject the project. But if the Committee had a proposal that the school would cost $13m it may agree to the erection of the school at Katherine at an estimated cost of $ 13m. At no time would the Committee have agreed to the erection of a school at Katherine for $26m. Because the actual cost of erecting the school will be $26m the question I raise is: Did the Committee ever approve of that project and can the project proceed? Senator Wright suggested that because the Committee approved of a project costing $ 13m, when it is discovered that the cost will escalate and be much more the approval to proceed comes when we vote the additional appropriation for the project. But I doubt whether that gets over the authorisation of the Public Works Committee. Of course if we did not vote the additional amount at what stage of the construction, after having spent $13m, would the project cease? Before the roof is put on? But the question is whether the project should ever have been commenced.

I can imagine that a department keen to establish a project could underestimate the cost of the project for the purpose of getting Public Works Committee approval. After receiving approval initially, if the project can be proceeded with at any cost that is defeating the purpose of the Public Works Committee Act. There is also the other question: Having received the approval of the Public Works Committee for construction, how much can the department enlarge upon the plan or build additions to the plan without it becoming an unlawful construction? I think this needs serious consideration as to whether it is a legal construction as it would not comply with the project originally approved by the Public Works Committee. I think we should consider whether we need an amendment to the Public Works Committee Act to ensure that construction proceeds only to the extent approved by the Committee.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

- Senator Cavanagh has picked up the point very well. I have no argument with him. The example that I am giving of course is that of the Australian National Gallery and the High Court building. The point I am making is that I believe that in the estimating of costs of projects it should be on a fixed cost basis so that when the project comes before the Public Works Committeegiving it a little give-and-take of course- the Committee and the Government should have a somewhat realistic figure for the project. I have given this example only as an indication of why I think the whole matter should be reviewed.

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

– I am reticent to cross swords with a former Minister for Construction who undoubtedly would know the situation quite well. His views are accepted by this Senate on many occasions. I do not have a copy of the Public Works Committee Act with me, but in retrospect my recollection is that there are probably 2 areas of wording in the Public Works Committee Act which relieve the situation to some extent. I doubt whether Senator Kilgariff was correct in what he was saying. The Public Works Committee Act refers to proposed work. The very fact that the Committee deals with proposed work means there cannot be a finalisation of costs until the work is completed.

The other major factor- I am advised by the officers with me that the situation is controlled by the words ‘work of the Commonwealth’- is that the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act apply to the work of the Commonwealth, and that is generally considered to be work of the executive government and statutory authorities do not not fall into that category. As the expenditure being considered is expenditure by a statutory authority it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee. Senator Kilgariff said that if, for instance, at this time we are estimating the cost of a particular work we should be able to envisage what increased costs in the next 3 years or 5 years will do to the price of the contract for that work. I believe that the Department of Construction or whichever authority is attempting to estimate the value of the work would find it impossible to envisage what the additional costs would be in the next 3 years or 5 years. Also, it is a general requirement of Treasury that we should deal with the cost factor as it is known at present.

We should remember that 5 years or 6 years ago there would have been a small escalation in costs with the rate of inflation running at 2 per cent, or 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Inflation has been running at the rate of 15 per cent, 16 per cent and 17 per cent, and I note that in Britain today there is an inflation rate of 25 per cent. With inflation running at such rates one could readily say that it would be impossible to give an accurate figure for the cost of work which is to proceed for 3 year or 4 years. I suggest to Senator Kilgariff that we must deal with the factors as they are known today. When the work on the National Gallery was commenced in 1973 the estimated cost was $13m. With the escalating costs and the additional work involved, the present figure that I have given does not seem to be a long way out of line.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-I raised this question in another way when I made my comments on the report of Senate Estimates Committee E and the Minister has not answered my queries. I am concerned about the use of the word ‘authorised’. Could the Minister advise the Committee in simple terms at what stage a project reaches the point of being authorised? In other words, what authority within the system gives the authorisation? At what stage can we accept that a particular project has been authorised. The question with which we are mainly concerning ourselves is dealt with on page 3 of the Estimates Committee’s report. It set out the civil works program as follows:

I am trying to get an interpretation of this. What happened to bring about the authorisation of the figure given for that project.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I accept the Minister’s advice on this matter, but the point I am making, as I did before, is that there is a client department. To me it seems quite wrong that a client department can come in after the cost of a project has been given and ask for variations to be made to the project. Let me take as an example the Canberra court building. In that case there was a request for security provisions. I do not know what the cost was, but I am sure that it must have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. All I am suggesting is that when a project is being put forward the whole cost should be indicated. It should not be open to a client department to come forward later, after a project has been funded and commenced, and ask for variations to the project which cost a considerable sum. That is what I am complaining about.

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

– I still disagree with Senator Kilgariff that it would be possible to achieve the situation which he has suggested. I understand that for all works costing more than $6m the contracting authority accepts a rise and fall provision. When the cost rises we may be unhappy, but when it falls we may be happy. It may be of interest for honourable senators to note that prices for contracts which are coming in at present are very much below some government estimates for the work. There is a real return to competitive tendering at present.

I doubt whether I can answer accurately the question asked by Senator Devitt. He asked at what point a particular work was authorised. One would be inclined to say that authorisation comes when the appropriation for the particular work is made by the Parliament. It must be realised that a general works program is approved. After a particular work has been authorised to commence and in fact has commenced, undoubtedly our financial authority, the

Treasury, would keep control over reasonable increases in expenditure that would occur. However, it would do this taking into account the fact that Parliament had authorised to an extent the works program that was to be undertaken. One of the documents supporting the Budget deals with the works program. If I can obtain any further information on this particularly interesting point which Senator Devitt has raised I will attempt to do so.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of Repatriation

Proposed expenditure, $249,437,000.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

Proposed expenditure, $ 144,832,000.

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $54,6 1 7,000.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $94,5 1 9,000.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is it the wish of the Committee to take Group F as a whole? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move a motion, a copy of which has been circulated. In fact, it has been circulated twice. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the second circulated copy. That is the motion I seek leave to move.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator RAE:

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That after considering the Report of Estimates Committee F, the Committee is of the opinion that the effectiveness and scrutiny function of Estimates Committees could be enhanced by:

    1. providing Estimates Committees with both a full time function and some full time staff;
    2. empowering Estimates Committees, in addition to their examination of the annual Appropriation Bills, to engage in a total and continuing examination of Special Appropriations referred to them by the Senate; and
    3. empowering Estimates Committees to maintain a total and continuing examination of Government funded authorities which are not Departments of State.

  2. That the above opinion be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration.

In speaking briefly to that motion I refer to the fact that this is a matter with some not inconsiderable history, and I believe it would be useful to retrace it. A few years ago, but not very long ago, the Senate decided to establish Estimates Committees. I think that in the belief of the majority of the members of the Senate and of the public the Estimates Committees have fulfilled a useful task. They have served a role which has been developing. It has been rewarding in the total way in which the Senate can fulfil its function of scrutiny of government expenditure. When the Estimates Committees were established they did not extend their examination to the special appropriations. Their examination related only to the ordinary annual services appropriations which now appear in the Appropriation Bills and constitute a fraction under 40 per cent of the Budget. The special appropriations constitute just a fraction more than 60 per cent of total Commonwealth expenditure. At the moment that 60 per cent of expenditure is not subject to any form of scrutiny by the Senate. It is clearly the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to exercise scrutiny of that expenditure. It is the opinion of Estimates Committee F, as expressed in its report to this Committee, that the Senate should consider expanding the role of Estimates Committees to enable them to fulfil their constitutional duty.

I refer to the fact that the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System was set up by the Parliament. That Committee considered, among other things, the role of the Senate Estimates committees and recommended in accordance with the motion which I have moved. I refer also to the Coombs report which made a similar suggestion. So the position is that there is a series of recommendations by people who have given consideration to the role of the Parliament, the role of this chamber and the need for an expanded scrutiny of the expenditure of the Executive that this sort of move should be undertaken to give the Estimates committees a full time function, some full time staff, a power to examine the special Appropriation Bills and a power to examine the statutory authorities which are not departments of State.

Senator Devitt:

– Such as?

Senator RAE:

– There is a very large number of them. I refer to the Australian National Railways, the National Capital Development Commission, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority.

Senator Harradine:

– The Australian National Line.

Senator RAE:

-The Australian National Line.

Senator Devitt:

– The Commonwealth Banking Corporation?

Senator RAE:

-I will take bids for a while. There is a very large number. I think the number is something like 120 at the moment. Most of them, while subject to audit, are not subject to scrutiny by the Parliament. Therefore, the situation is that while there may not be matters which are in breach of Treasury Rules or which are in breach of auditing practice there is no way for this Parliament to know whether the taxpayer is getting value for money or whether the policy adopted and implemented by those statutory authorities is in the best interests of the people or is providing a reasonable return for the taxpayer’s dollar. There is a variety of types of statutory authorities. I believe that Senator Withers, when debating this matter a few days ago, referred to the different types. This matter has been discussed a number of times during the course of the proceedings of Committee F. I do not propose to deal with it at greater length because I believe that there have been indications not only from the Leader of the Government in the Senate but also from other senators on both sides of a general support for the expression of an opinion that we should now proceed, in the development of the Senate’s role, to the stage of ensuring that Estimates committees are able to undertake a much fuller role than they have so far undertaken in their developmental period.

It is with a degree of confidence that the Committee will support the views which have already been expressed in the chamber since Estimates Committee F brought in its report that I have moved the motion. I have done so not as an individual but on behalf of one of the Senate Estimates committees which has produced a unanimous report. It was an all-party committee. This motion flows directly from the recommendations of that Committee.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) The question now is: That the motion moved by Senator Rae be agreed to.

Senator Mulvihill:

– That will not preclude questions on this group of estimates?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I support Senator Rae’s motion. We have had ample evidence of concern expressed on both sides of the chamber about the Estimates with which the Parliament deals. It is quite incredible that roughly SI 1.5 billion escapes the particular scrutiny of Parliament. I believe that we are protectors of the taxpayers. For that amount of revenue to escape the attention and close scrutiny of the Parliament, I think, is quite inexcusable. It is high time something was done about it. The motion requests the Committee to endorse the principle that the Senate should expand its role to examine the special appropriations and to examine in far greater detail the expenditure of statutory authorities. I was a member of Senate Estimates Committee F. We drew attention, in a fairly mild way, to the Auditor-General’s report. Page 2 of our report states:

During its consideration of the estimates of the departments which were being examined, the Committee referred on several occasions to critical comments made by the Auditor-General in his report for the year ended 30 June 1976.

The Committee received explanations of the criticisms and details of the remedial action which had been implemented by the departments cited by the Auditor-General in his report. The detailed answers given in response to the Committee ‘s questioning are contained in the Hansard report.

We finished that paragraph by making this tentative comment:

The Committee trusts that it will not be again necessary for it to raise these specific matters on any future occasion.

I notice that Estimates Committee E was a little more specific in its criticism. It had more reason to be critical. Senator Wright has mentioned the areas of concern that his Committee had and has very forcefully brought to the attention of the Committee of the Whole the need to support the principle behind this motion. I believe the Standing Orders Committee has a responsibility to examine the matters raised in this motion. I hope that it would bring back a report to the Senate fairly quickly. I am looking forward to that report. I am anxious that the motion be supported by the Standing Orders Committee and that something constructive be done to ensure that this incredible amount that goes through the Executive’s hands comes under more direct scrutiny of the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Mulvihill queried with me the procedure that we are going through at present. I explain to the Committee that Senator Rae, by leave, raised with the Committee the matter of this motion. It is the responsibility of the Committee to clear this motion. Then we will deal with group F estimates as a whole.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– There has been general agreement with what Senator Rae proposed in the Senate on a previous occasion and with what he formalised by way of a motion tonight. If the motion is adopted it will lead to a substantial extension of the role of the Senate. For that reason we believe that the motion ought to be the subject of substantial debate in the Senate. The second paragraph of the motion states:

That the above opinion be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration.

That will allow for substantial debate on the proposition. In the meantime we on this side of the chamber can collectively discuss the matter.

If there are any differences of opinion we may come to a common decision on the matter. It would not be feasible to adjourn the Committee proceedings. Besides, we do not wish to adjourn debate on the proposition. However, we could take some steps after the Committee reported. Even that would be inclined to hold up what we consider to be a proposition worth while discussing and considering. The Opposition agrees with the substance of the proposal. We perhaps do not agree with the detail that may flow from it, but surely the Standing Orders Committee will put us on the right track.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I join with my colleague, Senator Georges, in expressing the opinion that the Senate ought to have the opportunity to engage in a full scale debate on Senator Rae ‘s motion. I hope that when it is referred to the Standing Orders Committee that Committee will take cognisance of sub-paragraph ( 1 ) (c), which says: empowering Estimates Committees to maintain a total and continuing examination of government funded authorities which are not Departments of State.

I have experienced difficulty during the Estimates debates in getting information on government expenditure on official establishments. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was able to give a breakdown on some of the establishments; yet when I pursued the matter on the Estimates Committees I was told by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) that it was the policy of the Government not to give a breakdown. So we have a conflict. Another matter on which I sought clarification was the Governor-General’s office. I also asked whether funds were made available to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation out of a special trust account. I was not told anything. I was not given any answers. The Leader of the Government in the Estimates Committees said: No answer’. I hope that when the Standing Orders Committee looks at the motion it will be able to recommend that the Parliament ought to be able to investigate all avenues of expenditure as has been set out by Senator Rae in subparagraph ( 1 ) (c) of this motion.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

-The Government is interested in and attracted by the proposition that is contained in the motion moved by Senator Rae and supported by Senator Jessop and many other senators, including apparently Opposition senators, in broad terms. There can be no doubt that the Senate has the power to engage in the investigation of special appropriations or of the funding of statutory authorities and commissions. As the Estimates Committee F report clearly points out, it has already established that right, if indeed there was any doubt about it. The only question that arises is whether the resolutions setting up Estimates Committees should be expanded in the way in which Senator Rae proposes in the motion.

Senator Rae:

– The original motion has been altered. I think the Minister may have the wrong copy.

Senator DURACK:

– I think the fact remains that the Committees as they are now would have to be changed either by a change in the resolutions setting them up or by a change in the Standing Orders. It is appropriate that the question should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee in the first place. There may well be some practical difficulties in regard to certain aspects of the motion, but they can be considered by the Standing Orders Committee, which of course will report to the Senate. There will be the opportunity for the full debate in the Senate which Senator Georges believes- I am sure we would all agree- is appropriate for such an extension of the activities of the Estimates Committees.

In my view the Estimates Committees have proved to be one of the most notable initiatives that the Senate has taken in recent years. It is an initiative which is not fully appreciated outside the Senate. Other activities of the Senate, particularly our standing committees and select committees, have attracted far more public attention; but in my view the greatest exercise of responsibility on the part of the Senate is and has been portrayed in the Estimates Committees. Despite some doubts in the minds of some members of the Senate when these committees were first step up, they have undoubtedly proved to be most effective. The scrutiny each year has proved more extensive and more valuable, and in my experience the reports of the Estimates Committees each year have proved themselves in their content and their penetration. The reports of the Estimates Committees on this year’s Appropriation Bills are clear proof of what I am saying. I cannot remember such depth of consideration of the Estimates being revealed before as it has been in these reports. The proposal that has emanated from Estimates Committee F and now is embodied in the motion before this Committee is one which summarises the advances which has been made by the Senate through the Estimates Committees.

The proposition is one in which I have said the Government is most interested. It believes that it would be quite suitable for the proposition to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. Hopefully some valuable extension of the Estimates Committee ‘s work will emanate from that consideration. However, that is perhaps taking matters a little beyond the present motion, which simply seeks to express a broad opinion of this place. As I have said, the Government will support the motion and it will look forward with interest to further discussion of the matter in the Standing Orders Committee and in the Senate.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-Mr Chairman, may I ask Senator Rae for clarification? I would like to know the precise meaning of the expression ‘Government funded authorities’ which appears in sub-paragraph (l)(c). Is that expression used deliberately? There could be government authorities which are not funded by the Government. I have in mind the Commonwealth Bank, for instance, which would carry on its own funding arid run its own affairs. Is it intended that some authorities will be exempt from the provisions of this proposal?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Senator Rae, would you like to explain that?

Senator RAE (Tasmania) ^^’Government funded authorities’ is an expression which, as I understand it, has a reasonably established meaning, the established meaning being that they are authorities which are funded on a continuous basis, on a basis of initial capital or on a basis of loan. Such authorities include the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Australian National Line and even the Commonwealth Bank, which have received Commonwealth Government funding. They fall within the general definition of ‘Government funded authorities’ whether they are receiving funding each year or not. They have been established by and receive some funding or some funding support from the Commonwealth Government. As I understand it, that is what it means. I simply take this opportunity to say that it is what I mean in the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We now come back to consideration of the proposed expenditure.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise tonight on a very serious matter on which I hope the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) will be able to provide prompt information. I have been approached by the staff employed in fire control duties at the Concord Repatriation Hospital. They are concerned that because of what I deem false and dangerous economy 5 extremely competent fire control officers are to be absorbed into what is known as a patrol and gatekeeper’s section. Four of them have had ample training from the New South Wales fire brigade. The fifth member would have received the same experience in the Royal Australian Navy. Due to some peculiar concept of economy, it is not impossible that in the event of an outbreak of fire at 2 o’clock in the morning the particular fire officer, who until now used to be completely specialised and would be in the control office at the entrance to the Concord Hospital- I believe that the Minister is aware of the geography of the hospital- could be on mortuary duty and a corpse may have to be moved in the early hours of the morning. That shows how stupid this matter is.

I will take it a little further. I am sure that many honourable senators have seen the very effective film The Towering Inferno. If it proved nothing else, it showed how a minor malfunction if unattended could create a complete inferno. It would be wrong to say that, with a modern sprinkler system and relatively modern wards, that could not happen at that hospital. I have here a map of the hospital. I know that it is not possible to incorporate it in Hansard but it shows the auxiliary buildings in red. It is no use honourable senators who sit behind the Minister trying to brush these matters aside. I live in the area. I know the genuine fears of the patients and staff. The fact is that from 0600 hours to 2030 hours this particular fire control will not be manned. Let us get this matter into its right perspective. Nobody has suggested that these S specialists would be able to control a fire on their own. The control centre communicates with the New South Wales fire brigades in the various adjacent western suburbs of Sydney. It is not a question of being like a slips fieldsman and staying there all afternoon without a catch. If one looks at the statistics one finds that they had to investigate a total of 132 calls. Some were false but 23 calls were genuine. They could be merely a matter of a fuse fire or something like that. This is a difficult situation where probably the Hospital Employees Federation is an all grades union. I do not doubt that a small specialised unit within that union may not have the full concern of the union because it has to look after all its members who are defined as patrolmen.

Without reflecting on anybody’s physical fitness, I say that you cannot make a Melbourne Cup winner out of a Clydesdale. The fact is that the other men there are not fit. I do not want to jeopardise anybody’s job but some of the men who may have to operate a fire tender do not have a car licence. They are a mixture and one can hope that one of those men will exhibit some aptitude to handle the situation. As I understand this particular establishment, there are numerous hydrants to examine. There is a host of other appliances to be looked after. I would like to know what the Government thinks it will save in the event of a tragic fire. Honourable senators should reflect on the statistics: There are 600 portable extinguishers, 109 external hydrants, and there are fire tenders and other equipment. I say respectfully that it would not matter if one of those officers on the entire shift from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. according to the roster did nothing. Perhaps in the slips field analogy he is waiting there. The nearest I can get to that using a railway analogy is that if there is a pilot locomotive standing by ready for an emergency it may be argued whether its using fuel is economical. I say that it is not.

I know that discussions were held today. We know from experience all over the world that some minor neglect can create a major disaster in a hospital. There have been fires in this hospital and it has been the expertise of these men that has kept them to a minimum. But there is a much more sinister implication in all this. I am not going to name him, but one senior officer is alleged to have said- honourable senators will notice how legally minded I have become as that phrase is often tossed around by Ministers- that he agrees that what those particular fire officers say does jeopardise the hospital but he says: ‘Do not worry because when it comes out in the Press the New South Wales fire brigades will have to provide greater protection’. I hope that this matter will get into the Sydney newspapers tomorrow and will stir bureaucrats of the Concord Repatriation Hospital. I do not intend to remain silent. If there is any demarkation dispute between the New South Wales Fire Commission and an establishment like the Concord Repatriation Hospital I do not want to see a fire of the dimensions of the Towering Inferno film which I am sure some honourable senators have seen. So I make this appeal to the Minister. I know he has said that he does not want to interfere too much with his subordinates, but we are dealing with a fire risk. These dedicated officers have proved their efficiency in the past. I leave the matter to the Minister.

I now want to turn to the matter of employment and industrial relations. Honourable senators are aware that on the Estimates Committee where I substituted for Senator Bishop I raised the question of whether arbitration inspectors were being effectively deployed. I give credit to Senator Durack- I always give credit where it is deserved- for supplying me very smartly with an answer to the allegations I made about the wrongdoing of a certain concessionaire at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I refer to the duty free gift shop. The department, in its own very cool language, conceded that $25,000 was involved in under-payment of wages. This matter has a long history going back to the time when Senator Robert Cotton was the Minister for Civil Aviation. I mentioned to him that I had suspicions about certain concessionaires, and he assured me as late as today that on that occasion he had told all concerned to make sure there were no award breaches. I know that some honourable senators will ask: ‘What is the trade union doing?’ I say this to honourable senators that if that happened in the mines, the railways or the building industry they would know in the first 48 hours or earlier whether a man was a member of a union within the industry. In the context of civil liberties, I know that if a girl started working at a kiosk there selling newspapers for a newspaper agency, if the union approached her within the first hour some honourable senators would say that that was trade unionism gone mad. The difficulty is that there are unscrupulous employers who are able to do these things.

In fairness to the response which the Minister gave me I should say that the Daily Mirror picked up the story on the Monday, and my phone has been running hot with all sorts of people giving me the inside story. I asked a further question yesterday and was told about the magnitude of the operations of the inspectors. If a person a bit short of cash were to pinch a Club chocolate or something from the counter he would be in court in Sydney the next day and his name would be in the newspapers. I will not have that man who is running the duty free shop being wrapped up in cotton wool, because my telephone informants tell me that he has a Melbourne connection and a Perth connection. If I were sitting where Mr Street is sitting I would have had the man in front of me in 48 hours and I would have called the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, in with him. I would have said to the chap: ‘If you do not pay that money in the next 48 hours your concession is finished’. As a matter of fact, before I am finished with this case I am determined to know the name of this man who has bled people white over the last few years. I say to the officers sitting behind the Minister that it is not good enough for them to give me this claptrap and tell me that there are so many thousands of people working under Federal awards. Arbitration inspectors know and I know that if those people were effectively deployed you would get to the root of the trouble. During the hearings of the Estimates Committee I said that any arbitration inspector who operates in those manufacturing industries which have trade union representation and shop stewards is not being gainfully employed.

I have another fear. I think it was Senator Harradine who referred to certain arbitration inspectors being grounded in Tasmania. I was told late today that something similar had occurred in Newcastle. Because of staff ceilings and general economies the inspectors were not kept at their desk. I think the Senate will agree with me when I say that, as far as this matter is concerned, I am satisfied that when the Department says that an amount of $25,000 is involved in fact a larger sum is involved. I do not blame Senator Durack personally. I am determined to see that the name of any person who pinches a newspaper or a block of chocolate at an airport has his name recorded at the central police court hearings. I am determined that the name of the man who has this concession is brought to light. Just today we dealt with a motion seeking to set up a select committee to look at Queenstown. That is a very laudable proposal. It may be necessary for me to move to set up a select committee to look at whether those people who are successful with their tenders for government establishments know their obligations to society. I leave the Minister with a very serious point. Amongst the mass of information that I received was the report about a very honest accountant who worked for that particular concessionaire.

Senator Messner:

– They are all honest.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I will accept that. They may all be honest. But it took courage for this man to tell his boss that he was committing a felony, and for that he was sacked. That is one of the hidden issues involved in this matter. I hope I will not have to raise this matter in the Senate too often. In fact, I have done the Minister a favour tonight by raising the matter at 9.20 p.m. instead of at 1 1 p.m.

Senator Button:

– You have done all of us a favour.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-A11 right then. I think that both of these matters that I have raised are very serious, and I look forward to specific replies on them.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I refer the Committee to division 526 which deals with repatriation hospitals and other institutions. I was a member of the Estimates Committee that presented this report. I would like to inform the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) that since the Committee met I have been informed by some wives of ex-servicemen in South Australia, who have a disability caused by psychiatric conditions, that in South Australia there is a reluctance on the part of the repatriation hospital at Daw Park to admit such exservicemen. In discussing the matter with the families concerned, I put forward the view that perhaps it is due to the fact that new concepts are held by the medical staffs who currently argue that such people, as far as possible, ought to be accommodated in community environments and conditions. Nevertheless, they have told me that they intend to send me evidence of particular cases in which they think that because of family circumstances an ex-serviceman should have been admitted by the medical officer immediately, as was the case formerly.

I am not sure whether that practice is a new trend, but I put it to the Minister in order that he might tell us whether he can make a general observation that a new procedure has been adopted by the medical staffs of the hospital wherein they may say that those people can be left in the community for a longer period. If that is the case, I think we ought to be told about it. I inform the Minister, in case he requires me to produce particular instances, that I have been told of the cases I have mentioned by the organisation comprised of the people concerned. Perhaps the Minister might indicate to the Senate whether perhaps any new procedure along the lines I have mentioned are currently being observed and whether those procedures are satisfactory. We probably have to see how they operate over a period of time. But at least I can tell the Minister that the wives of these ex-servicemen are very concerned because their husbands could not be admitted to the hospital as quickly as they have been in the past; they were returned to their homes. I would be pleased to hear the observations of the Minister after he has consulted with his officers about that matter.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I shall deal first of all with the point raised by Senator Mulvihill. I must say that the honourable senator could not have gone further in attracting my goodwill than by raising these matters at this stage rather than during the adjournment debate later this evening, as he knows my reluctance to stay here beyond the appointed hour. Senator

Mulvihill referred to the fire officers at the Concord Repatriation Hospital. The position is that some discussions have been held with those officers by departmental officers in Sydney with a view to considering some extension of their duties in regard to the mortuary, but not to the extent to which I think Senator Mulvihill perhaps believed they were to be extended and it was certainly not intended to extend them in the sense that he conveyed in his remarks earlier this evening to the Committee.

The position is that fire officers are employed at that hospital. I think there are 5 of them in all. A very important service is provided at the Concord Repatriation Hospital in Sydney and also in the Repatriation General Hospital at Heidelberg in Victoria. I understand that this service is not commonly provided even in major hospitals, and that it is rather a special service which is provided, because ordinarily local fire services provided by state fire brigades are available to perform these types of duties. However, as the Senate would know, as part of general government policy in relation to staff ceilings, we intended to nave a hard look at the utilisation of all public servants, wherever they may be employed. That, of course, includes people employed by those hospitals run by my Department. Therefore those areas in which some saving in staff could be effected were matters for consideration. It was simply that type of review which led the departmental officers in Sydney to have regard to the actual duties that were being performed by these fire officers at Concord. It was thought that some extension of their duties might well be possible, entirely consistent with the discharge of their major responsibility as fire officers.

The proposal put to them in the form of a request, I understand, was whether they would be prepared to open the mortuary and to record the names and details of the bodies being entered into the mortuary. No other duties were required to be performed by them. There was no suggestion that they would be required to take any further action in regard to bodies after they were entered. That was a matter for discussion. As I understand it, the discussions are still going on. I think the question that was raised was how far people employed as fire officers might be expected to perform duties of that kind. That is the long and the short of the matter.

If people on duty are not apparently fully engaged in the duties for which they are primarily employed and if they are prepared to do other work, of course, that could be and would be beneficial. However, that is as far as it has gone and the matter is still under consideration. I have no further information at this stage.

As to the matter of a concessionaire at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, in reply to a question from Senator Mulvihill yesterday I did give a good deal of general information about the Commonwealth arbitration inspectorate generally, the problems it faces and the methods it adopts in trying to cope with its very extensive responsibilities in policing the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In giving that general information I hope I did not convey to the Committee any cavalier attitude at all in respect of the specific matter at the Sydney airport. I am sure I said- and if I did not I certainly want to emphasise it now- that close investigations are being conducted in relation to alleged breaches at the airport. As I said yesterday, I am not in a position to identify anybody although it may be that certain people, as Senator Mulvihill says, are well known to him and to others but I do not wish to identify anybody publicly because the investigation has not been completed. The Committee would appreciate that quite a deal of information has to be obtained from various people, time sheets have to be checked and so on.

I was interested in Senator Mulvihill ‘s comment that an accountant who had been employed by a person who was under investigation had been to see him. I would suggest to the accountant and I would suggest also to Senator Mulvihill that the accountant should make such information available to the proper authority, namely the inspectors who are conducting the investigation. As far as I am concerned I have confidence in those investigations and I certainly would not expect the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) himself or his colleague, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) to start becoming involved in such investigations as Senator Mulvihill seemed to be suggesting. Certainly once those investigations are completed I will make the information available to the Senate but at this stage there is nothing further I can say in relation to the matter except that the inspectorate is specifically concerned with the problem and is endeavouring to complete its investigations as soon as possible.

Senator Bishop:

asked whether there has been a change in policy concerning the admission of psychiatric patients to the Repatriation General Hospital at Daw Park in South Australia. Apparently some complaints have been made to him by the wives of such patients who believe there may have been a change in policy. I am not aware of any change. Certainly none has been brought to my attention for my consideration. I have checked with one of my advisers who is present here this evening and whom I would have expected to be in a position to know if there had been a change in policy and he is not aware of any, but of course I shall have the matter fully investigated and hopefully be in a position to make a statement in a day or two.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have just a brief observation because I know my colleague Senator Button up at the other end wants to get a strike. I have 2 points. I want the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) to appreciate that. I do not want this question of the fire fighters to be dealt with in the dimensions of the Concord Repatriation Hospital. The Minister referred, too, to the hospital at Heidelberg. There is virtually no industry adjacent to that hospital. The big fear of the people at the Concord Repatriation Hospital is that a fire at the hospital could coincide with a fire at any of the S major industrial factories located within 2 miles of the hospital. I live in the area. It is the Yaralla subdivision of the Lowe electorate. The factories include Imperial Chemicals at Homebush Bay, a timber yard, Berger Paints, the gasworks, Gordon’s Cranes- a foundry. They are the fire dangers outside the hospital.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It would be a big blaze.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Yes. Apropos of the semi- Watergate exposure at the airport I remind the Minister that in a sort of James Bond role I got all these telephone calls here after I had left Sydney. The story was in the Daily Mirror on Monday afternoon when I was on my way to Canberra. So I have not seen my informants but I shall over the weekend. To give Senator Button a go I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document outlining the duties of the fire fighters.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Young:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

The document read as follows-

REPORT OF FIRE PROTECTION MEASURES AT RGH CONCORD AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SAME

On Wednesday the 3 November 1976 a meeting of Hospital Patrol Officers and Fire Officers was convened. The Hospital Management, at this meeting informed those present that it intended to integrate the Fire Control into the Patrol and Gatekeepers Section.

In our opinion this would be a retrograde step, as at the present the Fire Control is manned by S experienced men. These being 2 Senior Firemen, 1 Captain, 1 Second Class Fireman all of whom received their training with the N.S. W. Fire Brigade and 1 Naval Fireman who received training in the RAN. These men maintain over 600 portable extinguishers, 109 external hydrants, a fire tender and other equipment in first class order. They also continuously man the Fire Control Watchroom, where the Fire Alarm Console is situated, this console automatically contacts the state brigade as well as alerting the Hospital Fireman and indicating to him the position of any fire. Under the proposed new scheme the Watchroom would be unmanned from 0600 until 2030 hours daily. The (Fireman Patrolman) being on gate duty 120 metres away.

A real danger of loss of life by fire exists at this establishment due to the large number of patients and living in staff housed in weatherboard buildings. At the present time after the receipt of a call we are in attendance in a few minutes and although the N.S.W. Fire Brigade respond with all speed, the time lag through no fault of their own is too long. There are a number of factors to be considered, the local station may be elsewhere, they could be involved in an accident or have mechanical trouble etc.

If as proposed the two sections are amalgamated the Hospital Fire Officers would be expected to tram the Patrol Officers as Firemen, some of these men are over 60 years of age, others are approaching 60 while others do not have a drivers licence. Yet they at times would be in charge of fire fighting operations. Since the 1 January 1976 the Fire Control has attended 97 calls, 14 of which directly involved fire. The remainder were a combination of false alarms, or investigations of smoke, smells of burning, etc. All fires in this hospital have been extinguished by the hospital fireman before the arrival of outside assistance, a number of these most certainly would have taken hold only for the alarm system alerting the fireman on duty and his immediate response.

Under the new system a fully trained man may not be on duty at all. The hospital has the largest fire alarm system in the Southern Hemisphere, incorporated in this is a Reichel Thermal Detection System with approximately 9000 Detectors, Smoke detectors a Minerva CO2 system and a Sprinkler System.

We would like to point out that with the exception of the Sprinkler and CO2 System that the main system in this establishment only give a warning of fire. Without a continuous vigil in the Watchroom this is nullified.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the basis that I have been misrepresented by my colleague, Senator Mulvihill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Mulvihill incorrectly misinterpreted some noises that I may have been making as being indicative of my desire, as he put it, to make a strike. I was in fact discussing a matter of aesthetics with Senator Wriedt. In the course of that discussion I made some noises appreciative of someone in the gallery. It had nothing to do with what Senator Mulvihill was saying and it had nothing to do with my desire to make a strike in this chamber. I accordingly make that explanation in the hope that my colleague will not make further references of that kind.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Postponed clauses 1 to 9- by leave- taken together and passed.

Postponed First Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without requests but with a resolution expressing certain opinions; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1831

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1976-77

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 October, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

page 1831

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 November, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition opposes this Bill with more enthusiasm than I would have thought the Senate could have mustered tonight. It is a most complex piece of legislation involving amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act dealing with rules relating to elections in trade unions. The Bill has been introduced both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, accompanied by a great deal of noisy rhetoric about the desirability of having democracy in trade unions. That has become like motherhood- a cliche in all industrial debates in this Parliament. It has been used with great abundance by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) in his second reading speech.

The amendments which the Bill basically proposes deal with the question of elections of officers of trade unions and employer organisations. They make changes to the definition of the term ‘office’ as it appears in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The essential feature of the legislation is to introduce a system of collegiate voting as an alternative to the present direct system of voting for union officials who are appointed on a full time basis. There are a number of quite peculiar features of the details of this legislation to which I shall refer in the course of my remarks.

The whole exercise in terms of an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act displays yet another example of the Government’s shooting from the hip in its industrial relations policy. Its accompaniment of pious statements of intent with sloppy legislation I believe does not even achieve the result which the Government sets out to achieve. In this case, quite clearly the Government has bowed to minority pressure groups in the trade union movement- minority pressure groups which the Government correctly believes would be supporters of the Government in any political situation and would only criticise the Government for its shortcomings of conservatism. In addition, the legislation displays a confused and weak policy. It ignores the real issues of industrial relations which, for example, were raised very directly by the Premier of New South Wales yesterday as reported in today’s newspapers. The real issues of industrial relations in Australia are not necessarily the methods of election of union officials or catering for the wishes of minority interests in trade unions. They are the issues of a unified system of industrial relations, the Commonwealth industrial relations power and union amalgamation. These are more important questions than the questions the Government has attempted to grapple with in this much heralded legislation. Since this Government came to office, we have seen a number of attempts to exorcise what the Government believes to be the devils of the industrial relations system, namely, militant trade union officials. We had the secret ballot legislation earlier this year the effectiveness of which, in our view, will be very doubtful. It was legislation which really just attacked false objectives in order to give some impression of activity in the area of the conciliation and arbitration system.

With regard to the question of union elections, the present system of voting for office holders is by direct vote of members of the union in respect of the election of full time officials. I think that is a simple and correct statement of the effects of the existing legislation introduced in 1973 by the Labor Government. That system has never been tested in any real sense because the unions which were required to alter their rules to introduce a system of direct voting for their officials had until the end of November this year to carry out the necessary alterations to their rules. A lot of them had done so with very little complaint and a lot of them had done so with some degree of complaint. I agree completely with the Minister when he says in his second reading speech that of course there are differences of opinion in our community. There are differences of opinion within the trade union movement and within employer organisations operating in the industrial field as to the desirability of alternative systems of voting for the election of officials. It is interesting to note that in 1973 when the Labor Government introduced the legislation providing for direct election of officials, it was not voted against or opposed by the then Opposition which now finds it a subject of condemnation and necessarily requiring change in the year 1976. In the 1973 debate in the House of Representatives, Mr Fraser, the present Prime Minister, said, referring to Mr Clyde Cameron, the then Minister for Labor:

The Minister is going to a very considerable length to see that union officials are properly elected- democratically elected- by their unions.

That was the view of the present Prime Minister in 1973 of the existing legislation. All through the election campaigns which followed in 1974 and in 1975, references were made by people such as Mr Fraser and later by Mr Street to the desirability of membership control of trade unions. The secret ballot legislation which was introduced in June of this year, poorly drawn up as it was, was put forward as another example of the Government’s intention and concern to introduce a greater degree of democracy into the affairs of trade unions. Now we have a further attempt. As I said earlier, it is of course justified by a great deal of empty rhetoric. For example, the Minister, in his second reading speech, begins with these words:

All members of the Parliament are, I am sure, committed to democratic control of trade unions and employer organisations. The cornerstone of democratic control is membership participation. The essential question is how to provide for the fullest participation of membership in a manner which recognises the structural diversity of organisations.

Now it all sounds very fine, I must admit. All of us are in favour of all that and share that view, but when it is analysed, of course, it means nothing. When it is analysed in terms of the legislation now before the Senate, it means even less than nothing if that be possible. As I said earlier, we can all argue the merits and demerits of various systems. There has been lobbying, of course, on all sides for various systems to be introduced. It has been common knowledge in industrial relations circles in this country for a period of about 6 months that it was the Government’s intention to reintroduce as an alternative to direct election a system of collegiate elections. Union officials have told me that. Union officials have openly discussed that fact because some of them have been told by representatives of the Government that this would happen. Of course, it has happened at the death knock, in November 1976, right at the time when the 3-year period for alteration to rules expired.

I should like to give some attention to specific matters quite distinct from the statement of intent which the Minister makes in his second reading speech. It is our contention that not only is this legislation sloppy and ill conceived but also it will in fact achieve results which are directly contrary to that past statement of intent which I read from the Minister’s second reading speech. I should like to take up one point of clarity. It is not even clear from the legislation whether the provisions which the Government now seeks to introduce apply to the election of branch officials. It is not clear because in different parts of the legislation- I will refer to this at the Committee stage- the word ‘organisation’ is used and in other parts the word ‘ branch ‘ is used. It is not clear whether the principle which the Minister enunciates applies both to elections for organisations and for branches themselves. We can deal with that at the Committee stage.

The first fundamental criticism we make is that by denying or offering an alternative system to direct rank and file elections of full time officials, the Government is not only going back on its stated intentions but it is also catering to a rather 1 890-ish view of how trade unions operate because it is expressed by the Minister that the fear the Government has is that the majority of members of a union situated in one State might in fact control the committee of management of that union to the detriment of its members in a smaller State. I find that an extraordinarily interesting contention which is totally unsubstantiated by evidence. Nowhere in the course of debate in the House of Representatives, nowhere in remarks the Minister has made as yet and nowhere in my experience has there been a situation of a trade union in which the committee of management was controlled entirely by representatives of a State which had the largest membership to the exclusion of members of the committee of management from a smaller State. Nowhere have I struck an organisation in that situation and nowhere has one been referred to which can justify the contention which has been made.

We see the proposal as fundamentally undemocratic in terms of the sort of intentions which the Government itself has stated in the past. We were told only a few months ago how important it was to have a secret ballot for all members of trade unions. The important emphasis which was stressed by Government Ministers at that time was the involvement of the members of the union themselves in those elections. It seems to us strange that at this stage in a variety of ways the members of the unions will no longer be directly involved in the election of their officials. True, they will participate in the election of an electorate college in some circumstances and that itself is subject to qualification. The second point that I want to make in specific terms is the alteration to the definition of ‘office’ in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

The word ‘office’ has been the subject of much debate and interpretation in the Commonwealth Industrial Court and, indeed, in a different context in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The danger that we see in the alteration which is now made is that under the proposed alteration an appointed administrative officer of a union will be able to operate and, in fact, perform almost identical functions to the functions which are performed by an elected officer. It is one of the grave difficulties which an elected officer of a trade union faces and one of the grave responsiblities which he assumes that by virtue of his office and his election he is entitled to do certain things; indeed, he is bound to do certain things. But to arrive at a definition of the word office’ which in fact allows an appointed administrative officer to perform many of the functions which are now exclusively reserved for an elected officer in our view is fraught with dangers in terms of the much vaunted democratic principle which is enunciated in the second reading speech.

It is interesting to note, of course, that the second reading speech is very different from the one made in the House of Representatives. When this legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives the Government had not made up its mind about it or, rather, Mr Santamaria had not made up the Government’s mind about it. It was during the course of the debate in the House of Representatives that various additional amendments were moved at the instigation of certain sections of the trade union movement. Amendments were introduced in the House of Representatives halfway through the debate and it is to these in particular that I wish to refer. On page 3 of the Minister’s second reading speech reference is made to the constitution of the electoral college which will elect officers of an organisation. This provision which might be described is a self-perpetuating provision may have had great appeal to the Hapsburgs and may, indeed, have great appeal to the National Civic Council. But in terms of democratic elections and the dynamics of an industrial organisation, it is a most extraordinary provision. The reason given by the Government for abolishing multi-tier elections seems to us to be totally inconsistent with this provision which is now included and referred to in the Minister’s second reading speech. What is that provision? It is stated by the Minister in these terms: . . the Government’s policy is to ensure that management reflects rank and file views.

That is a good statement. It is unobjectionable. The Minister states further:

What the Government proposes, therefore, is that current office holders from time to time can be members of the college which elects persons to those offices for the following term, provided that those office bearers do not constitute more than 15 per cent of the members of the college. Those office bearers must have been elected originally to the college and by the college to those positions or, alternatively, to those positions by a direct voting system and must have held office continuously, though not necessarily the same office, since being first elected to office.

That provision is designed to protect current office holders in certain unions, such as the Federated Clerks Union. For example, if one looks at -

Senator Walters:

– Absolute rot.

Senator BUTTON:

– Well, senator, it is not absolute rot. It is absolute Jack Maynes. I will tell Senator Walters about him if she wants to say that he is rot. He has been on the federal council of the Federated Clerks Union for 22 years without having had to face an election. If you, Senator Walters, want to get up afterwards and tell us that it is rot or alternatively, that it is democratic or alternatively, that it is consistent with the Government’s pious statements of intention about democratising- if that is the correct word -industrial organisations, then I will be very glad to hear about it. But it is not rot. It is a fact and it may be, if we have to persist with the word used by Senator Walters, that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, or in the Federated Clerks Union, which this Government wants to protect. Senator Walters will be a party to that no doubt when she puts up her hand at the appropriate time. The point I am concerned to make, which has apparently stirred Senator Harradine to some extent, is that this provision gives 15 per cent of an electoral college to persons who fall within the Government’s stated description of being current office holders who reflect experience and so on. The Government has expressed its concern by introducing at a late stage this amendment in the House of Representatives.

The next point that should be made is that by the amendments to section 17 ID, to which the Minister refers, the Government has embarked on a restrictive course in relation to the powers of the Commonwealth Industrial Court following a reconstitution of what is described in the terms of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as an invalidly constituted organisation. The Senate may recall that following problems which developed in the case of Moore v. Doyle Mr Justice Sweeney was appointed as a committee of inquiry into industrial organisations. He made recommendations which led to section 17 Id being included in the legislation. The purpose of that was so that in determining a matter where an invalidity had arisen, the Industrial Court could make certain orders about the system of elections which unions should have. By this amendment- we will discuss it further in the Committee stages- the Court would be restricted in doing this. I should make the point in passing of course that the section to which I have referred recently survived a challenge in the High Court.

But more significantly the point about this amendment- it is a similar point to the one which Senator Walters, who has lost interest in this debate, described earlier on as rot- is that its effect has a direct bearing on a case currently being dealt with by the Commonwealth Industrial Court in which a Mr Egan features, I understand together with a Mr Harradine who now, wearing his second hat, appears in this chamber tonight. The effect of that amendment to section 17 Id is to have a decided influence on the possible outcome of the case before the Industrial Court. It is to our mind a matter of great regret that the Government has seen fit to yield to the pressures which have undoubtedly been put upon it in relation to that matter.

I reiterate our fundamental objections in these terms: The legislation seeks, in the terminology of the Minister, to introduce more democratic systems of elections into trade unions. The system which exists now has not been properly tried. The system which exists now was supported by this Government when it was in Opposition. The Government now seeks an alternative system as an alternative to direct elections and it seeks to make a number of changes which are not of universal significance to the trade union movement. They are not of universal application in the level of their significance but are clearly the results of advice being given to the Government from certain quarters and a failure to look at the whole question in an objective, across the board way.

It is quite glib for the Minister to say in his second reading speech that the peak councils of the trade union movement have also been informed of the Government ‘s proposals. I say it is glib because I know that they were informed; they were told what was going to happen. But they were not consulted in any sense about this matter. As an excuse for that, the Minister told us that when he discussed the question last May- if you please- with Mr Hawke, Mr Hawke pointed out that there was a division of opinion in the trade union movement on this issue and he could not put a monolithic trade union view. In the same paragraph the Minister said that the peak councils have been informed. Of course there are other peak councils beside the Australian Council of Trade Unions. There has been no proper consultation about the legislation except with a certain section of the trade union movement whose views are reflected in certain specific amendments which are made by this Bill.

I said earlier that the difficulty about this sort of piecemeal, ad hoc, exorcist legislation which the Government keeps introducing in relation to trade unions is that it really does not grapple with the basic issues. I share the Minister’s view about the desirability of the highest level of democracy in trade unions. However I do not share the sort of view which he put in the Senate a week or two ago in answer to a Dorothy Dix question about political strikes. The Government has made a little fuss about this question of political strikes but I am not prepared to accept the Government’s frame of reference on this question. I am not prepared to accept the premises from which it starts. I agree that there should be democracy in trade unions to the utmost possible degree. I believe that if trade unions are to engage in what are sometimes called political strikes the members of the trade unions concerned should be consulted as much as possible about those decisions. The Government says in this glib sort of 1930 vintage way that there is an area of things which trade unions are legitimately allowed to be concerned with; namely, wages and working conditions. Of course when they do strike about wages and working conditions the Government says that they should not do that. Then to say that there is another area, which we please to call political strikes, which involves things which trade unions should not be concerned about, is both superficial and glib.

Senator Walters:

– Do you believe in political strikes?

Senator BUTTON:

– If you possess your soul in patience I will tell you. The fact of the matter is that all sorts of bodies in our society make decisions which have political consequences. I live in the City of Melbourne and for years insurance companies have been making decisions which have destroyed my city. Collins Street, Melbourne, is no longer the place it used to be because decisions have been made in board rooms in New York, London, Melbourne and Sydney which have completely changed the environment of the city in which I live. Those decisions presumably were made by men in grey flannel suits who were responsible to nobody except their shareholders. However, when I go to the Sydney Opera House I like to look at the Moreton Bay fig trees outside the Sydney Opera House. They are a living tribute to political strikes. Those Moreton Bay fig trees would not be there today but for the activities of unionists like Jack Mundey. That is a fact. They are there as a result of a political strike which involved the exercise of power by a group in this community to achieve what it regarded as important social community results. In so doing that -

Senator Walters:

– They put themselves as experts.

Senator BUTTON:

– Just as the directors of insurance companies put themselves as experts. One could look at this issue in all sorts of areas. But surely in 1976 we must not think about this in an 1 876 frame of reference.

Senator Walters:

– No, the unions should run the country!

Senator BUTTON:

-You, as a Government supporter, soon will be faced with decisions about whether you want to live in a society which is dependent on nuclear power. It may be that many people in this community who expect to gain a lot in terms of money from nuclear power will support that proposition, but many people involved in trade unions will oppose that proposition because they do not see it being in the interests of their society, their children or the community in which they live.

When we talk about democracy in trade unions I think it is very important that we should try to put a little substance in to the rhetoric, a little flesh on the bones of the Minister’s second reading speech. It is for these reasons that we say the Bill is sloppy and inadequate and will not achieve the sorts of results which it is piously hoped it will achieve. It will not achieve those results because it just does not grapple with the real issues of industrial relations in the 1970s in a dynamic society, if we still continue to be a dynamic society- and of course there may be room for doubt about that. The Government’s policy in this area is in disrepute and we oppose the legislation.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. Although it is a matter of the greatest importance, I do not intend to take up very much of the

Senate ‘s time in dealing with it. I regard the matter as important because it reaches into the very heart of the affairs of every individual trade unionist. The basis of this Bill is the very question of the human rights of every unionist. Firstly, I should like to refer to one or two points made by Senator Button. He referred to collegiate voting as though it were some sort of a sinister scheme that apparently has been thrust on the unions without any concern. He said that there had been very little consultation on the matter, yet I clearly remember that in the Minister’s second reading speech on the secret ballots legislation which was introduced in May this year the Minister specifically referred to this matter. Indeed, there was a great deal of debate in this chamber on the very question. I see that Senator Button has left the chamber, but I hope that he reads some of the speeches that were made at that time and brings himself up to date on the matter.

The basis of this legislation hangs on 3 great principles. The first is the common objectives of the worker in achieving his individual welfare, and that, of course, is the fundamental thing that brought persons together in trade unions in the first place. That is an objective which we all on both sides of the chamber will strive to uphold. The second principle is related to that matter and describes the rights and powers of individual unions to pursue their own objectives in their own way; to ascribe their own rules and to pursue them that way. The third principle relates to the freedom of association of individual members of unions and the manner in which they express that freedom as members of unions. The restrictions that can be placed on them through arbitrary means, by the way in which the laws of unions, that is their rules, are interpreted and read at the highest councils in unions, have the greatest effect upon their ability to express themselves and to become objective citizens in a free society to which we as a nation that upholds this sort of a parliament aspire.

I believe that the rights of the individual worker are absolutely paramount. There are examples today throughout the community where this is not the case. It is a question of whether an individual should submit himself to the machine or describe himself and put forward his own views in the way that he sees best. It is interesting to note that in his speech Senator Button referred to Mr Wran’s comments today that the answer to trade union problems lies in unification and amalgamation. In other words, again the solution to all problems lies in centralisation.

Senator Harradine:

– That would do a lot for his oil strike, would it not?

Senator MESSNER:

-Indeed. The problem that we in this nation face is to ensure that the individual worker is given the opportunity to express himself.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He ought to attend his union meetings and not sit back.

Senator MESSNER:

– If the honourable senator looks at the rules of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union he will find that they hardly give the individual worker the opportunity to express himself. The approach which the Government has adopted in regard to this legislation is one of total flexibility. This is demonstrated by the Government’s approach to the legislation dealing with secret ballots which was introduced earlier this year. Certainly the issue of collegiate voting was raised at that time. In clause 13 (3) of that secret ballots legislation there was reference to the exemption of organisations in particular circumstances. That is a clear example of the approach which the Government adopts in regard to these matters and is at the core of giving rights to individual workers. In that legislation it was provided that individual unions could decide for themselves the system that they would select for the election of office bearers. That is at the core of providing rights for individual workers. It has been followed in this legislation by providing in 3 circumstances for the election of full-time office bearers, a system whereby a union can decide upon a direct vote, or through a one-tier collegiate voting system. An option exists. The Government is flexible in this matter. It has provided that unions should have the right to choose themselves which way they will act.

Part-time unionists are to be selected in another way at the option of the union, in addition to the 2 other methods. It is provided that there could be a multi-tier collegiate voting system in that circumstance. The final point which seems to me to be of great importance in this legislation, and which of course would lead to greater efficiency in trade union affairs, is that the definition of ‘office’ has been amended in order to provide for appointment rather than election. I have had a great deal of experience in various organisations where this provision has proved to be of great benefit. I think Senator Button made the point that because such an officer would not be submitting himself to election, in some way this would detract from the rights of individuals to get their views across to him. In fact, it is my experience in various organisations that the reverse position applies. An individual who is appointed in that way reacts better and more fluidly to the circumstances around him than do persons who are selected and kept in power by a clique.

The other point that has been raised concerns the provision that the college can comprise, to the extent of 15 per cent of the total college, persons who have been previously office bearers in the organisation. This I believe to be a very sound principle. I might mention for the benefit of honourable senators that the Liberal Party in South Australia adopted this principle some 3 years ago when amending its constitution, for the very purpose that we are providing it in this legislation today- to provide a more democratic means to let people get on with the job in their organisation without continually having to watch their backs. This is a principle which I believe is worthy of incorporation in this legislation.

Senator Mulvihill:

– A lifetime appointment.

Senator MESSNER:

– It is not by appointment, it is by election. These people gain their positions by election. In this circumstance they will come up for election at the proper time, and of course they can be removed from office. It is not by appointment at all. I believe that the figure of 15 per cent is quite reasonable and in proper relation to the size of the rest of the college. It is not as though that clique will be able to run the organisation from such a power base. I believe that that sort of consideration is of basic importance in protecting the rights of individual workers.

I have said as much as I want to say on this subject but I want to reiterate the importance of making sure that this legislation gains proper acceptance in the eyes of the community. I was somewhat distraught after the passing of the legislation which provided for secret ballots that a number of constituents were not aware that this important Bill had been passed. It has taken some three or four months, in South Australia at any rate, to bring that matter to the attention of individuals. I hope that this legislation will have wide promotion by the Government so that people can properly understand its background, what it is designed to do and, I am sure, what it will achieve. I support the Bill.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I am very pleased that tonight Senator Messner supports the principle of the trade union movement. He referred to what Neville Wran, the Premier of New South Wales, said today about the trade union movement and about strikes. Mr Wran said that there ought to be fewer unions with larger membership. Senator Messner said that this was centralisation. I think Senator Messner ought to look at the DGB which is the West German trade union movement. There are 16 unions in West Germany. Each of those unions has a huge membership. West Germany has the lowest rate of strikes of any country in western Europe. It certainly has a centralised union system. The system was set up after the occupation of West Germany by the Allied Forces. The British trade union movement was consulted at the time. It was asked to set up what it thought was a perfect system. Time has proved the British trade union movement right. There are only 16 unions for the whole of West Germany.

This legislation seeks to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in respect of the method of electing officers of registered organisations- both trade union and employer organisations. This Government proposes to reintroduce the collegiate system for the election of officers as an alternative to the direct vote of the total membership. We believe that this is a retrograde step. We in the Opposition oppose these amendments as they are at variance with our commitment to a proper democratic control of trade unions and all organisations, whether they be employer or employee organisations. We stand for the right of the rank and file trade unionists to elect their full time officials, because these full time officials represent the interests of the rank and file in the work place, in the arbitration courts or in their meetings with government. The full time officials are the administrators of the trade unions. Surely they should be the people responsible to their own rank and file, not people espousing what could be a minority view imposed on the rank and file by some form of collegiate voting.

The previous Labor Government’s commitment to democratic control of trade unions prompted the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1973 which have been referred to and which provided direct election of full time officials. It is interesting to note, as Senator Button brought out in his speech, that the then Opposition did not raise objections at the time. No criticism was made of the method of electing trade union officials then. The present Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) who was then the Liberal Party spokesman on industrial relations, acknowledged the commitment to industrial democracy which was in our 1973 legislation. In fact, the relevant clause of the 1 973 legislation which provided for the direct election of union officials was agreed to by the Opposition in the

Committee stage in both Houses- I stress thiswithout debate.

However, a lot has happened since 1973. Firstly, the present Government went on a union-bashing campaign during the last election campaign. It said that secret postal voting for trade union officials would destroy communist militants’ influence in the union movement. We remember the advertisements at the time. It was said that the careers of the Halfpennys and the Carmichaels would be finished. This was despite the fact that many unions in this country have had secret postal ballots for years and still elect persons who are, in the eyes of the present Government, left wing militant trade union officials. One should look at the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, for example, and at the percentage of members who vote in that union’s elections. It is very high indeed. The present Government did not realise that the people who were really opposed to secret postal ballots were people such as Mr Maynes and other National Civic Council trade union officials who were scared that they would lose their positions.

Senator Harradine:

– That is unfair. He was the first to moot it in 1949-the Chifley legislation.

Senator SIBRAA:

– I will give you his record in a minute. He was worried about losing his position if he had to face the rank and file.

Senator Harradine:

– He has faced it IS times.

Senator SIBRAA:

- Senator Harradine says that Mr Maynes faced it IS times. He has not been elected to the Federal Council of his union for 22 years. He has not had to face the rank and file in his present position since 19S4.

Senator Harradine:

– As State President of the union he has faced the rank and file.

Senator SIBRAA:

-Seeing that Senator Harradine is so worried about this man, I will read from an affidavit.

Senator Harradine:

– I am interested in the truth.

Senator SIBRAA:

– You will get the truth. This is an affidavit put before the Australian Industrial Court by Mr Raymond Clarke. He said:

The Federal President of the Organisation, John Peter Maynes, was elected to the Federal Council in approximately 1950 in an election by the Victorian Branch membership as a whole. Since 1954 Mr Maynes has continuously acted as Federal President of the Organisation, having been reelected to the said position in 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 by the members of Federal Council pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Rules of the Organisation. Although remaining at ali times qualified to nominate as a candidate for election to the position of Federal President pursuant to Rule 22 (2) (d) (ti) Mr Maynes has not been required by the existing Rules to re-submit himself as a candidate for election to the position of Federal Councillor at any time since he first assumed office as Federal President in 1954.

That is exactly what I said.

Senator Harradine:

– You said that he had not submitted himself to the rank and file. He has done it every 2 years in Victoria.

Senator SIBRAA:

-Seeing that Senator Harradine is so interested in Mr Maynes, I will now quote from the November issue of The Clerk, which is put out by the Central and Southern Queensland Branch of the Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia. The Branch Secretary, Mr Forrester, said:

If the above is not enough to demonstrate to members -

That is of his union- that the Federal Office of this Union is being run by an outside clique, the leader of whom has personally boasted to the writer that he is a millionaire, then let me state one further situation.

Earlier this year, John Grenville advised me that when he was elected he was not a member of the Clerics’ Union and was not eligible to run. The Victorian Branch records were falsified to secure his election. I have not made these allegations, nor has your Branch of the Union. They were made by a long term member of the National Civic Council. His allegations are important in that they run to the validity of decisions made by meetings in which he participated. Grenville went a step further and identified John Maynes, the Federal President of this Union, as being the person responsible for this falsification.

As your Branch Secretary, and as a member of the Federal Council and the Federal Executive of this Union, I have raised this matter on a number of occasions with Terry Sullivan who purports to be the Federal Secretary of the Union now. I have asked him to investigate the allegations. I have not prejudged them, but they clearly and obviously require investigation to determine their truth or otherwise. I have had no practical response from Mr Sullivan.

With the full support of your Branch Executive, I have referred these very serious allegations to the Commonwealth Attorney General, the Hon. R. J. Ellicott, Q.C. At the time of writing, I am waiting for a reply.

I think everybody, including Senator Harradine, would be interested to hear the reply to that.

Senator Harradine:

– We will get to the reply tomorrow.

Senator SIBRAA:

– You will have your opportunity tomorrow. The NCC has lobbied the Federal Government intensively this year to retain the collegiate system of voting. We saw all sorts of vested interests also in employer organisations because they wanted a collegiate system of electing officials. Together these powerful forces obliged this Government to change tack and to reintroduce collegiate voting for industrial organisations. If this legislation achieves this, it will mean that minority groups, often of extremist leanings either to the Left or to the Right, will be able to exercise control over important industrial organisations without ever being subject to the democratic pressure of rank and file elections.

This is where we come to the joke of the whole situation, because the collegiate system of voting serves also to entrench communist militants such as Mr Carmichael, who on 5 May this year in the communist newspaper Tribune drew attention to the fact that the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union might opt for the collegiate system. He said that if the union did this the national president could be elected by 0.02 per cent of the membership. So much for union democracy. In fact, as Senator Button said earlier, with the 1 5 per cent proviso now Mr Carmichael will probably never have to face election again from the rank and file.

Senator Harradine:

– He was not elected under a collegiate system.

Senator SIBRAA:

– Is Senator Harradine disputing the fact that 0.02 per cent could elect Mr Carmichael?

Senator Harradine:

– Yes. I am disputing your premise that he was elected on a collegiate system. He was not. He was elected on a direct system of voting by 1 . 8 per cent of his membership.

Senator SIBRAA:

-I did not say that Mr Carmichael was elected by a collegiate system. I said that Mr Carmichael said in the Tribune that his union might opt for the collegiate system.

Senator Harradine:

– I will read in Hansard tomorrow what was said.

Senator SIBRAA:

– You read it in Hansard tomorrow. It will say: ‘Might opt for the collegiate system’.

Senator Harradine:

– You said that later, but not in the first place.

Senator SIBRAA:

-I do not intend -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)-Order! I like to allow a bit of free discussion, but I think my tolerance has been abused. Senator Sibraa will continue.

Senator SIBRAA:

– I now turn to another union and a reverse situation. I think even Senator Harradine would say that the New South Wales branch of the liquor trades union would be described as a moderate trade union. In 1970 the New South Wales State executive of that union was controlled by Communist Party members and their supporters. This situation was changed by a court-controlled ballot after a 31 -day court case established that falsified ballot-papers were used in a previous election. In fact, the present Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, and my parliamentary colleague Senator James McClelland, acted and appeared for the Australian Labor Party members led by Mr John Morris in that court case. Those people subsequently took control of the union. Previously a union member who wanted a vote had to apply for a ballot-paper and prove that he could not attend the meeting where the voting was to take place, with the result that some elections for the New South Wales branch were held and decided by under 200 members, not under Electoral Office control. After the John Morris team took over that union the rules were changed. Every member received a ballot-paper and the Commonwealth Electoral Office controlled the ballot. Union membership in New South Wales grew from 24 000 then to approximately 60 000 this year. In 1973 the union changed its rules at a federal level under the legislation that was brought in by the Labor Government, and now all paid federal officials are voted for in a rank and file Australia-wide ballot. There are approximately 80 000 members of that union who now get a ballot-paper. What could have happened if the union had not changed its rules? A collegiate body of 20 could have elected the officials. If a collegiate system of 20 existed over 50 per cent of the membership could have been given no say at a federal level. This might not have happened, but it could have happened. I wonder who among honourable senators opposite would have wanted a situation in which the 60 000 members in New South Wales did not get a say because of a collegiate system.

It is quite obvious from what has been said in other places that this Government went to great lengths to protect the NCC in the trade union movements. It knew that the NCC influence in the trade union movement could be destroyed if its candidates were forced to face a direct voting system. It would also appear, as Senator Button said, that Mr Maynes knew well in advance of the introduction of these amendments that his position would be protected by collegiate voting. He said as much to the Industrial Registrar in the middle of this year. Of course, Mr Maynes has a great deal at stake in ensuring the continuance of collegiate voting. The Government is protecting his privileged position, but at the same time it is entrenching the very militants whom it was attacking in its election campaign.

Senator Button also made the point that this legislation permits appointments of officers without recourse to rank and file ballots. I submit that this serves to further entrench controlling factions, whether they be to the Left or to the Right. Therefore it preserves the position of those union officials about whom this Government is always complaining. One only has to look, for example, to somebody who wins a minor position in a union, say an assistant secretary’s job, who does not like the general secretary so he gets the numbers and appoints somebody as an administrative officer, a clerical assistant or whatever and takes over the union because of this loophole that has been left. The legislation does not provide for rank and file choice of the system of voting which is to be used in electing its officials. This decision is made only by the leadership of the unions. Again, so much for democratic control. Therefore this legislation runs counter to our commitment to full rank and file participation in the affairs of the trade union movement. The rank and file should decide the system of electing its officials. After all, the unions are their own organisations.

The introduction of this legislation makes a mockery of the Government’s commitment to consultations with trade unions when industrial legislation is mooted, because the unions were not given prior warning of the introduction of this legislation, nor were they given time to consider its ramifications. The unions were merely informed that the legislation was going through. Three days later the Government brought the Bill into the Parliament. There was no consultation.

Senator Harradine:

– We were not consulted in 1 973 when the legislation was changed.

Senator SIBRAA:

– In fact, the Government had no reason to want to consult with trade unions on this legislation as it knew of the widespread opposition to it. People had visited Canberra and talked to the Government’s own committee about this.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is in our Party’s policy.

Senator SIBRAA:

-That is right. The Government wishes only to consult with extreme right wing officials of the NCC, an organisation which aims to destroy the trade union movement. Senator Harradine talked about people who came to Canberra and gave evidence and about whether the trade unions were consulted, What about the evidence’ that was given to this Government’s own industrial committee by people such as Charlie Oliver, Barry Egan and John Forrester?

Senator Walters:

– You cannot have it both ways. You said we did not consult.

Senator SIBRAA:

- Senator Walters can hardly accuse them of being extreme left wing militants. They came here and left thinking that they had received a fair hearing at the time and thinking that they would be consulted if there were to be major changes. In fact, they were given 3 days’ notice before the major changes came along. That is the point I am making.

The Opposition rejects this legislation for a number of definite reasons. Firstly, the Opposition considers the collegiate system which the legislation allows has the effect of depriving trade union members of electing their union officials by direct voting. Secondly, the collegiate system is open to abuse and manipulation by minority extremist groups in unions to entrench themselves and therefore remain permanently in control of those organisations. Thirdly, the Government’s action in ensuring that such a system is retained reveals the emptiness of its commitment to internal trade union democracy. Fourthly, the Government’s real concerns, as evidenced by this legislation are two-fold. Firstly, it is concerned to shore up the position of ultra right wing cliques in important unions such as the NCC and to place a buffer zone between them and rank and file ballots. Secondly and more importantly, it is concerned to preserve the position of those left wing union officials whom this Government likes to kick. This Government needs them so it can kick the whole of the trade union movement and bring it into disrepute. The Government’s commitment to industrial democracy as shown by this legislation is nothing more than a sham. Like so many of its promises in the industrial relations field they are designed only for short term electoral support and not for the benefit of the workers of this country and the members of the trade union movement.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise briefly to support the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. 1 intend to stick to a general consideration of the matters involved in this most important legislation. I do not intend to involve myself in a discussion of personalities. But I find it necessary to refer to one or two things that Senator Button said in his opening remarks which I found a little disappointing. He referred as being empty rhetoric references to democracy, to the minority interests, to the involvement of the mass of the people in the establishment of those who represent them, whether it be in a union, some other organisation or association or in the Parliament itself. I do not believe that on reflection Senator Button would think that that sort of matter was merely empty rhetoric. Perhaps he had forgotten involvement that he has expressed from time to time with the principles of democracy.

I recall that he referred to conversations with Mr Hawke some months ago in which Mr Hawke, talking about the establishment of a trade union conciliation and arbitration amendment Bill, said- I cite Senator Button’s words referable to Mr Hawke- that there was no monolithic trade union view. If that is so, I assume that the legislation which the Government promotes is extremely reasonable and responsible legislation. If there is no monolithic trade union view, how sensible and reasonable it seems that in producing legislation in this area we should look to cover the widest possible range of involvement and the widest possible range of problems that occur within the trade union movement, as indeed they occur within any movement or association in our community. I feel that I should reiterate that the Government does not actually condemn the direct method of election. It is not a question of condemning that sort of election of a trade union representative or of any other representative. All we seek to do is to suggest that there may be circumstances in which methods other than the direct method fit the circumstances better. Therefore our legislation basically seeks to give to the trade union movement as a whole a real measure of choice, a real measure of adopting that particular view or that particular method that seems best to fit the circumstances as the membership should see them.

Senator Button suggested later when he approved of democracy and the methods and philosophy of democracy that management should reflect the rank and file views. I hope that he meant that it should reflect as near as possible 100 per cent of the rank and file view. If he did mean that, I wonder how he views a circumstance in which I understand that in one union, which is perhaps the biggest trade union in Australia, less than 2 per cent of the membership elected its leaders. I do not quite understand how that fits the circumstances as promoted by Senator Button that it would be ideal that the leadership should represent the views of the rank and file of a union movement or, as I have said before, of any other association or organisation. It seems to me that the membership participation, that the involvement of the great majority of the people in a trade union or in any other organisation, should most certainly be those people who elect or produce those who are to lead them, who are to negotiate on their behalf on all the hundreds of important issues that come before those organisations. That is the very essence of democracy. It is not empty rhetoric. It is a circumstance that can be applied only in the sort of community, in the sort of society, in the sort of political orientation, in the sort of parliamentary control in which we in Australia find ourselves.

The difficult proposition is to answer that question, to find the best method by which a measure of real democracy can be called upon to result in the election of those people whom the great mass of the unionists require to lead them. That leads me to wonder how sincere is the resolution of the antagonists of this legislation, how sincere is their involvement and their concern for what is truly a democratic circumstance. I wonder whether they are more concerned with the political philosophy which they promote from time to time in most places, which sees the state as the master of the people, the controller and the owner, and not merely as an entity whose chief performance of duty is to prevent exploitation, whether it be of resources, material or mankind itself.

I seem to think, as I look at this legislation and as I listen to the opposition to it from the Australian Labor Party in the chamber tonight, that it highlights a problem which I believe is basic to the problems which confront Australians and certainly to the problems that confront parliamentary democracy in this country. It seems to me that there is a tendency to want to establish a circumstance in which the left wing or the radical element of the political entity in this country becomes totally associated with the promotion of the union official, the promotion of leadership within the union itself. The tragedy of this is that if we allow that sort of thing to continue we are going to develop an immense gap between the basic political philosophies, between the major entities in the Australian parliamentary scene. My concern is that if we allow this sort of gap to widen we are laying the foundations for the destruction of the parliamentary system, because that sort of gap if allowed to grow to virtually unmanageable proportions will ultimately lead us to some son of dictatorship of the Left or the Right. I suggest that if we are led through this son of circumstance to a dictatorship of the Left or the Right- whether it be the Left or the Right is purely a matter of academic interest- it is a dictatorship and it must above all things be avoided in the circumstances of the Australian community. I make those comments quite sincerely because I think that it is a great shame that the opposition to these particular conciliation and arbitration amendments is an opposition which relates itself to support by the radical left wing trade union element supported by the radical left wing political element in the Australian context.

Consequently, the promotion of the amendments that are in this Bill become of even more significance than one may have imagined. I am convinced- as a prelude to this particular legislation there has been considerable discussion and months of investigation- that the only way in which we can survive as a total economic and social community is by a proper measure of recognition of the inter-relation between all the spheres of operation in this country- between trade unionists, between management, between governments. If we are able to establish that circumstancewe believe that these amendments go some way towards establishing that circumstancethen we have achieved the necessary foundation for the continuation and development of a democratic circumstance in Australia. We have to recognise that only by discussion, only by recognition of the problems across the board, only by recognition of the interdependence that exists between every section of the community are we to establish a measure of real permanence in the solutions which we seek. I might say in reference to those thoughts that probably the American circumstance fills considerable numbers of Australians with a measure of envy, for it does appear that there is not the sort of vast ideological gap between the major political entities in that democracy.

Debate interrupted.

page 1842

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SENA TE PRA CTICE

Statement by the President

The PRESIDENT:

– I seek the indulgence of Senator Scott to allow me to make a statement which I wish to put before the Senate at this stage. I shall call on Senator Scott to continue his remarks later. Honourable senators, earlier in the sitting I was asked questions by Senators Cavanagh and Bishop relating to the publication of the fifth edition of Australian Senate Practice. I said that I would investigate the matter. I now read to the Senate a statement by the Clerk of the Senate:

Senator Cavanagh:

asked whether the printed copy of Australian Senate Practice- 5th Edition- is the original document tabled and ordered to be printed, or whether substantial alterations have been made. He further asked whether substantial alteration would be contrary to the order of the Senate, and also requested a copy of the document which was tabled.

Yesterday, 9 November, Senator Cavanagh asked me for the tabled copy, which was immediately supplied to him. He returned the document to my office during the course of today’s question time. I assure you, Mr President, that the copy given to Senator Cavanagh was the tabled manuscript, which was sent unaltered to the Government Printer.

I acknowledge- and the published work itself indicatesthat I have followed the practice I have adopted in the preparation of all five editions of Australian Senate Practice, that of correcting and revising the text during the printing stage. While proof-reading, 1 have always kept the work up-to-date with new matter, precedents and practices, and I have also changed the language and made additions if I thought I could better express a meaning. I emphasise, however, that the revisions made have in no way changed the essence of the book.

In the case of the fifth edition the substance is expressed in the preface, which it will be recalled was made public on the day of tabling.

That concludes the Clerk’s statement.

Before replying to Senator Bishop, may I explain a comment I made earlier in the day in reference to the Westminster system. What I had in my memory was that, in the House of Commons, in certain circumstances papers may be presented in dummy form. The reference is Erskine May 19th edition, page 257.

Senator Bishop:

asked if I would provide the Senate with details of any revisions made by the Clerk. I point out that the tabled copy is available to all honourable senators for comparison with the published work. I therefore do not think it necessary for me to supply details of all revisions to the document tabled in the Senate.

The second part of Senator Bishop’s question relates to whether, if major revision has been made, it should be for the Senate again to give assent to the printing. It has been the practice for the Clerk, as he acknowledges in his statement, to up-date and revise each edition after the Senate has ordered its printing, and no subsequent order for printing has been made.

I repeat what I said earlier in the day, that I have the greatest respect for the integrity of the Clerk. His integrity and dedication to the Senate are beyond question. He has, at all times, been a strong and sincere defender of the powers of the Senate.

I sought the indulgence of Senator Scott to make that statement to the Senate. I said that I would call on him to resume his speech when I had finished my statement. I propose to adhere to that procedure.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- Mr President, in view of the time factor, and assuming that we do not proceed with this matter after 1 1 p.m., if it is not your wish that this matter be discussed now I suggest that we could perhaps have the matter discussed tomorrow.

The PRESIDENT:

– Let me interrupt you, Senator Wriedt, to explain the position. I desired to have the statement made before 1 1 p.m., for which reason I sought the indulgence of the Senate so to do.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I appreciate that, but I think it is obvious that the matter that has been raised should be the subject of some discussion in the Senate. Whether this is an appropriate time to discuss it is, of course, the question. I assume that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) would be prepared to have your statement discussed tomorrow, Mr President. Therefore I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Wright:

– No.

Senator Bonner:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) put:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Cavanagh speaking on the statement made by the President.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 34

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1843

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Senate Practice- Question Time

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

- Mr President, I have a right to speak on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate and I am exercising that right. As to the subject on which one is permitted to speak I seek your guidance. I uphold your rulings and I would not like to be out of step with your ruling. I noted it has been decided that debate on the statement you put down be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. That matter is not yet on the notice paper and therefore it is not a matter which I am debarred from debating. I sought leave to make a statement. The generosity and the kindness -

Senator Withers:

– I take a point of order. The first thing that ought to be clarified is the point raised by Senator Cavanagh. His point is that, although the Senate has resolved that this matter be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, it is not on a notice paper because a notice paper has not yet been printed and therefore he is entitled to speak tonight on that matter. This is a very narrow point and I think it ought to be resolved before we go much further. I would have thought that the carrying of that motion makes it an order of the day for the next day of sitting, not the publication of that decision in a notice paper bearing tomorrow’s date. I am not trying to be difficult.

Opposition senators- Ha, ha!

Senator Withers:

– No. We want to be quite careful about this matter. I am speaking to a point of order. Senator Cavanagh has raised a matter which really goes to the heart of the Standing Orders and the practice of the Senate.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee.

Senator Withers:

– I am just trying to be helpful.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Refer it to the Standing Orders Committee and we will all go home.

Senator Withers:

– Good. Is the honourable senator moving the gag?

Senator McAuliffe:

– Will you second it?

Senator Withers:

– Yes, I will. In fairness to Senator Cavanagh and so that no further points of order will be raised about whether he is in order in speaking, and in view of the fact that by inference he raised a point of order and claimed to be in order, I would ask for your ruling, Mr President, on whether it is necessary for a decision of the Senate to be printed and published before it becomes an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

The PRESIDENT:

– The fact is that the Senate has resolved that this matter be made an order of the day for tomorrow. Whether that resolution is

E tinted is immaterial. The fact is that the Senate as resolved that this debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. I see no point in raising it now.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Mr President, I stated when I started to speak that I did not know my position under the Standing Orders and that I would desist if I heard any words from you indicating that I was outside the Standing Orders. I maintain that attitude now. Your ruling is that it is not in order for me to discuss your paper tonight as it will be discussed tomorrow, I hope. It would be out of order to discuss it tonight and therefore I do not want to do so. I want to discuss something that happened at question time today which has caused me much concern. I was toying with the idea at that time of seeking to make a personal explanation but it seems that requests I make for leave to make personal explanations are not considered favourably and possibly I would have been refused leave to do so. Nevertheless I was concerned about your answer to Senator Bishop. You seemed to speak in angry or emotional tones and you were very much concerned about questions this day which seemed to cast some doubts about the integrity of the Clerk of the Senate. The only other question which might be considered in any way to relate to the Clerk of the Senate was the one that I asked. I could gather from your reply only that you had the impression that I was trying to cast some reflection on the integrity of the Clerk of the Senate. That was never my intention. There were certain things that I wanted to find out but could not find out through normal processes. So I was seeking from you, Mr President, some answers to questions.

If, when a question is answered, it is taken as a reflection on someone I think it is a very sorry day. It is unfortunate that a statement has now been made which I think must cast a reflection on someone. I do not say it casts a reflection on the Senate. However, the position is worse than it was previously. I hope I can get the indulgence of the Senate tomorrow for the purpose of contributing to the debate on this question because the statement shows many vital areas that should be cleared up by the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.11 p.m.

page 1845

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Question No. 800)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the turnover of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission in the last financial year and what was the monetary cost of its advertising expenditure.
  2. On a cost benefit basis what increase in usage of the Commission’s services can in any way be attributed to such advertising expenses.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The turnover (i.e. gross revenue from overseas telecommunications services) of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for 1975-76 was $73,688,000. Advertising expenditure totalled $60 1 ,000.
  2. Exceptionally high rates of growth have occurred in those areas of the Commission’s business where advertising has been concentrated in recent years. These included telephone traffic to countries with large ethnic populations in Australia and the business use of telex. The additional business attracted to the telephone and telex services by advertising is carried at low incremental cost and therefore contributes significantly to overall profitability.

Fairbridge Scheme (Question No. 888)

Senator Mcintosh:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What, over the past two years, was the (a) number of family groups and (b) number of one parent family groups, which arrived in Australia under the Fairbridge Scheme and, in each case, what was the average number of children per family.
  2. Why are these people travelling under the Fairbridge Scheme.
  3. Why are these people not able to be accommodated in hostels.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) (a) and (b) The Fairbridge Society sponsors ‘two parent’ and ‘one parent’ families with children for admission to their institutions in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. Arrivals in the last two financial years were: 1974- 75-Two parent scheme, 10 families with 46 children; One parent scheme, 32 families with 98 children. 1975- 76- Two parent scheme, 9 families with 37 children; One parent scheme, 53 families with 1 14 children.

The average number of children in each group over the last two years was approximately 4 under the two parent scheme and 2 under the one parent scheme.

  1. To give children and their parents who are living in underprivileged circumstances an opportunity for a better life in Australia. The children are cared for and educated while in Fairbridge homes until the parent or parents can provide an alternative home for them. The Fairbridge Society also assists parents to find initial employment and accommodation.
  2. For the one parent family the Fairbridge scheme provides that children are taken into one of the Fairbridge Centres and that the mother or father is found accommodation in the same State.

In the case of large two-parent family groups, some children reside in the Fairbridge Centres and others reside with the parents in private accommodation or Commonwealth Hostels.

Australian National Line (Question No. 970)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government considering terminating the Australian National Line’s coastal shipping service. If so, should the service to the northern ports, including Darwin, be discontinued, what other service would be available to supply northern Australia with goods, and materials, including heavy equipment, building supplies, etc. from southern ports.
  2. Will the Government give the same consideration to the freight cost problems of the north, as has been given to Tasmania.
  3. In the event of the services being curtailed, will the Government give serious consideration to making Darwin a free port so as to encourage overseas shipping to supply Darwin.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The Government is not considering terminating the Australian National Line’s coastal shipping services. In view of heavy losses in the Darwin trade the Australian Shipping Commission is assessing the viability of the operations of the Darwin Trader. The Commission will inform me of its assessment in due course.

Separately, I have instructed the Bureau of Transport Economics to assess the transport needs and services for the Northern Territory, and I anticipate receiving its report by the end of the year.

  1. The Government gave special consideration to the freight cost problems of Tasmania because of the unique disadvantage it suffers by reason of its total reliance on sea transport and lack of alternate land transport modes.
  2. Should coastal shipping services to Darwin be curtailed the question of making Darwin a free port would be a matter for consideration by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

Western Australia: Extradition Proceedings (Question No. 1143)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Has the Minister or any of his officers had any contact with the Western Australian Government concerning extradition proceedings against Robert Clive Elliott and Kerry Jay Elliott from Cairns, Queensland, to Western Australia relating to warrants issued against R. C. Elliott and K. J. Elliott in Western Australia in 1971.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

page 1846

No

Bicentennial Radio Weekend (Question No. 1204)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Minister’s replies to Senate questions Nos 747 and 927, have final costs for the landline and satellite link rentals for the Bicentennial Radio Weekend now been determined: if so, what are the costs involved.
  2. 2 ) If the final costs have not yet been determined, when is it expected that they will be determined, what are the circumstances which have prevented them from being determined and will the Minister announce the costs as soon as they become available.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. However, details of costs have been received for the overseas satellite links and local landline which amount to $24,623.40.
  2. Information has not yet been provided by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company as to the cost of landline links in the United States of America but this has been estimated to be $5,000. Accordingly, the overall cost of rentals for the Bicentennial Radio Weekend will be approximately $30,000.

MacRobertson Miller Airlines: Charter Flights (Question No. 1212)

Senator Sim:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did the Government reject the application by MacRobertson Miller Airlines to operate charter flights between Port Hedland and Bali on the grounds that the Government believed that there would be a call for reciprocal rights to be granted to Indonesia and that a new Qantas Airways Limited service between Perth and Bali would satisfy the demand.
  2. Did the Indonesian Government request reciprocal rights if the application for charter flights between Port Hedland and Bali was granted.
  3. Has the Government reason to believe that Indonesia will not seek reciprocal rights because of the new Qantas service between Perth and Bali.
  4. Does the Government believe that the Perth-Bali service will appeal to the isolated areas of the Pilbara when the Port Hedland-Perth flight time- is the same as that for the proposed Port Hedland-Bali service.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Government has decided not to proceed at least at present with the consideration of an application by MacRobertson Miller Airlines to operate charter flights between Port Hedland and Bali following advice that the Indonesian authorities would request reciprocal concessions, which in our judgment would not provide a basis for a suitable arrangement in connection with the operation of such flights.
  2. Qantas is entitled as the Australian designated airline under the Australia-Indonesia Air Services Agreement to operate regular services between any point in Australia and Bali (and Djakarta) and to certain points beyond Indonesia. On the other hand the Indonesian designated airline Garuda is entitled to operate between any point in Indonesia and Darwin, Sydney and Melbourne.
  3. In the absence of the ability to have flights between Port Hedland and Bali operated direct, the Government hopes that the Perth-Bali Qantas flights will provide better conditions than exist at present for residents of the Pilbara area to travel to Indonesia. The Government believes that within the limits imposed by the situation Qantas will make the Perth-Bali service as attractive as it can do commercially for the residents of the Pilbara knowing of the Government s concern that everything reasonably possible should be done to meet that objective.

Proposed Omega Station

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 5 October Senator Rae asked certain questions without notice about the siting of the proposed Omega station. He asked whether Macquarie Island had been considered as a site but had been rejected because the State Labor Government was opposed to the siting of an Omega station within Tasmania. In my reply I indicated that the station should be sited in the south and the south-east area of the Australian continent and that Macquarie Island had been considered. I undertook to seek clarification on whether the Tasmanian Government had responded in the negative to the prospect of the Omega station being sited on the island.

I have now been advised by my colleague, the Minister for Transport, that in discussions held early this year the Premier of Tasmania indicated to him that the State Government was opposed to the installation of an Omega station in the State of Tasmania.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 November 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761110_senate_30_s70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant