Senate
8 December 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2773

PETITIONS

Australian Capital Territory Bushland Areas

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 3244 citizens of the Australian Capital Territory:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Canberra and electors in the Divisions of Fraser and Canberra respectfully showeth:

That in response to the National Capital Development Commission proposals for urban development of the foothills of Mount Ainslie and Mount Majura we wish to make it known that we are opposed to any urban development of these foothills beyond that which already exists, for the following reasons.

The foothills are important to Canberra as a city with an outstanding international reputation for promoting balance between urban development and the preservation of environments which complement that development, a balance which would be lost if urban development is permitted to extend any higher on the foothills.

The area is of significant scenic value as an integral part of the Walter Burley Griffin Canberra plan, a plan which has been adopted by Canberra’s citizens and which embodies the concept of a garden city; the natural bushland of the foothills being a vital element of that concept.

Having this unique woodland area in the centre of the National Capital provides a readily accessible facility which enables people to identify with what remains of their bushland heritage.

The foothill woodlands have considerable educational value in their flora, fauna, geology and geography in close proximity to students of diverse age in the formal and informal education process. This value will increase as Canberra’s population increases.

The foothills have recreational value to a wide range of people for trail walks, school outings, children’s recreation and development, leisurely walks for more elderly residents, for fitness and training exercises, for orienteering and for relaxation and retreat from the pressures of urban life. This recreational value will increase particularly if areas in old Canberra as it now exists are developed to house a larger population.

The foothills remain one of the best surviving examples of Eucalyptus melliodora and Eucalyptus blakely: woodland.

The foothills and the mountain together form an environment which sustains special members of Australia’s fauna, the grey kangaroo and swamp wallaby, which can be frequently observed grazing on the foothills. The area is in practice an open fauna reserve in the heart of the National Capital.

Canberra residents and local residents in particular have come to appreciate the foothills as a permanent element in the landscape of their city. Local residents in particular have made investments and lifelong decisions on the basis of the performance of the bushland which exists at this time on the foothills.

The foothills are a unique and irreplaceable property asset to the community as a whole, an asset which should not be transferred to a very small minority as would occur if urban development is permitted.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government recognises the recreational, educational and environmental value to the Canberra community and to the National Capital of the bushland of the Mount Ainslie, Mount Majura area of which the foothills form a vital and integral part and that the Government takes measures to ensure that there is no residential, commercial, roadway or other urban infrastructural development beyond that which already exists on these foothills and that the Government takes measures to ensure the preservation of this area as a nature reserve for the benefit of the present and future generations.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 49 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 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.

d ) The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1973 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. (0 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.

Ethnic Broadcasters

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 2 12 citizens of Australia:

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

That they are deeply concerned with the low standard of the present Hungarian language program broadcast on Radio Station 2Ea.

On behalf of the wide cross section of thousands of Australians of Hungarian origin, who understand Hungarian, and have knowledge of the more than a thousand year old Hungarian culture, and have good taste, protest in this way as a last resort, because all our efforts to date for a fundamental change have been in vain.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that this Senate in Parliament assembled should help the Hungarian speaking community to regain confidence in the democratically elected Senate known for its conscientious and wise judgement in restoring peace and faith in democratic principles, which unfortunately are missing from the present management set-up of the Ethnic Radio broadcasters. The petitioners aim is to help with advice, and not to control the broadcasting, and for this we would very much appreciate the opportunity for a small selected delegation to meet the Ministers concerned.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator KEEFFE:

-On behalf of Senator Georges, I present the following petition from 22 citizens of Australia:

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:

Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day whatever political party.

Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into A.B.C. programmes.

Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.

Ensure that any general enquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the enquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, and the House of Representatives in the 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.

Petition received.

International Captive Nations Year

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

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 Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

And whereas such Charter 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. by Senator Sheil.

Petition received.

page 2774

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2774

QUESTION

ABSENCE OF MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE

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

- Mr President, my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Robert Cotton, is unavoidably absent from question time this morning. If any senators are game enough they can direct to me the questions that normally would be directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. They will get the same sorts of answers.

page 2775

QUESTION

EDUCATION COSTS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-In that case, I direct my first question to the Minister for Education. I ask: Is it correct that an interdepartmental committee has been considering a number of options to enable the transfer of a greater share of the cost of education from the Commonwealth to the States? Does the report of the IDC deal with the roles of the 4 education commissions? Were the 4 commissions represented on the IDC? Finally, have there been any discussions with the States during the development of any proposals in relation to cost sharing with, or cost transferring to, the States and, if so, what discussions?

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

-During the course of this year, by the use of interdepartmental committees and other methods, the Government has been gathering information with regard to, in the first place, the co-ordination and rationalisation of education throughout Australia- a move which is regarded as highly desirable not only by the Commonwealth but also by the States and which was regarded as such by the previous Whitlam Government- and has been looking at the question of cost sharing with regard to education. It is true that one or more interdepartmental committees have been looking at these matters. It is not the practice of governments- this one or ones of the past- to give details concerning interdepartmental committees. There has been full consultation with all the elements of my Department and the commissions in what has been undertaken. I am hopeful that, in the early future, we may be able to announce to the people of Australia the outcome of the Government’s deliberations on these significant matters.

page 2775

QUESTION

INCOME TAX: SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I have a question for the Minister representing the Treasurer. It concerns the deductibility of superannuation contributions for taxation purposes. Following the 2 recent royal commissions on taxation, Ligertwood and Asprey, both finding that self-employed people were unjustly treated in the deductibility of superannuation contributions from assessable income, it appears that this injustice is continuing in that taxation paid by self-employed people appears to help fund the employer contribution to Commonwealth Government employees’ superannuation and yet self-employed people receive no similar matching benefit. As this injustice has been recognised and rectified in other countries such as New Zealand and Canada, is it not possible for our Government to take similar action?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-If any such rectification of the taxation legislation is required, it would be contemplated by the Government that it would be done in the Budget context. I think the honourable senator would be aware that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have said on a number of occasions that the Government has put to searching study the whole question of taxation in Australia. The Government is awaiting the results of those investigations. When Cabinet has made up its mind as a result of those investigations, no doubt the Prime Minister or the Treasurer will make a statement on them.

page 2775

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources by reminding him of statements by members on the Government side during the debate on uranium and at other times that uranium was needed to help solve the energy crisis caused by the ever-decreasing reserves of oil. I remind the Minister that in answers to questions No. 1286 and No. 902 he indicated that there were only 20 years’ reserves of U308-they will expire in about 1995-37 years’ of crude oil and 38 years’ of natural gas. In the light of this information which has been supplied by the Minister I ask him how he can justify his Government’s stated policy that uranium is needed to help overcome the energy crisis, especially as uranium reserves will not even outlive oil reserves? Will the Government now accept the fact that there is and will continue to be an energy crisis even if uranium is used, and will he therefore urge the Government immediately to appropriate substantial funds to foster research into alternative energy sources?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think the honourable senator would know from questions answered by my colleague, Senator Webster, in this place that the Government is pursuing other methods of supplying energy in this country. I do not know whether that is what the honourable senator is really interested in or whether by his question he is more interested in trying to make an argument that uranium ought to be left in the ground. If he is trying to say that, I think he ought to say it straight out. One would imagine that with the continuing population explosion in the world Australia, as one of the more fortunate nations, has an obligation to see that disadvantaged people around the world have access to our resources of all sorts. I would hope that that would be the view of the Opposition also.

page 2776

QUESTION

TRAINING OF ATHLETES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. As the performances of Australian athletes at the last Olympiad have now been analysed and I understand are in the process of being studied by the Government with the intention of endeavouring to improve our standards with better training methods and facilities and greater Government sponsorship of overseas competition, will the Minister consider supplying to all sporting bodies comprehensive literature denouncing the use of anabolic steriods by many overseas countries to achieve questionable improvement in their athletes’ performances, with scant or no consideration of the present controversy raging in medical circles as to the long term injurious effects on such athletes? I urge the publication of this material on 2 grounds; firstly and most importantly, to protect the health and well being of our young men and women and, secondly, to ensure that at least the Australian athlete will be able to exhibit all the high ideals of true amateurism and not be tempted to succumb to this outright cheating by the use of drugs to attain tainted international honours.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The question is important. It is one that relates to a controversy that rages widely throughout the world, firstly, as to the very nature of what one would regard as amateurism and true and genuine striving in sport and, secondly, as to the validity of the use of drugs or additives to improve the performance of athletes. I think it is of importance that it should be put under study. I will bring the question to the attention of my colleague, the Minister, in another place.

page 2776

QUESTION

ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

- Mr President, I am a bit concerned that Senator Cotton is not here but a Minister of his sensitivity probably would want to be absent at a time like this when the Government is reaching its proper level of public criticism. However I am game enough to ask the Leader of the Government, Senator Withers, a question. I remind him quickly that on 28 November the Treasury announced a 17.5 per cent devaluation. On the next day the Prime Minister said there would be no tariff cuts. On 1 December a tariff review was promised on imports not competitive with Australian made goods. On 2 December interest rates rose. On 7 December the Australian dollar was upvalued, the Cabinet decided on tariff cuts and abolished the Treasury. Has not this Government, which obtained office by a series of questionable confidence tricks only 12 months ago, now found that retribution has set in and that the people of Australia and the business community, are in a state of abject uncertainty? When can the people of Australia expect someone to turn on a kindly light to show the way amid the encircling gloom?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I assume that is supposed to be a question; I rather thought it was a speech. I cannot understand what the honourable senator is all excited about. Perhaps what he is really suggesting to us is that we should follow the example of our predecessors and have a different Treasurer about every 6 weeks, with a different program and a different problem. When one looks at the chaos and the confusion, the sackings of Ministers and all the rest that happened in the period the Opposition held office I think it sits rather ill on Opposition supporters to come into this place with all this sanctimonious humbug in an attempt to lecture us on what is happening at the moment. The real problem is, of course, that the Opposition is enraged that the Government’s economic policies are working and that inflation is coming down.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator WITHERS:

-Opposition supporters are enraged that inflation is coming down. They could not do anything about it when they were in office. What they are really worried about, of course, is that the country is coming back onto a proper economic basis and people’s savings are going to be preserved. Everything they almost succeeded in doing in 3 years is coming to an end, and that is the source of all their rage.

page 2776

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to an article by Michael Richardson in this morning’s Age entitled ‘Fretilin’s alive and kicking’ which reproduces recent information, primarily from independent Indonesian sources, of the massive killings and persecutions by Indonesian forces in East Timor and claims that the Timorese resistance retains control of the great percentage of the population and area of East Timor. I ask: Firstly, have these reports not already been delivered to the Foreign Minister and have their contents been confirmed from his own inquiries? Secondly, do they not support the suggestion that the Australian Government should reconsider its abstention from voting on East Timor in the recent committee vote in the United Nations and that

Australia should vote affirmatively on the resolution when it comes before the General Assembly later this month? Thirdly, do they not call for a renewal and expansion of our diplomatic efforts in support of the people of East Timor in accordance with our declared policy?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will refer those questions to my colleague in the other place.

page 2777

QUESTION

ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which follows on that asked by Senator O ‘Byrne, is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is related to the Minister’s answer that the Government is now restoring the economy to a healthy state. Has the Minister seen a report that yesterday the stock market was in utter chaos following the economic announcements made by the Government yesterday? Will the Minister agree that is symptomatic of the feeling throughout the community generally and that, far from having its confidence restored, business is more confused than ever and, far from having their confidence restored, consumers are now completely at a loss to know what to do in trying to comprehend or understand the Government’s economic policy?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have not seen the report to which the honourable senator refers. I have been doing something more useful with my time this morning than reading newspapers. The honourable senator worries about business confidence. Business confidence ebbs and flows. I must say, however, that business confidence is far better this year than it was under our predecessors who spent almost 3 years destroying it totally. The memories of honourable senators opposite who are interjecting really are very short. Business, consumers and taxpayers had so much confidence in the Government of last year that it suffered the greatest electoral defeat in the history of the Australian Parliament. I do not know why honourable senators opposite are running around -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Why do you not have an election now and test it?

Senator WITHERS:

-I made that suggestion almost monthly when I was Leader of the Opposition. I said: ‘Go out and try it’. I used to get the standard answer: ‘We are here by mandate of the people and we will carry out our policies. We will go to the people when we feel like it ‘.

Senator Gietzelt:

– We said that, Senator, but you never accepted it.

Senator WITHERS:

-After all, we did have a double dissolution in 1974 and the Labor Party could not get the numbers in this place as a result of that election. That shows how much confidence the electors of Australia had in the Labor Government. They wanted to put a safeguard on the Labor Government because, while they may have been prepared to give it a second go in the other place, they would not give it open slather in this place.

Opposition senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator WITHERS:

– Opposition senators are all terribly excited because all their predictions of gloom are coming to nought.

page 2777

QUESTION

HUMAN NUTRITION STUDIES

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, is related to the study of human nutrition in Australia, especially in the light of the widespread occurrence of problems of over-nutrition and poor nutritional practice in our society at present. Is the Minister aware of a recent gift of $500,000 from a private citizen, Mr Alexander Boden of Sydney, to establish Australia’s first chair of human nutrition within the University of Sydney? Does the Government place a high value on the study of human nutrition and are there any plans for the Government, possibly in the form of collaboration between the Department of Education and the Department of Health, to attempt to match this private endeavour and to extend the study of human nutrition within our universities?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Baume asks me, in effect, 3 questions. He asks, first of all, whether I am aware of a very significant gift made by Mr Alexander Boden. I am aware of that gift. I have had the privilege of meeting Mr Boden and acknowledging to him the importance of what he has done as a good Australian in a significant area. The fact that the first chair of human nutrition is to be established at the University of Sydney is of major importance. Senator Baume may be aware that only recently a seminar on nutrition was held, I think, at the University of New South Wales. I was privileged to open that seminar and I spent the whole day there.

I think it is important in answering the honourable senator’s question that I should make a number of points. Or course, at that seminar stress was placed on the fact that malnutrition in the sense of bad diet was affecting primarily Aborigines and that, in terms of mature aged diabetics, we had a problem of obesity. There is some under nourishment in Aboriginal children. But the overwhelming report of that symposium was that today obesity is identified as the primary cause of cardiovascular disease and, in statistical form, is identified as being significant in malignancies. Taken together, this operates in terms of the major threat to the health and survival of the Australian people. That being so, I have been asked whether the Commonwealth Government would co-operate in educational plans for nutrition in Australia. Again, overwhelmingly the medical evidence is that prophylaxis prevention is infinitely better than palliative if some kind of cardiovascular disease has occurred.

I have invited the various authorities to submit their plans to the Government. I understand that the Curriculum Development Centre of the Commonwealth Department of Health is looking at projects in the health nutrition area. We would be immensely interested in this. I am also informed that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is undertaking valuable work in this regard. I do want to stress that as has been represented to me, the primary threat to health in terms of degenerative disease in Australia is in fact malnutrition in terms of obesity.

page 2778

QUESTION

TOOSE COMMITTEE REPORT

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs whether he has studied the recommendations of the Toose report, particularly those referring to relevant personal files being made available to a claimant or his authorised representative; those recommending that legal representations be allowed before a tribunal; and those referring to the relaxation of certain health conditions to allow disabled persons to be employed in both State and Commonwealth Government departments? When can we expect the Government to make a statement of its policy in these areas?

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

-The answer to the first part of the question is yes, not only in respect of those particular matters, but generally across the whole range of recommendations of Mr Justice Toose which number three hundred and three. Consideration of these matters is going ahead in my Department and to the extent that I have had time to do so in recent weeks attention has been given to this matter by me. I have a timetable which we hope to meet as far as government decisions on these matters are concerned. I expect that there will be a series of Government decisions during the autumn session. Very likely, legislation will be introduced in regard to a number of these matters in that session. In view of the size of the report and the complexity of a large number of these matters I think there is little likelihood of any actual announcements of decisions being made in the coming weeks. But as I said, I would expect a number of announcements of decisions and perhaps legislation to be introduced in the autumn session.

page 2778

QUESTION

MR G. O. STEWART

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, of which I was advised by letter dated 25 May 1976, that Mr G. O. Stewart and his family could enter Australia as permanent residents. Mr Stewart is still awaiting the processing of his application. Can the Minister explain the reason for this 6 months delay which is causing great personal hardship to Mr Stewart and great distress to his relatives in Australia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I have some information on this matter from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I understand that his Department did approve migrant entry of Mr Stewart, subject to completion of health and character requirements in May of this year. Unfortunately Mr Stewart could not be interviewed and could not undertake the health and other formalities during a visit to Calcutta by an immigration officer in late July. Similarly, because of the number of applications already in the pipeline in Calcutta, it was not possible to interview Mr Stewart on the next trip there in mid-October. Mr Stewart has been sent a telegram inviting him to visit New Delhi to complete formalities. The only available alternative is for him to wait for the next visit by an immigration officer to Calcutta in the first week in February. The main reason for the delays in processing applications in New Delhi is the lack of available officers in Bombay and Calcutta earlier this year. This has added to delays in processing applications. I will refer the question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to see whether Mr Stewart’s entry can be expedited.

page 2778

QUESTION

AMBASSADOR TO YUGOSLAVIA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister representing the Foreign Minister a question which follows a probing question yesterday by my colleague, Senator Ryan, on Australia’s diplomatic representation in Yugoslavia. In view of the Departmental impasse over the future posting of Ambassador Booker, when will Ambassador-elect Barry Dexter be seen driving down the Boulevarde of the Revolution in Belgrade?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I suggest that the honourable senator place his question on notice.

page 2779

QUESTION

STATE RAILWAY DEFICITS

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport confirm that the combined deficits of the State railways this year will be between $500m and $750m? Does this represent about 7 per cent of total personal income tax collections? Has the Government any projections of what the deficits will be in the next 5 years?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not have the precise figures on this matter before me. I will get them for Senator Thomas. It is true that in recent years the deficits of State railways have accelerated in an astronomic fashion and are now dominating the budgets of the State governments. In the case of those State railways which have been transferred to the Commonwealth, this will represent a significantly heavy drain upon the Commonwealth. It is true that if the deficits continue they will represent a highly significant part of the actual personal income tax paid by individual taxpayers. Senator Thomas mentioned the figure of 7 per cent. I am not informed of the figure but I imagine it would be in that vicinity. There are a number of major problems concerning financing of the deficits. The overwhelming problem is the steady decline in consumer usage of public transport in Australia. This is a world-wide phenomenon as the honourable senator will know. Endeavours are made by expert study to offset this problem by improving the quality of the rolling stock and the quality of service. My colleague in another place has these matters under study. It is an intractable problem. I will bring the question to the attention of the Minister and get the specific details on the arithmetical problems posed to me.

page 2779

QUESTION

STATE RAILWAY DEFICITS

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a question to Senator Carrick. It follows the one he has just answered. Is the Senate to understand that the Government has no intention of making any offer for the transfer to the Commonwealth of the railway debts the 4 States which have not up to now made an arrangement with the Commonwealth for such a transfer? In view of the information the Minister has just given, which indicated clearly the increasing enormous financial burden on the States as a result of their railway debts, is the Government considering some alternative means whereby the railway debt problem of those States may be alleviated?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It does not solve the problem of the under-utilisation of public transport simply to transfer the debt from State to Federal taxpayers. That is, in effect, the essence of what Senator Wriedt is saying to the Senate. The question would be more sensible, if I may say so, if it where directed to methods of solution of the problem. I am unaware of any plans that the Commonwealth Government has to offer the States in respect of any take-overs by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Government has expressed it views at various times regarding the nature of the takeovers in the other States. I have no doubt in the world that my colleague in another place has many concepts which through co-operative federalism would enable help and encouragement to be given to the States to improve their rolling stock and increase public utilisation. However, it is because of the essential paternalism of the Federal Opposition that it cannot conceive that problems can be solved at State level if the States are given the incentive to resolve those problems. The whole of the bedevilment of the 3 years of the Whitlam Government was the belief which was peddled that the States should not even be helped to resolve their problems and that the only solution was a central takeover. That concept is rejected by my Government.

page 2779

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether she has seen the report that the United States of America is concerned that a dangerous type of influenza may hit that country this winter and is spending some $135m on universal vaccination. Will the Minister make inquiries into this matter and if there is any reason whatsoever for concern that this virus may reach Australia, will the Government have vaccines available to protect the Australian community against an outbreak of any such virus in this country?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information with regard to this matter nor have I seen the reports referred to by the honourable senator. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Health to the United States experience with this influenza and see that as a matter of urgency he makes the necessary investigations in the interests of the people of this country.

page 2779

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and refers to the legal advice tabled by her yesterday which states that the payment of the unemployment benefit to tertiary students on university vacation is illegal, a proposition with which no one on this side would argue. I ask, as others have asked, whether the Minister has received any legal advice to back up the Government’s decision to refuse to pay unemployment benefit to people who have left school, who are not returning to school and are seeking work. If she has such advice, will she table it in the Senate?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The DirectorGeneral of my Department has received advice in many ways with regard to the policy of the Government announced earlier this year not to pay automatically the unemployment benefit to school leavers. I will discuss with the DirectorGeneral whether he has any advice in a form that would be suitable for tabling in the Senate and advise the Senate accordingly at a later stage.

page 2780

QUESTION

STOCK MARKET

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to Senator Withers who, on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is today representing the Treasurer. My question follows that asked by Senator Douglas McClelland concerning activity on the stock markets yesterday. Is the Minister aware that whilst there may have been some early indecision in the market, the all ordinaries index in the Melbourne Stock Exchange closed higher than Monday’s index? Does the Minister agree that investors have comprehended the Government’s economic moves and that this is evidence that they believe the Government is moving correctly to restore business confidence after three disastrous years of Australian Labor Party Government?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am delighted that Senator Messner has given the Senate that information. It goes to show that if people read the newspapers they ought to read them carefully and completely, as does my colleague.

page 2780

QUESTION

MOUNT LYELL MINING OPERATIONS

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister communicated to the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd his view as reported widely in the media that the company should now return to its level of operations prior to the issue of retrenchment notices? What has been the result of this action? In view of the uncertainty which continues to exist in Queenstown, and the possibility- amongst other things equally undesirable- of the further loss of essential skilled elements of the work force, will the Government take more positive steps to ensure a resumption of activities in accordance with the recommendations tabled last Friday of the Senate Select Committee on Mount Lyell Mining Operations. Finally, how long would it be reasonable for the Queenstown work force to wait to learn of its fate?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am not aware whether the Prime Minister has written directly to the Mount Lyell company. I will seek that information for the honourable senator and, if the Prime Minister has written, ascertain the result of the letter. As to the other matters raised by the honourable senator, as I understand the position, they are at present under consideration by the Government. When the Government has made a decision it will be announced in the normal way.

page 2780

QUESTION

INSTITUTE ON MENTAL RETARDATION

Senator KNIGHT:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security concerning a recommendation accepted by the first joint national conference of the Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded and the Australian Group for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. The recommendation was that an Australian institute on mental retardation be established. Can the Minister say what progress has been made with proposals to establish such an institute? In particular, will the Minister indicate the Government’s attitude to the proposal and can she say whether the Government supports the establishment of an Australian institute on mental retardation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Since the conference in Canberra earlier this year there has been a great deal of discussion by the voluntary associations mentioned with regard to the proposed institute for mental retardation. I am able to advise that recently I received a letter from one of the organisations referring to the establishment of such an institute, and the letter gave me information on the progress which the organisation had been able to make. The sorts of matters referred to me were the substantial support it had found in the community for the establishment of an institute and the discussions which it had held with the Canberra College of Advanced Education regarding the siting of an institute in that establishment. Perhaps my colleague the Minister for Education has some knowledge of the progress of that matter. The letter which came to me gave me that sort of information, and I have referred it to the Department for study to see what assistance it might be appropriate and possible for us to give towards the establishment of the institute. I have nothing further to add at this stage.

page 2781

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House of Representatives on 1 December about the Government’s position in relation to the shipbuilding industry and to this well-known meeting last week with Mr Hawke on the question of wages and incomes, which was preceded by discussion about the shipbuilding industry. The Leader of the Government will no doubt recall that in answer to me Senator Cotton has said that the representations made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the South Australian Government and the New South Wales Government will be taken into account. In view of the very great concern in South Australia about the future of Whyalla, which is becoming desperate, will the Leader of the Government ask the Prime Minister to provide some information in the Parliament as to whether the discussions between himself and Mr Hawke on the question of shipbuilding have been fruitful in obtaining a solution to the problem?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-That is a fair enough request. I will certainly refer the honourable senator’s question to the Prime Minister.

page 2781

QUESTION

DR MIKHAIL SHTERN

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to a petition organised by the Australia-Israeli Medical Association, signed by 260 doctors throughout Australia and delivered to the U.S.S.R. Embassy in March 1976, seeking justice for Dr Mikhail Shtern of Vinniktsa Ukraine, who for an extended period has been under arrest and denied migration to Israel. Is the Australian Government prepared to make representations to the U.S.S.R. authorities in support of the representations of so many Australian citizens who are concerned with the treatment of Dr Shtern, in breach of basic human rights?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I cannot answer in positive terms. I will seek the information from my colleague in another place.

page 2781

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the joint statement by the Minister for Immigration and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications some 3 months ago about the future of ethnic radio in Australia and subsequent questions which I have directed to Senator Carrick and the answers thereto. I now ask the Minister Has the Government yet determined the future of ethnic radio and what structure will apply to the administration of ethnic radio in Australia? Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission continued to decline to take responsibility for ethnic radio? Did the Minister for Post and Telecommunications say in Sydney 3 weeks ago that, if the ABC continued to decline to assume responsibility for it, he would establish an ethnic radio commission? What is the present position?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am not aware of that statement by the Minister. I accept it as having been published in the media as Senator Button refers to it. Because I am not aware of it, I cannot answer what would logically flow from it and that is the allegation that some alternative may be involved. My understanding was that the ABC was considering the matter but that it felt that it would need some time in which to work out the method of handling ethnic radio. I am not aware therefore of any new changes but I shall direct the question to the Minister concerned and ask him to provide the relevant facts.

page 2781

QUESTION

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Senator BAUME:

– My question concerning cigarette advertising in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory falls somewhat between the responsibilities of the Department of the Northern Territory, the Department of the Capital Territory and the Department of Health. I understand, after some initial hesitation, that it will be taken up by the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask: Has the present Government altered in any way, either by making more restrictive or by relaxing, the regulations in relation to display advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products in either the A.C.T. or the Northern Territory? What are the present restrictions on the advertising of tobacco products in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, excluding restrictions on the use of electronic media?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I have no hesitation in giving the information that I have on this subject. As I understand it, except in the Federal Territories, legislative power to regulate cigarette advertising in media other than radio and television is vested exclusively in the States. The first State to attempt to introduce such legislation was Tasmania, where the Bill was defeated in the Upper House of the Parliament. The matter was discussed again at the 1976 Health Ministers conference but the States foresaw difficulties in applying restrictions to advertising of articles such as clothing and smoking accessories.

Discussions are being held with the Department of the Capital Territory on the whole question of cigarette advertising and smoking generally in the Australian Capital Territory. However, it is important that any action taken in the Territory be in concert with the States. The Government has made no alteration to the law in respect of the advertising of cigarette and tobacco products in either of the mainland Territories. Apart from the prohibition on advertising in the electronic media, there are no restrictions on the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products. The question of the possible introduction of restrictions on tobacco advertising and on smoking in public areas is being examined and initial discussions have been held by the Department of Health with the authorities concerned.

page 2782

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It is in respect of a question I asked of the Minister on Monday. I was not here yesterday and I have not had a chance to check Hansard this morning to see whether there has been a reply to that question. But I shall repeat the question: If a school leaver approaches the Commonwealth Employment Service, is he or she entitled to register for employment? I think that is a reasonably simple question and I trust that we can have an expeditious answer as thousands of school leavers will be directly affected by the response.

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Brown asked me this question the day before yesterday. I did have the answer yesterday. As the honourable senator recognises, he was not here to ask for it. The answer to the question is yes.

page 2782

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION: PRICE INCREASES

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. He will be aware of a recent statement by the Minister he represents to the effect that the Prices Justification Tribunal would be expected to hold back price increases caused by devaluation and that the Tribunal would be able to use its initiative under section 16 of the Prices Justification Tribunal Act for this purpose. Can the Minister say whether a constant monitoring of the position will take place and whether, if it is found that the requirement of public hearings is too lengthy and cumbersome, some other machinery will be devised to prevent unjustified price rises because of devaluation?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Senator Tehan referred to a statement by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I think I should again refer briefly to that statement in view of some aspects of his question which I do not think are quite in line with what my colleague said. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs stated that he has conferred with the Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal concerning possible price abuse following the devaluation of the Australian dollar; that he had requested that special attention be given to price notifications coming before the Tribunal where increases were being sought in consequence of the devaluation and that he had asked that particular attention be given where there may have been some evidence that increases were occurring in respect of goods which had been purchased by re-sellers prior to devaluation. Those are the major points to which the statement by the Minister was directed.

As to the question whether the Government will consider making any changes to the procedures of the Prices Justification Tribunal in order to implement the requests that have been made, the answer is that the Government is not considering any such changes. Amendments to the Prices Justification Act were passed by the Senate the other day. The Government is not contemplating any changes in its procedures or powers other than those that, as I said earlier, were passed this week. The Government is satisfied that the power contained in section 1 6 of the Act, whereby the Tribunal may of its own volition and motion investigate any complaints that may be made to it or any indications that it has of unjustified price increases, is a sufficient power, particularly as it is coupled with a power conferred on the Minister to request a specified investigation. These powers are not limited to cases where there is the requirement of notice by a company before it increases its prices.

I think it should be further pointed out that these procedures have worked successfully during the year. That is, of course, one of the reasons why the Government has decided to maintain the Prices Justification Tribunal. In fact, I am advised that no cases have been brought to the attention of the Government or the Tribunal of companies having endeavoured to put up prices or having put up prices when the procedures of the Tribunal are being followed. So, even though some time may be taken by these inquiries, companies have nevertheless observed those requirements and have not endeavoured to beat the Tribunal in putting up prices contrary to the procedures which are laid down in the legislation.

page 2783

QUESTION

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In an earlier question on notice I asked the Minister what steps the Government had taken to implement the Racial Discrimination Act and I was told in reply that all parts of the Act became operative on 3 1 October of this year. I ask: How can that answer be correct, since the conciliation committees provided for in section 23 of the Act have not yet been established and the Community Relations Council provided for in section 41 of the Act has not yet been established? Further, when will the first report of the Commissioner for Community Relations be tabled in the Parliament? Finally, is there any truth in the rumour that the office of the Commissioner is to be abolished and the functions of that office moved back to the Attorney-General ‘s Department?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-The question raises several matters. They are of some detail. I suggest that the question be placed on notice.

page 2783

QUESTION

DUMPING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MATERIAL IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate say whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives has called for a royal commission into the dumping of radioactive waste material at Maralinga in South Australia? If so, what is the Government’s reaction to this suggestion. Recalling the question I asked the Minister on Monday, I now ask whether the Government has considered my request for a public statement on this matter. If so, when is it likely to be made? If not, will the Minister give this his urgent consideration?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will take up with the Minister as a matter of urgency the latter matters raised by Senator Jessop. As to the first matter, I am unaware whether Mr Uren has called for a royal commission into the dumping of radioactive waste. I would have thought that as one who was a Minister in the previous Government for 3 years he would have known all about it, seeing that he takes such a great interest in this matter.

page 2783

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of a legal challenge to the refusal by the Department of Social Security to pay the unemployment benefit to school leavers? I believe that the legal action has been taken in Victoria. Will legal aid be provided by the Australian Legal Aid Office for such a challenge and any subsequent legal tests concerning the bar on school leavers obtaining the unemployment benefit?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have no knowledge myself of any legal challenge. I have just conferred with my colleague, the Minister for Social Security, and she has not heard of any legal challenge to the ruling referred to which has been discussed at great length in recent days in this place. I will pass the question on to the Attorney-General to see whether he knows anything about it. I will also refer the question of legal aid to him.

page 2783

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the article in today’s Australian Financial Review on the ambiguous nature of the discretion of the Director-General of the Department of Social Security in refusing or allowing the unemployment benefit to be paid to school leavers. If the Director-General can grant the unemployment benefit if he is satisfied with the procedures under section 107(c)(m) of the Social Services Act, will the Minister instruct him to withdraw the letters currently going out to applicants saying that they will not be paid before the end of the school vacation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– If the article in the Australian Financial Review had been read carefully by the honourable senator I doubt whether he would have asked the question in quite that form. It was the Director-General who decided that he would send a letter to all the people who applied for the unemployment benefit. His discretion and responsibilities under the Act are defined, and it was in terms of those that he sent the letter referred to by the honourable senator.

page 2783

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the

Minister for Social Security: Will school leavers who register for work, apply for unemployment benefit and complete the new relevent form proving to the Director-General of the Department of Social Security that they have tried without success to find work be paid the unemployment benefit retrospectively when it is established that they are not returning to full time studies?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– When the DirectorGeneral determines that school leavers are eligible for the unemployment benefit, they will be paid the unemployment benefit.

page 2784

QUESTION

CURRENCY REVALUATION: EFFECTS ON FARM INCOMES

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the increase of $ 1 7 per week in net farm income projected for 1976-77 by the Minister for Primary Industry approximately a week ago as a result of recent currency devaluation. I ask by what amount this marginal gain is eroded by the Government’s general decision to revalue upwards? What is the estimated loss to net farm income for the remainder of 1976-77 caused by raising the value?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I suggest that a question of that statistical nature ought to go on notice.

page 2784

QUESTION

ECONOMIC POLICIES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In answer to a question from one of his colleagues earlier today the Leader thanked him for drawing the attention of the Senate to a newspaper article in reference to stock exchange confidence since the devaluation and the revaluation. I now ask the Leader: Has his attention been drawn to an article in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review in which Mr Len Reason, chairman of the Masius advertising agency which devised the Liberal Party 1975 election slogan ‘Turn on the Lights’, is now claiming that because of the Government’s inability to find the correct combination of switches, and of the many shocks and short-circuits, the Government is finding great difficulty in turning on the lights? As these shocks and short-circuits are now creating chaos and uncertainty in the business world and sapping the confidence of every Australian, does the Leader still say that his Government’s monetary policies are correct and that Mr Reason’s reasoning is wrong?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am terribly sorry to disappoint the honourable senator, but I have not read the article. As I have said, I have much more useful things to do with my life than to spend it reading newspapers. I am surprised how honourable senators opposite manage to occupy themselves all day by just reading newspapers. That is all they seem to do here. There seems to be no capacity for original research; no capacity for original thinking or reading. They just live off the newspapers. It is amazing that they have the time each morning. They must rise early to have read them all by 10 a.m. Perhaps the reason the honourable senator refers to yesterday’s newspapers is that he has not had time to read today’s newspapers. I do not know whether Mr Reason said what is claimed. It is a nice set of words to use. It is quite a good throw-away line. I even enjoyed the humour of it myself. As I have said, it is a nice humorous statement but I do not think it is in accordance with the facts. The Government is quite satisfied with what it is doing. I am quite certain that the public at large also feels that way. We are doing all right; do not get worried.

page 2784

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister for Social Security by stating that it is not based on a newspaper report. Can the Minister advise what documents an appellant to a Social Security Appeals Tribunal is entitled to view before the appeal is considered? I also ask: Is an appellant entitled to be represented by some other person at an appeals tribunal hearing?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I would like to give consideration to that question and answer it precisely, which I will do at a later stage.

page 2784

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES STUDY

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: In view of the important work already carried out by Dr Jean Martin in her longitudinal study of Vietnamese refugees in Australia- a study curtailed by the present Government- and Dr Martin’s attempts to obtain funds for a follow-up study next year, will the Minister discuss with the Prime Minister the question of a government grant to allow this important study to be carried out?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-That is a reasonable suggestion. I will certainly pass it along to the Prime Minister.

page 2784

QUESTION

DARWIN DENTAL SERVICES

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. The provision of dental services at the Darwin clinic has reached the farcical point where intending patients are put on the waiting list to go on the waiting list for treatment. Will the Minister indicate what positive steps are being taken to resolve this untenable situation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health. I am unaware whether the waiting list for a waiting list is necessitated through an inability to obtain professional staff. I will have the matter investigated and ensure that the honourable senator is informed accordingly.

page 2785

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION: EFFECTS ON FARM INCOMES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer him to a statement by the Minister for Primary Industry in Rockhampton on 4 December in which he said that as a result of the devaluation net farm income would be boosted by $ 1 50m for the remainder of this year. I refer him also to a subsequent statement made by the Minister at that meeting, as well as a statement made by the Prime Minister in his weekly electoral broadcast, to the effect that as a result of devaluation average farm income would increase by some $17 a week to $143 a week. Given the fact that $150m would provide $17 a week for slightly fewer than 170 000 people, is the Government asserting that Australia has only 170 000 farmers? If not, which, if either, of the mutually exclusive statements from the Prime Minister and /or the Minister for Primary Industry is true?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think that question falls into the same category as the question asked by Senator Walsh’s colleague, Senator Gietzelt. I do not carry that sort of statistical information around in my head. I suggest that the honourable senator puts his question on the notice paper.

page 2785

QUESTION

PUSH BUTTON TELEPHONES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it propsed to install push button telephones in Government offices throughout Australia or is it the intention to retain them for other than Government use, at least until the costs can be justified?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not have that information at hand. I shall seek it for the honourable senator.

page 2785

QUESTION

MAREEBA MINING AND EXPLORATION PTY LTD

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Acting Minister for National Resources aware of the statements made in the annual report of Mareeba Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd which suggest that the coming to power in December 1975 of the present Government may result in that company being forced to discontinue its operations? Is the Minister further aware that the company’s future viability as a mining concern depends largely on the Federal Government extending a $300,000 loan beyond 1 July 1977? Bearing in mind that the previous Labor Administration actively assisted the Mareeba company’s mining development through the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, what assurance can the Minister give the Senate that the present Government will aid Mareeba to permit it to continue its mining ventures?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have not seen the report, but I shall ask my colleague, the Acting Minister for National Resources, to have a look at the report and to inform me as to what answer I should give to the honourable senator.

page 2785

QUESTION

TRADE UNION MOVEMENT

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– The Minister representing the Attorney-General may recall that the subject matter of an adjournment debate which occurred in the Senate was perjured evidence which was used and which constituted a crime against the trade union movement. The Minister will recall that the late Senator Greenwood stated that he would refer the matter to the Attorney-General for investigation to see whether a crime had been committed. Can the Minister advise what action has been taken on this matter and with what result? Will the Senate receive a report on the matter before it rises?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I try to avoid as much as possible adjournment debates in this place. I certainly do not want to have to recall them if that is at all possible. I do not recall the debate to which Senator Harradine refers in his question, but I will make inquiries as to the circumstances of the debate and as to what undertakings were given. I shall ask the Attorney-General what action has been taken in the matter. I hope to be able to advise the honourable senator in the near future.

page 2785

QUESTION

LIBRARIES

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Some days ago Senator Melzer directed a question to me regarding confusion which has arisen out of library grants in the State of Victoria and the bewilderment of some parents and citizens associations in that regard. I said that I would seek the information, and I have done so. I might add that there must be a fair amount of confusion on this matter because I have received correspondence from a large number of people. The situation is that in 1976, under the Schools Commission capital grants program, $29,280,000 was allocated to Victoria for capital expenditure on government schools. Provision was made for a recommended minimum of $2.6m of that amount to be expended on library buildings and resources. This has not been a legislative provision. It was merely an expectation on the part of the Schools Commission. Honourable senators will be aware that the actual disbursement of funds to government schools in Victoria is the responsibility of the Victorian Government. It decided how the $29,280,000 was to be distributed. Similar provisions will again apply in 1 977.

The changes in the capital allocation referred to by Senator Melzer and attributed to the Victorian Minister of Education, relate to the comparable legislative provisions of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-74-that is the biennium legislation- and the States Grants (Schools) Act 1976. In 1974 and 1975 the Commonwealth Government specified through legislation how much was to be expended on capital projects in government schools for each of libraries, special education, disadvantaged schools and general buildings. In 1976 the Commonwealth left it to the States themselves to determine the actual amounts to be expended on each element of the capital grants program. One amount only was specified in the legislation and the Schools Commission, in its 1976 report, included a recommended distribution of this amount to the various elements of the program. The matter therefore is one for the Victorian Minister of Education. He decides on the allocation of funds made available by the Commonwealth for expenditure on capital projects, including library buildings and resources in government schools in Victoria.

The $900,000 mentioned by Senator Melzer is related to non-government schools. In 1976, $7,050,000 was allocated for capital expenditure in non-government schools in Victoria. Of this amount, $900,000 was for library buildings and resources. I have approved the payment of the bulk of this amount as individual grants to nongovernment schools in Victoria. Senator Melzer may, quite inadvertently, have confused the amounts allocated for government and nongovernment schools. But the essential fact is that the matter is specifically one for the Victorian Minister of Education.

page 2786

QUESTION

MIGRANT COMMUNITY SERVICES BRANCH

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Mulvihill asked me a question concerning the Migrant Community Services Branch of the Department of Social Security. In my answer I undertook to seek advice on the first 2 parts of his 3 -part question. Briefly, he asked whether the staff utilisation review had recommended that the Migrant Community Services Branch had been disbanded and absorbed into a new structure, and if so, what justification had been given for this change. I can advise Senator Mulvihill that a review has been undertaken within the Department of Social Security which will make recommendations to the Director-General on whether there needs to be a rationalisation of staff resources. I understand that a draft discussion paper, in the form of an internal document which canvasses options for rationalisation of staff resources within the Social Welfare Division of the Department in which the Community Services Branch is located, has been distributed amongst officers who might be directly affected if any of the options canvassed in that paper were to be taken up. I emphasise that this paper is a discussion document only. No final recommendations have been made to the Director-General. I can assure the honourable senator and others interested in this matter that the needs of migrants in our communities are of paramount importance to us. It is to give services to migrants particularly in matters of social welfare and social security, that we review these matters from time to time.

page 2786

ROYAL COMMISSION ON PETROLEUM

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the sixth report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum entitled The Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas in Australia.

page 2786

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 14 of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948, 1 present the third supplement to the 25th report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July 1972 to 30 December 1972, dealing with the progress of the final actuarial examination of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund.

page 2786

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to sub-section 2 of section 16 of the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, I present the fourth report of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority, dealing with the general administration and working of that Act and the Defence Forces Retirement

Benefits Act 1948, other than Part HI of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 2787

COMMITTEE ON THE TEACHING OF MIGRANT LANGUAGES IN SCHOOLS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools. I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

-I seek leave to table before the Senate the report of the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools. The Committee was set up by the Commonwealth Government, with the agreement of the State Ministers for Education, in November 1974, with Mr J. W. Mather, Assistant Secretary, Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth Department of Education, as its Chairman. The Committee was asked to bring together uptodate information about the extent of the teaching of languages of migrant groups in government and non-government schools, with some details of the composition of the groups and levels of primary and secondary education at which teaching is done. It was also asked to seek and collate views about desirable courses and to make suggestions about possible lines of action.

The major recommendation of the Committee is that education authorities should create widespread opportunities for children to study migrant languages and cultures in schools. The Committee emphasised that schools themselves should take the initiative in deciding to what extent and in what ways migrant languages and cultures should be studied after consultation between school principals, teachers, parents and the community. Such consultation would help the school to be able to respond to the expressed educational needs of the children in its area. The Committee also suggested that education authorities consider establishing a co-operative program, of limited duration and with defined funding, to implement its detailed recommendations for the teaching of migrant languages and cultures in schools.

It is pleasing to note that the Committee’s recommendations endorse the Government’s stated policy on recognising and encouraging the multi-cultural nature of the Australian community. The Government’s policy on Immigration and Ethnic Affairs states that Australians should be encouraged to develop an understanding of the cultures, language and history of migrant source countries, that appropriate ethnic studies should be introduced into teacher training curricula and that ethnic communities should be consulted and supported in their own programs of ethnic education. Schools are in a position to play a key role in relation to the overall implementation of this policy. The Prime Minister further stated in his policy spe”ech in November 1975: ‘The transmission and perpetration of ethnic languages and culture in Australian and ethnic schools will be encouraged and supported ‘. After this tabling the report will be publicly released so that it may be widely discussed.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I think every honourable senator appreciates the importance of this project I think the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) will appreciate the comments I want to make. I will give a positive example of the effectiveness of these operations. Many of us know of situations in which teenage illegal migrants have passed a technical college examination of a far higher standard than exists in Australia. Emergency operations have been carried out by bodies such as those mentioned in the report to salvage such personsI do not say this in a disparaging way- and get them into the Australian work force quickly. I instance the case of a number of eastern European illegal migrants, metalliferous miners, who after speaking to the Australian Workers Union and certain employers, and following liaison with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, were given crash courses in their occupation. I am pleased to say that now the door has been unlocked each of them has entered a key industry.

The report refers to the women who voluntarily visit migrants’ homes. I think they are doing a tremendous job. I know that the secretary of my colleague, Senator Sibraa, is one of those girls who give up two or three nights a week. This is the product of a bipartisan approach. It breaks the sound barrier with married women. After all, we believe that it is vital to reunite families. I could say a lot more but on that theme I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2788

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian delegation to Habitat, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, held in Vancouver during the period 3 1 May to 11 June 1976, together with the official United Nations report on that conference. Due to the limited number of copies available, reference copies of these reports have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library.

page 2788

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BOARD

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act I present the annual report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board for the year 1975-76.

page 2788

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: EMPLOYMENT OF MUSICIANS

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-I present a progress report from the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on its inquiry into the employment of musicians by the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-by lea ve-I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

In presenting this progress report to the Senate, I want to comment on the nature of the inquiry and to draw attention to some interesting aspects that have been noted by the Committee in the evidence it has reviewed so far. The first point I would like to make concerns the terms of reference of the inquiry. The Committee has interpreted the terms of reference as intending it not just to confine its investigations to employment of musicians within the Australian Broadcasting Commission itself but also to seek the views and opinions of individuals and other organisations which also are involved in the welfare, training and employment of professional musicians in Australia. The Committee has adopted this approach so as to develop a background or perspective against which it can carry out a more accurate appraisement of the role of the Australian Broadcasting Commission as an employer of professional musicians in Australia.

In the event, this approach has proved to be of value because it has given the Committee a wide range of opinions and comments from a large cross section of the Australian music fraternity, including individuals and organisations which have some association with the Australian Broadcasting Commission orchestras, and also those which compete with them. The Committee is assessing these comments and will be giving the Commission an opportunity to respond to them at a later public hearing.

Apart from issues which have a direct bearing on the ABC orchestras, the inquiry has also highlighted a number of other important aspects concerning the Australian music scene to which the Committee will make reference in its final report. In making some observations on the origin of this reference, there seems to be little doubt that this matter was referred to the Committee by the Senate as a result of reports that were circulating earlier this year suggesting that internal economy measures under consideration at the time by the ABC would include the possible dismantling of some of the Commission’s six symphony orchestras.

The Committee assumed that this would be an important issue in the inquiry but written and oral evidence presented by the ABC at public hearings suggests that, at that time, the Commission had no such cut-backs in mind. Further evidence has indicated that the then reported cut-backs were based mainly on speculation. However, in spite of the evidence, the Committee has noted since it began its public hearings, that there have been further reports that the Commission’s orchestras are vulnerable to cut back. It is evident that this latest concern for the ABC’s orchestras has been fuelled by the reported critical ABC budgetary position and the recent release of the Industries Assistance Commission and Green reports, both of which have queried the ABC’s need for six symphony orchestras. Although there has been much public discussion on the future of the orchestras, only a limited amount of this concern has been reflected in written and oral evidence received by the Committee so far in this inquiry.

Finally, I would like to mention some of the interesting issues that have emerged from the Committee’s review of evidence at this stage. It has been suggested that the ABC orchestras should move away from their traditional concept of ‘broadcast orchestras’ and be used in a wider community context such as more live performances at concerts, greater use in school concerts and to provide a more extended service to such organisations as state opera, ballet and theatre companies as well as choral societies. There has been a significant amount of evidence relating to a ‘proficiency gap’ between the music standards of graduates from the tertiary training institutions and those required for entry into an ABC symphony orchestra. The Committee has been told of the need for more effective music education at the primary and secondary school levels aimed not only at instrumental instruction but also at educating future generations for a better understanding and appreciation of fine music.

There is evidence pointing to a general shortage in Australia of musicians who are of a standard suitable for permanent employment in an ABC symphony orchestra. This shortage is particularly acute in string instrumentalists. The Committee has been told of the need for more post graduate music training to narrow the gap between the training institution and the professional career. It has been contended that there is a lack of employment opportunities for resident Australian soloists and that many seek employment opportunities overseas. In addition to the evidence taken in this inquiry, the Committee will also be taking note of the IAC and Green reports and will be presenting its final report early in the 1977 autumn sittings of the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2789

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE ARTS

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-Mr President, I seek leave to table certain evidence taken by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts during its inquiry into broadcasting and television and to make a brief statement relating to a new matter which the Committee has decided to investigate within the terms of its reference on all aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programs.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DAVIDSON:

- Mr President, I lay upon the table of the Senate volumes 1 and 2 of the transcript of evidence taken by the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts during its inquiry into broadcasting and television. I further inform the Senate that in a further consideration of the reference to this Committee on all aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programs, the Committee has decided to investigate the following matter

The impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children.

page 2789

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES COMMISSION

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, I present a report on the 1974-75 annual report of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2789

ANNUAL REPORTS

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-by leave- Mr President, over the last several months, you have forwarded to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare some 25 annual reports for its consideration and if necessary for report thereon. My Committee reports to the Senate that all these reports have been studied and that three of them, namely, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and Norfolk Island were invited to elaborate in writing on certain matters raised in their reports. We await replies from Aboriginal Affairs and Norfolk Island, and table a short report on some of the matters raised in CSL’s 1974-75 report. Mr President, in view of the pressure of business, we leave this report to speak for itself.

page 2789

CANBERRA CITY WASTES

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I bring up the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory entitled Canberra City Wastes: A Long Term Study Into Collection and Disposal.

Ordered that the report be printed.

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KNIGHT:

-This report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory examines and makes recommendations concerning the system of waste collection, disposal and management in Canberra. The Committee has placed particular emphasis on the need to find some alternative to the traditional landfill method of disposal, which makes little provision for the recovery and re-use of important resources. The report stresses the need to preserve many resources such as metal, glass and paper which are often indiscriminately disposed of in the existing system of waste collection and disposal. The Committee has therefore examined alternative waste collection methods, both for domestic and other waste materials, and has examined new technology available to separate resources before final disposal or for recycling. It is essential that these matters are constantly reviewed by planning and management authorities so that proposals for the introduction of new arrangements or disposal techniques in the Capital Territory should be the most effective available given the size of the Territory and the related region, which may be associated in this respect, and the need to re-use important materials. This is a responsibility we should be ready to accept and on which we should begin to take action now to preserve vital resources.

There are a number of recommendations concerning recycling and the need for increased public awareness of the benefits of measures to conserve valuable materials which are currently disposed of simply as ‘waste’. This need to recycle resources led the Committee to question some aspects of the National Capital Development Commission’s and the Department of the Capital Territory’s approach to the landfill method of waste disposal. This is not to suggest that any existing method for disposal could entirely replace the landfill method. The need for landfill will remain for the foreseeable future. But a number of measures could be taken to overcome some apparent problems with this means of disposal. For example, ‘tips’ should be sited so as to cause the least inconvenience to the public. Access roads and approaches should create the least possible nuisance to residents, either as a result of heavy traffic at particular times or because of litter falling from trailers and trucks on their way to disposal sites. We refer to problems that have arisen, for example, in Belconnen. These sites should also be managed so that they can be converted to community use in the shortest possible time after the landfill process has been completed. It was also felt that if the authorities encouraged separation of recyclable items for collection and re-use, the impact of landfill could be reduced. This led the Committee to question the ‘total collection’ system suggested by NCDC and the Department of the Capital Territory. This method does not in the Committee’s view do enough to facilitate recovery of resources and might, in effect, discourage separation and recycling.

The Committee has therefore suggested a scheme whereby separate containers would be supplied to householders for the collection of particular classes of waste such as paper, glass and metal. An intensive and concerted advertising and information campaign would be required to ensure the public co-operation essential for the success of the scheme. The Committee has recommended that a pilot study be conducted to test the scheme’s feasibility. We do not claim to have found an answer to the waste disposal problem. But the Committee was impressed by the necessity for communities to begin examining and, where possible, introducing systems for the collection and disposal of waste whereby resource conservation, recovery and recycling are seen as essential goals. The Committee is not as concerned that its proposed scheme be implemented in every particular as to be assured that the authorities in the Australian Capital Territory will begin to move in the direction indicated by the philosophy behind the proposals. We consider moves in this direction to be essential and inevitable for all communities. We hope the recommendations of the Committee will be seen as contributing to this process of reassessing assumptions and testing new means of collecting and disposing of the vast quantities of ‘waste’ materials generated by our society. The Committee was also concerned to find a number of deficiencies in legislation in the Australian Capital Territory relating to the issues before it. These arise in such areas as the enforcement of regulations which deal with littering, pollution of the air and disposal of radio-active waste. The Committee has directed the attention of the Minister for the Capital Territory and his Department and the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly to these matters, which, should be dealt with as soon as practicable.

In this brief statement I have not attempted to deal with all of the issues considered by the Committee or on which it has made recommendations. The subject is one of such complexity that the Committee might well have extended its inquiry. Although this reference has been with the Committee for two years, the present Committee had only one member of the former Committee among its members. The Committee has also undertaken a considerable workload during the current period of sittings. Senators will recall that two substantial reports on proposals to vary the plan of Canberra have been presented in the past 2 months. Thus, while the Committee could well have dealt with some aspects of the reference before it in greater detail, for example, the financial implications of various schemes of collection and disposal of waste, it was considered that the report should be presented at this stage as a contribution to the growing debate on the issues with which it deals. I would also draw the attention of senators to the bibliography which will be printed with the report. This was prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Library. The Committee was impressed with the range and comprehensiveness of this bibliography and felt that it should be made available to the Parliament and the public through this report. Unfortunately printed copies of the report will not be available for distribution today. It was not possible for printing to be completed. Copies of the report will, however, become available within the next 2 weeks.

I conclude by thanking all members of the Committee for the time and effort they have put in to producing this report at a time when the Parliament has been particularly busy. I would also thank, on behalf of all members of the Committee, the staff of the secretariat, both past and present, who have put in an enormous amount of effort to ensure that this report could be presented before the Parliament rises. I know that all senators are aware of the contribution which staff of the parliamentary departments frequently make in such circumstances but I would pay special tribute on this occasion to the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee staff. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 2791

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Motion (by Senator Thomas) proposed:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources for inquiry and report: The Commonwealth’s role in the assessment, planning, development and management of Australia s water resources, having particular regard to:

the diverse responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States, and

the National Water Policy Statement recently endorsed by the Australian Water Resources Council.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-by leave- I support with enthusiasm this reference to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. Included in the reference is a request that the Committee pay particuluar regard to the National Water Policy Statement. I merely ask the Committee to examine also the work, the report and the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution because this reference today represents and opportunity to make an historical advance on the work carried out between 1968 and 1970.

page 2791

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

-by leave- I move:

That the current reference to the Committee relating to development in the South Pacific be amended by deleting the words ‘toward development’.

For the information of honourable senators, the terms of reference will now read:

The need for an increased Australian commitment in the South Pacific.

I add that Senator Primmer approves of the changed wording. The change was found necessary after discussions yesterday with officers of the Foreign Affairs Department. It was felt that the previous wording would be rather restrictive to the Committee ‘s consideration of the reference.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2791

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 7 December, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– Last evening I pointed out that the former Government could have accepted my motion on compensation for dispossession which was carried by the Senate. The former Government could have implemented some of the recommendations contained in my speech to that motion. Unfortunately the then Government did not see fit to do that. I shall not pursue the matter at this stage. But I feel that it is relevant now to point out those facts to the Senate and to members of the former Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Government have stated categorically that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill must be passed by this Parliament this session. I am proud to say that the Government places a great deal of importance on what this Bill means to my people and intends to keep faith with them. I intend to do nothing to prevent that from happening. I agree with the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) that this is an important Bill, the passage of which means keeping faith with the Aboriginal community of this nation. Much can be said of the Bill. Some concern has been expressed about it. As I said during my speech last evening, this Bill is perhaps not the ultimate or the best. Perhaps there are provisions in it which are not in accordance with the thinking of some people. But it is a Bill of great significance. I want to see it passed by this House. I had hoped that a bipartisan approach to this important Bill would have been adopted by all members of this chamber.

We, the Aboriginal people of this country, have known many atrocities and much suffering in the past. We are conscious of what we have been deprived and of our dispossession. But Aboriginal people in their natural habitat are a kind, gentle people. We are now seeking compensation. Some of us are demanding compensation. We want this compensation. We want recognition of our entitlements. But we want to retain our former attitudes. We do not want to do what white men did to us. We want to work in harmony. I believe that my elders in the tribal situation in the Northern Territory would wish this. We do not want to dispossess other people. We do not want to force on other people that which was forced on us, but we do want what is rightfully ours and we want just treatment in whatever is to happen in relation to land rights in the Northern Territory.

I have sat as a member of this chamber for some 5Vi years now. I say to Senator Cavanagh that, in that 5Vi years, I have never seen one member of the Australian Labor Party vote against his Party. He follows directly down the Party line because he dares do nothing else. Members of the Opposition have constantly challenged members on this side of the chamber to do what they do not have the courage to do. On occasion, I have practised my right of conscience and I have taken that short walk across the chamber. I have never seen a member of the Labor Party do that. I have never seen Senator Cavanagh do it. Surely being human beings- being people- we must have a conscience and there must be times when our consciences differ from our party view. But honourable senators on the other side of the chamber are not prepared to take that action. Yet they challenge us to do what they do not have the courage to do.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs foreshadowed a motion in the other place for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee comprising the 8 members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and 6 senators- three from the Government and three from the Opposition. The motion provides that the committee be required to report by 3 1 May 1 977 and that it should have the following terms of reference: Firstly, to examine and report on the operation of the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 relating to the identification of traditional owners of Aboriginal land and the means of establishing the views of such owners to the satisfaction of the relevant land councils; secondly, the adequacy of provisions of the law of the Northern Territory relating to entry to Aboriginal land, the protection of sacred and significant sites, wildlife conservation and entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land; and, thirdly, any other matters referred by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

I will be nominating to be a member of that committee. I hope that members of the Opposition also will nominate to be on that committee. Then we will be able to examine this Bill and make sure that the spirit of it is carried out, we will be able to examine what the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly is proposing in these very important areas in relation to complementary legislation, we will be able to ensure that the Aboriginal commissions are doing their jobs satisfactorily, that they are the servants of the traditional owners and that they will be working to ensure that the rights of the traditional owners are preserved, and we will be able to exercise an oversight to ensure that the Aboriginal people, that my tribal elders in the Northern Territory, will have their lands and that their lands will be protected. As I said last evening, I intend to stay in this chamber, God willing, for a long time yet. I, as the lone Aboriginal voice in this Parliament, together with my colleagues- men like Fred Chaney, Peter Baume, Alan Missen and quite a few others who have shown a great concern in regard to this Bill and who will be supporting me- will be watching very closely the implementation of this land rights Bill to ensure that my people are not deprived of that to which they are rightly and justly entitled.

For a short time, a very short time, I would like to address myself to the members of my race. I am proud to say that some of them are sitting in the galleries today. I was very proud last evening when I saw a particular gentleman sitting in the galleries. I direct myself to the presence of Professor Stanner, a man who has fought for years for land rights for and just treatment of the Aboriginal people. As I have said, I would like to address myself for a short time to my own people. I ask them not to be fooled and not to be taken in by the grandstanding that sometimes takes place in this chamber and outside of it.

Senator Ryan:

– The grandstanding is on your side.

Senator BONNER:

- Senator Ryan, when you have lived as an Aborigine and have been subjected to all the things to which Aborigines have been subjected, you can point the finger at me, but until that time all I ask of you is that you hear me. I say to my own people: Do not be fooled. Do not be deceived. We have been deceived in the past and I am sure that there will be attempts to deceive us again. I assure my people that what I do in this chamber and outside of it is what my conscience dictates to be in the best interests of the Aboriginal people. I will continue to carry the flag, as it were, and I will continue to fight for just and fair treatment for my people.

This debate will continue into the Committee stage of the consideration of the Bill. I hope that during the course of this day this Bill will be passed and become law. At long last some of the Aboriginal people of this country will then receive their just rights. As I said earlier today or last night, this Bill is only catering for some 27 000 Aborigines.

Senator Coleman:

– Only catering for them? What do you mean by ‘only catering’ for them?

Senator BONNER:

-Why do you not listen to what I am saying, Senator Coleman? It is only catering for 27 000 Aborigines. There are 160 000-plusofus.

Senator Coleman:

– I do not care if there is only one.

Senator BONNER:

-There are 160 000-plus of us. If you will be patient and listen to what I have to say I am sure that you will agree with me when I say that this Bill is only catering for approximately 27 000 Aborigines. In this country there are 160 000 people who, under the terms of my motion, are entitled to compensation for dispossession. Whilst I am proud that 27 000 of my people are being catered for, I say to this chamber and to this nation that the time has come when the remainder of that 160 000-plus have to be recognised and compensated for their dispossession.

During the course of the speech in which I moved my motion I referred to many things pertaining to compensation for dispossession. I suggested that the time had come when the Government must recognise the fact that the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were once in possession of this nation and should introduce legislation to compensate the said indigenous people for the loss of their land. This has notappened. All that has happened is that Aborigines have been the recipients of charity- charity of the government of the day. We have seen examples of that on so many occasions. When I became a member of this Senate in 1971 the Liberal-National Country Party Government was in office. It allocated money for what was termed Aboriginal advancement. When the Australian Labor Party came to office it allocated money for Aboriginal advancement.

There have been changes of government since then. There has been an increase and then there has been a decrease. Who knows what will happen next if we continue under the system that exists at the moment? What will happen in the future is that as governments change and the attitudes of people change, so will the amount of money allocated for Aborigines change, according to the will of the government of the day or its sympathy or non-sympathy or whatever the case may be. But, under the terms of my motion, the setting up of a compensation fund to be administered by competent Aborigines, the setting up of a statutory body, would enable Aborigines to use the money to which they are justly entitled in compensation for their dispossession of almostexcept for that provided for under this Bill- the entire nation. This nation has to answer that question some day, and the sooner the better. Professor Colin Tass wrote an article on this subject just recently. I think all members of this chamber should read it because much, if not all, of what he said is true. The matters that he pointed to as being things that could happen in the near future also bear listening to. I am happy that a section of the Aboriginal community is being catered for under this Bill. I will not be satisfied and I know that thinking Aborigines will never be satisfied until the governments of this country recognise Aborigines as the original owners of this entire nation and bring in compensation for dispossession. I will look to that day and I will continue to work for that day. I support the Bills and hope that they will be carried this day.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I have listened to the debate on these 3 Bills with a great deal of interest over the last 2 days.

Senator Baume:

– Not always in the chamber.

Senator COLEMAN:

-I do not have to be in the chamber to listen to debate. As Senator Baume knows, we have piped music from this chamber into our offices. We can work and listen at the same time without any trouble. I was extremely interested in what Senator Bonner had to say. My interjection was only to imply that even if only one Aboriginal was to be concerned by this legislation, he was entitled to the protection of this Parliament. The debate has been an extremely sensitive one. The subject is a very sensitive one. I listened particularly carefully to what my colleague from the Northern Territory, Senator Robertson, had to say yesterday. I must congratulate him on his speech. I think he covered most areas very concisely and spoke with the true feeling he has for the Aboriginal people. I was not able to listen to another speech that was made about 8 weeks ago in Melbourne. It was also a very sensitive speech. I would like to quote part of it into the record to show the sensitivity of feeling that was expressed by the speaker at that time. He said:

I feel sure there is almost no person in Australia who has not become aware in recent years of the relationship between Aboriginals and their land.

This relationship, or kinship, is a very special kind of thing. To Aboriginals, land is indivisible with life itself. Aboriginals are one with nature, with all the animals the land supports. The features of the land are believed by the Aboriginals to have been made by spirits of the Dreamtime.

This special kinship is the basis of the land rights movement. It is not just a desire to own land-as we might- for economic exploitation.

Later he said:

The traditional Aboriginal’s way of life gave him an understanding and love of nature for which we may envy him but which we may rarely, if ever, possess ourselves.

He further said:

His land is his world, where all his people’s actual and mythical history took place, and it thus Ties at the root of his art and religion also. It is his homeland and his shrine and much more besides.

It is easily forgotten that until very recent times Aboriginal people were forbidden to speak their own languages and observe their traditional customs in what was considered by Administrators to be an enlightened policy of assimilation ‘.

It was considered to be only a matter of time before the last vestiges of Aboriginal belief were drowned in the vast melting pot.

Those were the remarks of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) at the opening of the Aboriginal exhibit at ‘Environment 76’ on 8 October. They show that the Minister himself feels that anything to do with Aboriginal land is a very sensitive subject. My concern in particular with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976 is that under clause 73 certain powers are to be given to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Those powers relate to the protection of sacred sites, the entry of persons to Aboriginal land, the conservation of wildlife and the access to territorial seas. I am concerned with the clause because, as honourable senators will know, Mr Justice Woodward in his report recommended that these powers should be held by the Federal Government. I think his words were that they should be matters for Commonwealth legislation. I have to agree with Mr Justice Woodward. I believe that it is not only necessary but also essential that the Federal Government have that control.

To illustrate that point I want to talk briefly about what has happened in my State of Western Australia within the last 2 weeks with regard to Aboriginal land. I want honourable senators to remember these actions when amendments are moved later. I hope they will recall what has already happened in Western Australia and what could happen in the Northern Territory if the land rights Bill goes through in its present form. I have spoken on a number of occasions in this place about the settlement of Oombulgurri in the north of Western Australia. I have expressed both my delight and my despair at some of the things that either were or were not happening at Oombulgurri. I want to quote an article from the West Australian of 25 November, just 2 weeks ago. It is not a very long article but it is a most important one. It is important in relation to this Bill. I am conscious of course that the eastern States’ newspapers do not cover to any great extent anything that happens in the west unless it is considered sensational, and then they might decide it is worthy of a couple of paragraphs in the back section of the paper with the comics or the sporting news. I have been concerned that many times in this chamber we have heard Government supporters and Ministers elected by the people of Western Australia say that they do not read the Western Australian newspapers. So for the benefit of those from Western Australia and from the other States I intend to read the entire article. The headline reads:

Govt ‘Aims to Breach’ Reserve.

The article goes on:

The Society of Labor Lawyers yesterday accused the State Government of proposing to violate an Aboriginal reserve on behalf of mining interests.

It said that the Government had done this by declaring the Forrest River Aboriginal reserve in the far north of Western Australia open for mining.

The move had dangerous implications for Aborigines who lived on reserves in Western Australia.

It opened the way for anyone with a miner’s right to enter and prospect on reserves.

The society was commenting on the Government’s decision to call for applications for temporary reserves in the Forrest River area.

The SLL president, Mr Howard Olney, said yesterday that the Government was using Section 275 of the Mining Act as a back-door method to achieve its aims.

The section allowed mining, with the Governor’s approval, on reserves.

Last year legislation to allow the Government to approve mining activity on reserves had been shelved after widespread protests by Aborigines and their friends.

The Government was now acting on a 72 -year-old statute.

Mr Olney said: ‘In our opinion, it is another example of the Court government’s contempt for the rights of ordinary people, particularly when those rights stand in the way of the profits of its wealthy friends.

We are aware that the Government has promised to refer any applications for mining reservations to the Aboriginal Lands Trust.

We have little confidence, however, that any notice would be taken by the Court government of any objection that the trust might raise which would seriously interfere with the drive for pro fit’.

Because mention was made of the Aboriginal Lands Trust, let us look at what its chairman, Mr Ken Colbung, had to say. His remarks were reported in the Sunday Times of 28 November, 3 days later. He said:

Mr Mensaros

That is the Western Australian Minister for Mines- has said no mining will commence without reference to the Aboriginal Lands Trust, but I know he won’t pay any attention to our views.

If this goes through unchallenged the Trust will lose all credibility, and it will be the finish of our land rights.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill, which we are debating cognately with 2 others, is to do with Northern Territory land rights. I believe that the actions of the Western Australian Government are completely contrary to the wishes of the Aboriginal people at Oombulgurri and on every other reserve in Western Australia. This is traditional Aboriginal land that we are discussing. This Bill covers traditional Aboriginal land. Yet we are saying that we will pass the power to control all these things to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Dr Letts has already said that in fact the land councils would be abolished if the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly gained control over the land. We heard from Senator Baume yesterday afternoon about this Bill respecting sacred sites and traditional lands. This is not important just to the Aboriginal people; I believe it is important to all Australian people.

Senator Baume:

– I agree.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am glad that you do. I was a bit disturbed at some of the things you had to say yesterday. The Aboriginal people have a distinctive soul feeling for their lands- the land where they lived, the land where they were conceived, and the land where they were born. All the Aboriginals know who owns that particular piece of land. A great number of the problems of the cities and the towns are being created purely and simply because traditional Aboriginal land has been taken away from traditional Aboriginal people.

I have spoken before about the problems in places like Kununurra, Broome and Derby in Western Australia; particularly about Kununurra where many problems have been created by transient type Aboriginals coming into the outskirts of the townships because they have nowhere else to go and because their traditional Aboriginal land has now been buried under metres of water at the Ord River dam. One has to wonder whether those problems that are being experienced, not only by the black community but also by the white community in those townships, were in actual fact caused by the fact that the Aboriginals no longer have this soul feeling with the land. The situation there is not unique. It pertains in the Northern Territory as much as it does in Western Australia, Queensland or wherever there are numbers of Aboriginals.

The Western Australian State Government has now opened up one of the few areas where the Aboriginals were coping quite well with the community in which they were living. They were able to grow their own vegetables. They participated in the various agricultural shows being held in their areas. They were arranging housing and had asked the Government for more money so that they could have housing. They were endeavouring to provide services and goods for the 400-odd people who live on the reserve at Oombulgurri. Yet now we find that at a time when they are negotiating for mining rights on that very land the State Government nas seen fit to open the land for all and sundry to compete. Anyone with a miner’s right can simply make application to the Government to mine on that property. The traditional Aboriginal property that belongs to them should be maintained for them by them. If the Western Australian State Government got applications from 2 people for mining rights at Oombulgurri, one of which was from the Aboriginals who are resident on that land and the other from a large mining company, who do honourable senators think would get the guernsey? It would not be the Aborigines, not with the State Government that we have in office at the present time in Western Australia but which will change in the early months of next year.

Yesterday Senator Baume said that this Bill allows for the protection of sacred sites. A question is raised in my mind because of my participation on a particular Senate select committee some 2 years ago. That Committee was the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control. Senator Chaney and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack were also members of that Committee. As part of the commission that we had received from this chamber we made a tour of all of the mining areas including the Bowen Basin, the Mt Isa mines, the bauxite mines at Gove and eventually we got out into the Northern Territory to Jabiru and Jabaluka and some other place that I cannot recall. While there we were taken to the extreme end of the lease holding. A fence was constructed to within 2 feet of what was considered to be sacred tribal land. I was concerned that we were allowing all but access to those sacred lands by people who would be working on that lease holding. I had to stop to consider then just how long it would probably be before someone violated the sacred feelings that those Aboriginals in that area have about that particular site. There were magnificent carvings that had been done many generations ago by the forebears of the Aboriginals there and perhaps some of those who are sitting in the gallery today. I was concerned when I read this BUI that there is insufficent protection for sacred sites because we have not yet clearly defined by Aboriginal standards what they consider to be sacred sites. There are many that are unknown to us. There are many that are known only to Aboriginals who live out in the middle of the Northern Territory who have very little contact if any at all with white man. So we have to be concerned on that issue as well.

Another area of concern I believe is a report that was presented to me and which was incorporated yesterday in the Senate by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Keeffe) but which I understand was not read. Portions of it disturb me greatly. It is the report on the progress of the building program being undertaken at Beagle Bay in Western Australia from its inauguration in 1974 until the present time. Allegations are being made of Aboriginals resident on the mission at Beagle Bay being ‘ripped off’- I think was the expression used at one stage by the missionaries or the administrative committee that was managing the mission- and the administrative committee that was managing the mission- and the frustration of the architects who were endeavouring to set up housing facilities and sewerage facilities for the Aborigines who live there.

An integral part of all of these Bills is the housing, welfare and education of the Aboriginal people. I have spoken about this many times. I have spoken about the lack of concern being shown by the media about incidents that happen to Aboriginal people that might not necessarily have occurred if in actual fact the person had been white, not black. We have to be concerned that irrespective of what we do today the effect is not going to be felt only by those 27 000 Aboriginals who are resident in the Northern Territory but also by the 160 000 Aboriginals who live in Australia. They are all equally entitled to land rights and they are entitled to the protection of this Government- not by a government that is sitting somewhere up in Darwin when it feels so inclined and has no regular pattern of meetings and really does not have a good deal of feeling for anything other than the vested interests in its particular area.

Senator Bonner said earlier that he intended nominating for the committee that is being established under the terms of reference that were set down late yesterday evening by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). I am also one who intends nominating on behalf of my Party to participate on that committee. If this Bill has any substance, if it has the guts that is necessary to give the people their complete land rights- their true land rights-there would not be any necessity to set up such a committee.

Senator Young:

– You are not suggesting that your proposals are perfect, are you?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am not suggesting that our original proposals were perfect. I am simply saying that they are a vast improvement on what the Government has come up with now after this legislation has laid on the table in the House of Representatives since June of this year. The Government has come up with a handful of amendments to a Bill which has no substance and the amendments which give no substance to the Bill.

Senator Young:

-But do you not agree that there should be a committee to look at further improvements that might be made to any legislation?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I think the time for the setting up of the committee was before the Bill was actually drafted. I would suggest to the Government that it might like to take it back, redraft it and then represent it to this Parliament before it is passed.

Senator Baume:

– The Aborigines would then be without land rights.

Senator COLEMAN:

-Is it better to give them land rights or is it better to deny them land rights for perhaps another 3 months so that they have the benefit of that redrafted legislation when it comes into being or are we to have these amending Bills consistently coming up for review because the legislation is not adequate? The amendments being proposed by the Government are not adequate and no matter what we on the Opposition side do with amendments we are never going to be able to re-arrange a Bill and give it the substance that is necessary for the Aborigines to have complete control of the land to which they are entitled. Quite frankly, I am not prepared to see the Aboriginals ripped off by this Government. I am not prepared to see them ripped off by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, any more than I am prepared to see them ripped off as the report on the Beagle Bay construction suggests that they were ripped off. There is provision in this Bill and in the amendments proposed by the Govenment for just that kind of action to happen.

I am concerned not only for the Northern Territory Aboriginals but also for each and every Aboriginal throughout the length and breadth of this continent. Honourable senators opposite would do well to consider that what they determine in this place at this time will have a tremendous effect on all of those Aboriginals. Of course, I will be placing my support behind the amendments that will be moved from this side of the chamber at a later stage. I trust that at least some honourable senators opposite will take into consideration what has already occurred in this debate and that they will take great care when they cast their vote, because the Aboriginals and the people of Australia will be watching them.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– in reply- We are debating 3 Bills, 2 of which are important and one of which is of historical significance. As I have arranged with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Keeffe), I shall refer briefly to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bdi (No. 2) first of all, then to the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill, and then I shall deal with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill. It would not be possible to summarise all of the points that have been made throughout the debate by honourable senators on both sides of the Senate. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) has noted the many speeches that have been made and has noted the many points which are relevent to his considerations.

I turn to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill (No. 2). The matter of whether incorporation is mandatory under the Bill was raised, first of all, by Senator Keefee and later by other honourable senators. I wish to refer to some of the points that the Minister made when he was discussing this matter with his State colleagues and to other statements which he has made in regard to this matter. At the meeting which the Minister held with State Ministers he explained that the Bill is simply a vehicle for allowing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to incorporate as Aboriginal councils and groups of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to incorporate as associations. The

Minister’s second reading speech clearly indicates that the legislation has been tailored to meet the specific needs of Aboriginals and their particular social system rather than forcing them necessarily to change their affairs, for example, into a company or into other corporate structures such as a club-type association or co-operative body.

The Bill in no way interferes with matters that are the responsibility of the States. It is an exercise of the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers and its responsibility to make special laws for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people where a need is seen for that to be done. Matters have been raised with the Federal Minister by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and by State Ministers. Those matters are receiving the consideration of the Minister. I understand that a great deal of discussion has been held on many of the matters that have been raised. In those areas in which local government already exists, the position of local government is to be preserved under subclause 1 of clause 30 of the Bill. That clause expressly provides that Aboriginal council by-laws cannot supersede the laws of the State enforcing the area of a council. Of course, that situation applies to local government by-laws made under statutory authority which are, as much as any other, laws of the State.

There are other reasons for drafting the Bill in this way. I assure those honourable senators who have raised the matter of incorporation that under the Bill incorporation is not mandatory and that organisations can continue to incorporate under what legislation they choose. The Government decided that there should be no conflict between local government and the operations of councils under the provisions of this Bill. Until such time as councils are well established and operating under the provisions of the Bill, it is appropriate that the by-laws of the councils be tabled in the Parliament, which we assume the amendments to be moved will require. The proposed amendment is not acceptable because the Bill as it is presently drafted reflects a direct Government decision. When that amendment is proposed we can deal with those matters that fall within its terms.

I draw attention also to the matters of expenditure and management that were raised by Senator Keeffe. These comments can be related to the Bill I am presently discussing. Senator Keeffe implied that Aboriginal people were being blamed by the Government for mismanagement and inefficiency on the part of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, of consulting firms assisting

Aboriginals, and of the non-Aboriginal employees of Aboriginal organisations. I make it perfectly clear that the Government has never suggested that Aboriginal organisations were blameworthy. I think I have already indicated, and I know that the Minister has indicated, that that is the Government’s attitude. The Government does not take the attitude that the Aboriginal organisations are blameworthy. As we stated earlier, a decision on making public the report of the Hay inquiry had not been made because several matters were under consideration by the Government or were urgently being examined at that time by interdepartmental committees. As we all know now, the report was tabled on 5 October. As soon as these examinations had been completed and the decisions were made by the Government, it was clear what the intentions of the Government were in regard to these matters.

Each of the specific allegations of misappropriation and mismanagement which were made by Senator Keeffe on 14 September have been examined, and not one of them has been substantiated. It is apparent that the information given to Senator Keeffe was not accurate. I believe that these matters have now been satisfactorily resolved. Senator Keeffe and other honourable senators had the opportunity subsequently of seeking explanations on proposed expenditure from Senate Estimates Committee D. The evidence given and the statements made at that time by the officers of the Department were frank and, I believe, satisfactory. They gave no support to the kinds of allegations that were made in September by Senator Keeffe. I am not implying that areas of administration cannot be improved to ensure a better delivery of services to Aboriginals and to ensure that those most in need are assisted. It is obvious from the report of the Hay inquiry that administration can be improved, and that is surely the objective of the Government. The Government has acted on the recommendations of the Hay report.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is now reviewing a number of departmental programs and activities. These relate to particular functions and to matters affecting administration generally. The major purpose of these reviews is to establish firm guidelines for the funding and management of all programs administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We hope that these reviews will be completed by the end of this year. We also hope that, as a result of these reviews, the delivery of services to Aborigines will be further improved. The examination and review of programs for Aboriginal advancement will continue in order to improve the effectiveness of the Department and other organisations which are responsible for the delivery of services to Aboriginal people.

The Minister has said that he would like to emphasise that the rumours which appear to be the basis of some of the matters raised by Senator Keeffe are not founded on fact. They will not be considered in the exercise and they will not provide a basis for Government policy or programs. The Government has every reason to believe that the vast majority of Aboriginal organisations and non-Aboriginal people working with or for those organisations, including government employees and private consultants, are trustworthy and dedicated. The examinations which have been undertaken so far have given no cause to believe otherwise. While I am dealing with the Bill related to councils and associations, I think it is important to express the confidence of the Government in the management of the councils and associations and to express our belief that they will do much to assist in the delivery of services and in the advancement of the Aboriginal people generally.

The second Bill to which I wish to refer in summary is the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill. That Bill, as presented, reflects the Labor Government’s legislation of the same name. It requires the presentation of full information on the expenditure of funds. It was not considered necessary to add additional words of the type which the Opposition will probably seek to add by means of an amendment later today, because it was felt that information of the type sought by Senator Keeffe is more appropriately located in the Department’s annual reports and should be sought by a specific request for additional information when we are dealing with matters of finance or from the Minister in general terms. The Minister did respond to the amendment similar to the one which is proposed to be moved today. He said that this Bill will authorise the payment to the States of moneys already appropriated by this Parliament for that purpose. The purposes for which money is spent will be fully laid out and open to debate by the House in Budget debates and at other times. It is felt that the amendment is unnecessary. It is for these reasons that we will later signify that the Government does not feel itself able to accept the amendment of the Opposition.

I turn now to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill. I believe we all regard this as the significant Bill in the debate which we have been conducting over the past 2 days. It is significant because we are now reaching the final stages of the parliamentary process to give effect to what has been a long promise to Aboriginal people in this country that they will have legislation that will give them land rights. I believe the debate that has been conducted has shown the interest of all members in both Houses to see the fruition of that promise. Naturally, I am delighted that it is my Government which will be finalising this Bill. I think we should pay tribute to the many people, who for a long time, have been working towards the legislation which can give effect to the promises that have been made.

Many honourable senators have mentioned the work of Senator Bonner. I should also like to mention the Minister whom I represent, Mr Viner. Without his dedication to this purpose and without his overcoming the many differences that did exist, I believe we would not be in the position we are in today of seeing the final stages of this Bill being reached. I think we should also pay a tribute to Mr Dexter, the head of the Department, and to his officers for their cooperation, ingenuity and dedication in seeing that we were able to find a common ground on which interests could be met. This has led us to the stage where we are now almost ready to pass a Bill which will give traditional Aboriginals inalienable freehold title to land on reserves in the Northern Territory and which will provide machinery for them to obtain tide to traditional land outside their reserves.

The coalition parties’ policy on Aboriginal affairs clearly acknowledges that affinity with the land is fundamental to Aboriginal sense of identity. It recognises the right of Aboriginals to obtain title to traditional lands located within the reserves in the Northern Territory. Perhaps those words in our policy do not adequately express the emotions that Aboriginals feel or that we feel as we now enact this legislation. As Senator Coleman has just said, it is a most sensitive issue and one on which I can understand the emotions which have been expressed. We are indebted to people such as Senator Robertson and Senator Kilgariff, who have shared with us their own experiences of living and working in the Territory. They understand more closely than many of us what this Bill will mean and the effect it will have on Aboriginals who have such a strong feeling about their traditional rights to the land around them.

The Government believes that this Bill will allow and encourage Aboriginals in the Northern Territory to give full expression to the affinity with the land that characterises their traditional society and which has given a unique quality to their life. Senator Robertson mentioned that there was still some doubt in people’s minds about land trusts and land councils. Perhaps it would be wise in summarising this debate, to stress just briefly the provision of the Bill with regard to land trusts and councils. The lands described in the first schedule, such as the Hermansburg and Santa Teresa missions in Central Australia and the Delissaville area near Darwin, being existing reserves, will be vested in Aboriginal land trusts composed of Aboriginals living in the area concerned, or traditional owners living outside the area, who will hold tide on behalf of the traditional owners and those other Aboriginals entitled by Aboriginal tradition to use and to occupy those lands. The Government will continue to explore the possibility of the title being held directly by the traditional owners themselves. It is the Government’s aim to achieve this goal eventually. Provision has been made in the Bill for the trust areas to be divided among any number of smaller trusts. But the concept still presents considerable legal and practical difficulties. It must be approached with care and sensitivity to Aboriginal wishes.

Land councils in the Northern Territory will have the central responsibility in relation to the administration of Aboriginal land. But we are committed to ensuring that they act on the advice and with the consent of the traditional owners and express the wishes and opinions of Aboriginals in their own areas. The land councils will continue to represent Aboriginal traditional owners in negotiations over land use and mineral developments. They will be further strengthened in line with the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward by giving them the function of assisting Aboriginals to bring forward land claims. Land councils are all Aboriginal bodies. Membership will be chosen by Aboriginals. They will provide the administrative contact point with governments, miners and with all who may wish to have dealings with Aboriginals concerning their land. The Bill further provides for a land commissioner and the other things which have been mentioned. It makes provision with regard to mining and other things.

Perhaps when summarising the debate it would be important to mention the changes that have occurred in this Bill when compared with the Bill which was presented in October 1 975 by the previous Government. We have decided that this legislation should deal exclusively with traditional land rights. We have defined the nature of Aboriginal land rights we are recognising by vesting title in trusts for the benefit of all those Aboriginals with traditional land rights to use and occupy the land in question. This is a fundamental provision which was missing from the previous Government’s Bill. We believe that we have stated more clearly the functions and powers of the land councils so that the councils will express the wishes of the Aboriginal people. The predominant position of the traditional owners has been asserted.

This Bill also gives scope for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to participate in this most important legislative process and, in particular, in relation to the protection of sacred sites and wildlife on Aboriginal lands and the control of entry into those lands and adjacent waters. It provides guidelines for the kind of laws which should be made by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to guarantee recognition of traditional rights in those laws. It states that sites of traditional significance should not be desecrated. The Bill leaves it to the Northern Territory legislation to spell out detailed provisions for their protection in accordance with Aboriginal wishes. I wish to stress again what has been said by other speakers: The Government has an expressed understanding from the majority leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly that any ordinances will be prepared in consultation with and with the agreement of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. We believe that that will cover the situation and will enable a co-operative form of legislation to work in the interests of the Aboriginal landholders. In the light of experience, we feel that the undertaking that has been given by the Assembly in the Northern Territory will be honoured and will work in the best interests of us all.

Senator Keeffe made some other points when he led for the Opposition on this matter. I shall refer to some of them now and perhaps others may come forward during the debate at the Committee stage. He referred to the matter of mining. I want to assure him that amendments to the Bill since it was originally introduced in June protect existing interests as was recommended by Mr Justice Woodward. The basic rights of Aboriginals to choose whether mining or exploration should take place on their land and on what terms they are effected, are parts of the Bill which should have his attention. I believe they would reassure him on the points that he has raised.

With regard to the Legislative Assembly, as I have stated, we are working with the Assembly to achieve co-operative legislation. The central provisions in regard to land rights are all contained in the Bill with which we are now dealing in this Parliament. It is a fact that important but peripheral matters are left to Territory law. As I have said, the Minister will work in close consultation with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. There are safeguards in the form of guidelines in the Bill. I believe that they will ensure that the Assembly works in the way in which we envisage this Bill should work. The Territory law will provide for Aboriginals to control entry to their land. It will provide for wildlife protection, for entry to seas near their land and access to their sacred sites. Aboriginals with interests in the Tanami Desert Sanctuary and all Aboriginal pastoral lease-holding groups will be able to claim land if they wish. Claims can be readily dealt with and all Aboriginals outside reserves will be on equal footing in seeking title to land in which they believe they have an interest.

No recent amendments affect the situation of Mount Isa Mines in relation to the silver, lead or zinc deposits in the Macarthur River area or the Aboriginal land claims in the area. Claims already lodged to vacant Crown land by Aboriginals will be heard by Land Commissioners acting with the authority of the legislation rather than by the Interim Commissioner who has no statutory authority. The fact that Mount Isa Mines has held leases in the area for years does not affect Aboriginal land claims. Another matter that was raised related to details of exploration licences. The Bill protects from consent procedures mining companies which applied before 4 June 1976 for mineral or petroleum leases on the basis of exploration licences. The companies affected in this instance are Queensland Mines at Nabarlek, the Ranger joint venturers, Magellan and Partners at the Mereenie and Palm Valley Oil and Gas fields. I think some reference was made to Yirrkala. I believe that one of the documents tabled may have been a summary record of the meeting held on 18 June at Yirrkala and sent to the Minister. The points which were made are said to be consistent with the amendments proposed by the Labor Party and the Government’s Bill is also fully in accord with the points made by the Yirrkala community. I have a document which may be the one which was referred to by Senator Keeffe.

Another matter raised was the exploration of the freeze on granting leases on vacant Crown land. This does not apply to town areas as Senator Keeffe suggested. Claims to land have been lodged and will be fully protected. Where there was some concern on this matter, the statements made by the Minister with regard to the freezing of granting of leases should satisfactorily resolve the situation. The Minister spoke on this matter on 2 November in the other place. In answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), he said:

Ail that the 2 land councils need to do is give notice of intention to make claims in respect of areas of vacant Crown land. Because of the time that has elapsed it is believed from experience that that will enable all possible claims to be made. However, I have told Aboriginal groups that should it be established that additional time is required, notwithstanding the agreement I have made with my colleague, they will receive all due consideration. I am quite satisfied that with the combination of those 2 things Aboriginals will be fully protected in any claims they wish to make to vacant Crown land.

As I understand it, the Minister has given notice of a motion that he will establish a joint parliamentary committee. I am pleased to hear that senators from both sides of the Senate have volunteered to be members of that Committee. The terms of reference of that Committee will be to examine and report on the operation of provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 relating to the identification of traditional owners of Aboriginal land and the means of establishing the views of such owners to the satisfaction of the relevant land council; the adequacy of provisions of the laws in the Northern Territory relating to entry to Aboriginal land, the protection of sites of significance, wildlife conservation, and entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land; and any other matters referred to it by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I believe that the Joint Parliamentary committee will be a responsible body which may work continually towards the second steps we hope to take with regard to land rights for Aboriginal people.

I noted that Senator Robertson supports the basic principles of this Bill, in particular the essential provision that land will be held by trust for the benefit of all Aboriginals entitled to use and occupy the land in accordance with the traditional law and custom. He also stressed the importance of the Bill to the future of the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory. I also noted the statements he made about the difficulties in dealing with, under our style of legal custom, land claims by Aboriginals who live under an entirely different system. We have all recognised those difficulties. We feel that the way in which this Bill overcomes them is a step forward, and perhaps the first step, as has been expressed by some other people. Senator Kilgariff expressed concern about the extent to which the Bill and the land councils reflect the views of Aboriginal elders. Some Aboriginal elders in central Australian have expressed concern but apparently on the basis of inadequate explanations of the Bill. This is natural. With a complex Bill there is not necessarily suspicion but there can be misunderstanding and apprehension. I believe that progressively we should work with Aboriginal elders and leaders so that we are able to interpret for them what the Bill establishes and enable them to tell their people the provisions of the Bill.

The Minister, Mr Viner, has replied to the telegram quoted by Senator Kilgariff, and those who signed it attended a meeting of the Land Council within the last 2 weeks. After a full day’s discussion with these people and a detailed explanation of the amended Bill they indicated that they were satisfied that the Bill did not conflict with Aboriginal custom. It is important that we recognise their custom and their understanding of their relationships with one another and with the land and that this Bill does not conflict with that. I want to respond to some of the other matters raised by Senator Kilgariff by saying that land councils are directed by traditional owners. If the land councils do not carry out the orders of traditional owners, the traditional owners may seek a court order directing that the land councils carry out their wishes. It is also important to note that Senator Kilgariff incorporated in Hansard certain documents and referred to other matters. The Albrecht argument to which he referred was supported by a small group in the centre of Australia but, as I understand it, no one else in the Northern Territory. The Bill provides for traditional owners to be on trusts and councils. Those comments should deal satisfactorily with some of the points raised by Senator Kilgariff.

Senator Ryan referred to the Aboriginal land councils and associations and hoped that I would make it clear that there is no compulsion to register Aboriginal corporations. I referred to that when speaking to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill. With regard to the land rights legislation, an exploration licence alone does not protect from consent. There must be an application for a mineral lease. Consent is required to mining under the Atomic Energy Act. Mr Justice Woodward envisaged that Territory law would deal with the protection of sacred sites in clause 44 (3) of his draft Bill. He also envisaged that Territory law on wildlife would apply. Some matters raised by Senator Cavanagh lead me to say that Aboriginals will have control over the building of any new roads on their land. Mr Justice Woodward excluded town areas from claims that would be dealt with under any legislation. Senator Coleman referred to action to authorise mining in the Forrest River Reserve in Western Australia. This Bill fully protects Aborigines in the Northern Territory. No mining can take place on Aboriginal land without consent except as provided for in the Bill. The Legislative Assembly is not given any power in relation to mining under this Bill.

Those are the principal matters which 1 feel should be referred to as I conclude this second reading debate on the Bills. I have amendments which I will be moving and I know that th:- Opposition has amendments which it will be moving in the Committee stages. I thank the Senate for its interest in this most important legislation. I believe that people throughout the length and breadth of Australia have an interest in the proceedings of the Senate today and that they will welcome this first stage in land rights legislation for Aborigines.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) To facilitate the handling of these Bills in Committee may I suggest with the concurrence of the Minister for Social Security and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we take the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill first.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– I have agreed with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to take the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill first, then the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill. It may be appropriate even to have a vote on those Bills and to clear them from the notice paper before proceeding to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill because there will be a lengthy Committee debate on that Bill.

Senator Keeffe:

– We have reached agreement on the procedure for handling these Bills. We will be calling for a vote on the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill and on the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill. We also have reached agreement on the Government’s amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill. It has 5 amendments 2 procedural and the others of substance- and they will be taken together and moved together by the Minister. When we dispose of the amendments, which hopefully will be rejected, although it is more likely that they will go into the main Act, we will go through the various clauses to which the Opposition will be moving amendments.

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill 1976 (No. 2)

The Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to draw attention to a couple of clauses in the Bill to which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) can reply when she is concluding the debate in Committee stages. I draw the Senate’s attention to clause 16(3) and clause 17(4). The Opposition is intrigued by them. I realise that the Minister when replying to the second reading debate gave some explanation of them but I remain unconvinced that the clauses should be phrased in this way. Those of us who are Queenslanders are even more unconvinced because of certain actions taken by the State Government over the last year or two to take in Aboriginal areas under the Local Government Act. In the Bill which was originally introduced into the House of Representatives, sub-clause 16 (3) read:

Before constituting an area under sub-section (1) as an Aboriginal Council area the Registrar shall take into account any proposal under a law of a State or Territory for the extension to the area of local government.

The original sub-clause 17 (4) contained a similar provision:

Before directing the Registrar to constitute an area under sub-section 1 as an Aboriginal Council area, the Minister shall take into account any proposal under a law of a State or Territory for the extension to the area of local government.

The Shire of Torres, which takes in all the islands in the Torres Strait as well as Thursday Island, is a very extensive shire. The original impression apparently created was that action was taken by the State Government in order to prevent the then Federal Labor Government from making any moves on land rights. No assistance has been given to these islands. One would imagine that when establishing a shire one of the first things to be done would be to set up a rating apparatus and establish the type of service to be given under the local government Act. However, none of these things has happened in the Shire of Torres. Palm Island which is another inhabited reserve some 30 or 40 miles from Townsville was incorporated at the same time into the shire which is increasingly overseen by the City Council of Townsville. Originally there was a great debate as to whether it would be incorporated in Hinchinbrook or come into the Townsville city area. I know that there are current negotiations going on to see whether the city council can assist but in all the months preceding the change of council in March this year, city council officers and representatives paid one or two visits to Palm Island, but they have not done anything to assist the residents of that part of the city. I have one other point to which the Minister might reply in more detail than she did in the second reading debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2803

REPRESENTATION OF VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT:

– On 14 October 1976, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, I notified the Governor of the State of Victoria of the vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the death of Senator the Hon. Ivor John Greenwood, Queen’s Counsel. I have now received through His Excellency the GovernorGeneral from the Governor of the State of Victoria a certificate of the choice by the Parliament of Victoria of Austin William Russell Lewis as a senator to fill the vacancy. The certificate will be laid on the table and read by the Clerk.

The Clerk then laid on the table and read the certificate of election of Austin William Russell Lewis for the State of Victoria.

Senator Austin William Russell Lewis made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Lewis, we welcome you and congratulate you.

page 2803

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

In Committee

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill 1976

Consideration resumed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Before the luncheon suspension the Committee was dealing with the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– Before the luncheon suspension I had drawn attention to the relevant sub-clauses of clauses 16 and 17.I now have an amendment to clause 30, which reads in part:

  1. The Registrar shall use his best endeavours to ensure that the by-laws of an Aboriginal Council are made known to adult Aboriginals in the area of the Aboriginal Council.
  2. A by-law does not apply in relation to a person who is not an Aboriginal.
  3. The by-laws may provide that any contravention of a by-law is an offence punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding $20.

I move:

Leave out sub-clauses (5), (6) and (7).

I mentioned earlier that I do not propose to speak at length to any of the amendments which

I will be moving this afternoon, but some of my colleagues will be making some comments. In speaking briefly to this amendment, I could not do better than to use the words of my colleague in another place, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), when he was speaking to the same sub-clauses. He said that the provisions in these sub-clauses showed a paternalistic attitude to Aborigines. He pointed out that the councils in the City of Sydney, the City of Melbourne and the great shires and municipalities do not have to come to this Parliament to table regulations or to go through these overseeing procedures, either for by-laws or for a checkover of their by-laws by the Minister. He went on to say:

Is there any justification for this provision? The Opposition puts in all fairness that it is excessive heavy-handedness, paternalism, unnecessary, not likely to render a service, probably not even likely to be treated effectively by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which looks after those matters.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Perhaps I could make a few brief points before the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) replies. I endorse what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said about the need for special consideration to be given to Aboriginals in relation to the submission of regulations to the Parliament. However, there is another which I think indicates the attitude of this Government towards the Aboriginals, both in this Bill and in the Land Rights Bill. Clause 30 (1) of this Bill states:

Subject to this Act, an Aboriginal Council may . . . make by-laws not inconsistent with any other law in force in the area of the Council.

That is, for purposes connected with its functions.

Therefore it makes its own by-laws. Subclause (2) states:

A by-law . . . may fix a charge for a service provided . . .

It is possible that decisions made by the new councils could be tyrannical, oppressive or unreasonable. The Opposition recognises that and does not wish to amend sub-clause (4), which states:

A by-law has no effect unless it has been approved by the Minister.

That is a safeguard to ensure that such by-laws will not be oppressive or unreasonable. Subclause (5) states:

Where the Minister approves any by-laws, he shall cause the by-laws to be laid before each House of the Parliament within15 sitting days of that House after the giving of his approval.

Sub-clause (6) states:

If any by-laws are not laid before each House of the Parliament in accordance with sub-section (5) the by-laws shall be void and of no effect.

There is a right to disallow within 15 days. According to these provisions the action of an Aboriginal group has to be subject to this undue perusal of the white man-first, by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who has to see that the by-law is m order, and then by some 190 politicians, any one of whom may move a motion to disallow a by-law, that is, to interfere with the by-law that has been made by the Aboriginal group. The amendment also seeks to delete subclause (7), which reads:

Where any by-laws have been laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with sub-section 5 of this section, sub-sections (4), (5) and (5a) of section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1973 apply in relation to those bylaws as if they were regulations.

This is important. Any member of Parliament may move a motion of disallowance of the regulation or by-law of an Aboriginal group. In accordance with the Acts Interpretation Act, the by-law has to be considered within 15 days and, like a regulation, it may be thrown out. If it is not considered within 15 days, the by-law is disallowed. Therefore the by-laws are treated as if they were regulations. If a decision by Aboriginals results in a by-law that by-law is disallowed if it is not considered within 15 days after being laid before either House. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill the Governor-General may proclaim that in the national interest certain minerals on Aboriginal land should be mined. That proclamation is to be laid before the House where any member may move to disallow the proclamation. But there is no provision of the Acts Interpretation Act which applies in this case. If the proclamation is not disallowed within 15 days the proclamation stands. On the one hand where an Aboriginal community makes a decision there is provision for disallowance very easily of the result- a bylawof Aborigines having a say in their own affairs, but on the other hand in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) BDI, where there is a mining interest, although there is a right for a member of Parliament to move for disallowance of the proclamation, there is no provision that it is to be dealt with within 15 days. In that case if it is not brought forward in Parliament within 15 days the proclamation stands and the mining may go ahead against the wish of the Aboriginal people. The differences that we are dealing with in these 2 Bills concern the rights of Aboriginal people and mining interests.

I notice that yesterday ‘s Hansard reports that I said last evening that an official from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs had drawn this aspect to the attention of a committee. If I did say that, I was not being factual. It is a fact that this was drawn to the attention of an official of the Department at that committee meeting. It was brought up by the committee and drawn to the attention of the Department. This legislation embodies double standards. It adopts one standard for supervision of Aboriginal decisions and provides a freer go for mining companies.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment from the Opposition seeking the deletion of sub-clauses (5), (6), (7) of clause 30. These sub-clauses deal with the tabling of by-laws before both Houses of Parliament. It is believed by the Government that it is essential for close scrutiny of the by-laws to ensure that there is no situation of conflict which could arise between the operation of this Bill and local governments, either now or in the future. I have taken note of the matters that have been raised by Senator Cavanagh, but it is believed that the provision for disallowance by either House of the Parliament and the structure of this Bill are appropriate to the functions which we believe the associations and councils need to undertake. For those reasons, briefly, we are not able to accept the proposed amendment.

Certain matters were referred to by Senator Keeffe with regard to clause 16(3) and clause 17 (4). These clauses deal with the extension of local government, to remote areas in particular. In the light of the Government’s policy of cooperative federalism it is necessary to ensure that this legislation operates concurrently with relevant State legislation. It is essential that there is no conflict between a proposal from local government and a council under this legislation. The clauses referred to merely require the Registrar and the Minister to take account of a proposal for extension of local government. This does not mean that a council under the Bill cannot be established, but any question of conflict will be discussed and resolved before the council is incorporated under the Bill.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I believe that this Aboriginal councils and associations legislation has been brought about by a situation that existed in the Northern Territory some years ago when some Aboriginal co-operatives were having some problem in trading with people other than within the organisations. At that time moves took place to amend the councils and associations legislation in the

Northern Territory. In January 1972 the McMahon Government policy statement under the heading of Supplementary Measures stated:

In addition to these measures the Government proposes in relation to the Northern Territory to investigate ways of providing a simple, flexible form of incorporation for Aboriginal communities.

I wish to express here the viewpoint of the Majority Leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly who, in part of a message, stated:

My understanding is that this refers to amendments which were then being considered to the Local Associations Incorporation Ordinance to overcome several difficulties communities were then experiencing regarding trading with persons outside their membership and taxation matters. There was not any suggestion so far as I can recall that this legislation would be introduced by the Commonwealth Government or that it could cover the establishment and operation of local government type activities. You have probably not been advised that work was proceeding throughout 1972 on the preparation of legislation which would have provided effective machinery for the development of local government type activities in isolated including Aboriginal communities. But for the change of Government this legislation would have been introduced in the February 1973 meeting of the Legislative Council.

That viewpoint asks where such legislation should be introduced. Naturally I support the claim that there has to be legislation to overcome these problems. However legislation such as this could be considered by the Federal Parliament to be a part of a State-like legislation. In fact it is my understanding that there have been suggestions that the passage of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill (No. 2) could have been delayed a little so that States could have more discussion. I have gained this impression from discussions which have taken place within the precincts of the Parliament within the last 2 days. However, as I said before, I support the principle of this legislation. But I suggest that in the very many areas in which such legislation is required, such as in the local government area, the Federal Government could consider that this type of legislation should be a State-like matter. I wish to refer briefly to clause 30, which relates to bylaws. It provides that Aboriginal councils may make by-laws under certain conditions. It has been pointed out to me by people from Aboriginal settlements in the northern part of the Northern Territory that they are interested in seeing this legislation passed for 2 reasons. One is that it will overcome a problem within the area of their trading as co-operatives. But sub-clause (9) of clause 30 says that a by-law does not apply in relation to a person who is not an Aboriginal. My feeling in this respect is that one could have looked at this matter in such a way as to provide that if there are to be by-laws in a particular area they should apply to all. I repeat that I support the legislation but I query the necessity for such legislation to be introduced in the federal sphere.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I am surprised that Senator Kilgariff has adopted such an attitude. He had the opportunity during Party meetings to do something about moving amendments if he wanted to do so. In addition, the previous Labor Government laid this Bill on the table many months ago. So there has been plenty of time to examine it. The only point I raised with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) yesterday was that some people felt that this matter might be used against them by a heavy handed government. Judging from what Senator Kilgariff has said, this is what the Government might be proposing to do. The honourable senator said that the States should have had the opportunity to have more discussion. I point out to him that they had plenty of time to have a discussion on this matter. I know that he is anxious to get State-like powers in the Northern Territory and to have it declared a State without its having to accept financial responsibility for itself. The honourable senator then said that this sort of legislation ought to be left to the States. Prior to 2 December 1972 and since 13 December 1975 the Northern Territory has been like Queensland. It has done everything it can to eliminate anything that operates along the lines of co-operatives. So far as Aborigines are concerned, there is today only one cooperative left in the Northern Territory and Senator Kilgariff and his Party have been trying to close it down for the past 10 years. I felt that I had to make those few remarks. The Opposition is still determined to have deleted the various sub-clauses to which I have referred.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I wish briefly to say, as I said in summarising the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, that the Bill in no way interferes with State rights or responsibilities. It is an exercising of the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers and responsibility to make special laws for the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders where a need is seen for that. As far as consultation with the States is concerned, I also stated that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) has had consultation with the State Ministers and others and that, as this Bill has been open for debate since its introduction on 4 June, much consultation has been undertaken. The Minister has advised the State Ministers and Dr Letts of the Northern Territory that he wishes to proceed with the Bill but that he is prepared to discuss the administration of the legislation with them at the next meeting of the State Ministers next year. As this is expected to be early in the new year, I believe that the Minister has taken into account the views of the States with regard to their own responsibilities and that in no way is there conflict in this Bill with those responsibilities.

Question put

That the sub-clauses proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 31

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976

The Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– Subclause (2) of clause 7, states:

  1. A report referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) shall include a statement setting out the amount paid under this Act to each State during the year to which the report relates.

I move the following amendment:

In clause 7 at the end of sub-clause (2) add ‘and the purposes for which the amount was paid ‘.

The new sub-clause as proposed would then read:

A report referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) shall include a statement setting out the amount paid under this Act to each State during the year to which the report relates and the purposes for which the amount was paid.

The Opposition has a specific reason for moving this amendment to clause 7. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in closing the second reading debate claimed that some of the allegations I have made in this chamber from time to time have not been substantiated. Her claim that the Aboriginal people were not blamed for waste is not true because the Government had taken the precaution of releasing specific parts of the Hay report long before it saw the light of day in its unofficial form or official form. That had the effect of putting the Aboriginals associated with housing developmentin Redfern in a very poor light. A journalist named Peter Samuels was able to get access to some of the notes associated with the Hay report long before we ever saw it and long before any Aboriginal people saw it Let me mention one example. There are thousands of examples of Aborigines who were supposed to be ripping off. In fact it did not turn out that way. I am amazed that the Minister could find no evidence of any indiscretions in the area to which I referred in the previous debate. Maybe the Government is easier to satisfy than I am. Perhaps it will take plausible stories and put them away where they will not ever again appear in the light of day.

We know that in Queensland money for the Aboriginal people is misused by the Queensland Government Again, as I did yesterday, I refer to the situation at Bamaga, where more was spent on houses for the local white staff than for the Aboriginal people. I referred also to the place known as the Gorge where money was misused by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. When the Australian Government was trying to secure a piece of land on which to establish a housing settlement, the Queensland Department would not let Aborigines build on the original site. It misspent Aboriginal money on buying land and forbade the Aboriginal people to have their homes there, so people still live in misery because of this hassle that goes on with the Queensland Department.

It is a fact that this has been happening over a long period of years. Take the old Palm Island reserve. The main street is Mango Avenue. There are no trams there. It is a street on which the blacks were forbidden to walk. Aboriginal funds were used to keep it at a very high standard for the snow white occupants of the street, while the Aboriginal people lived in little places in other areas. The same sort of thing has happened in the Northern Territory on more than one occasion. There ought to be some accounting for this. State departments and governments should have to account to this Government for the money and how it has been spent. Without proper consultation with appropriate authorities and experts in the field a series of graded-type houses was built in the Northern Territory right up until the time the Labor Government took over. The Labor Government abandoned this system of housing. I am not saying that the Labor Government did everything absolutely 100 per cent correctly, but it did a darned sight better job than its predecessor and it did a much better job than this Government is doing. In the Northern Territory we are now reverting to the type of houses known as Giese ‘s bus stops. They are little one-room houses with an overhang in which no human being should have to live. This amendment is not a subversive one. It is one I hope the Government will agree to. It will tighten up the accounting system of State governments in particular. I hope that the amendment will be carried.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I just want to clarify one thing that Senator Keeffe said in case there is any misapprehension. He referred to Palm Island and a street called Mango Avenue. He said that the Aboriginal people who lived there, as I did, were not permitted to walk down Mango Avenue and that a lot of money was spent on the upkeep of it. At that time I happened to be the overseer of works on Palm Island. I remind Senator Keeffe that that situation was changed with the change of government in Queensland. That was a law under a Labor government, and when the Liberal and Country Parties took government it was changed.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I cannot see much purpose in this amendment because a report is presented to this Parliament detailing the various expenditure referred to by Senator Keeffe. It seems to me to be unnecessary duplication with respect to this clause. The Parliament has an opportunity to examine the appropriations at the proper time. That, as well as the report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, gives details of the expenditure to which we are referring.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It does not.

Senator JESSOP:

-Of course it does. In essence this clause is almost the same as was provided in a Bill introduced under the Labor Government. I use this opportunity to point out a problem that is being experienced by the Aboriginal Community Centre in Adelaide. Clause 6 states that financial assistance to the States is subject to the following conditions:

That each amount paid to the State under this Act will be applied by the State, in a manner and within a time approved by the Minister, for the purposes of expenditure for the benefit of Aboriginals living in the State;

I want to highlight this matter. It concerns the Aboriginal Community Centre in Wakefield Street in Adelaide, which had been provided with and had set aside $25,000 for building alterations. Unfortunately it was put in a very financially embarrassing position because after a fire in the Salvation Army congress hall in Adelaide the State Government altered its legislation with respect to fire protection and required the Centre to expend between a further $100,000 and $1 10,000 to provide for more appropriate staircases and other features associated with fire protection which were not evident in the building.

In addition to that the Centre was required to re-build the top floor at a cost of $60,000. 1 had a talk with the chairman of the Community Centre, Mr Leonard Kent, the architect adviser and the head of the Department in Adelaide. I was made aware of the financial difficulties the Centre was experiencing. As a result I requested the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) to give consideration to providing adequate funds to this Committee to enable the necessary alterations to be effected. The reply I received from the Minister indicated that he was sympathetic but that the building itself was not being utilised by the number of people that should be using the facility and for that reason there were problems associated with granting that amount of money at that time. However, he informed me that, under the chairmanship of Mr Kent, communications between the Committee and the Department had improved and there were signs that more Aboriginal people were going to use the Centre. The building also contains offices occupied by the Legal Aid Office and Australian Housing Corporation. The building is important to the Aboriginal people in Adelaide. I understand that the Minister is having talks with the appropriate State Minister and the other State departments including the Fire Brigade Board with a view to providing some assistance to this Community Centre over a period. I highlight this matter for the information of the Minister and hope that due regard will be paid to the urgency of providing funds for this purpose for the benefit of these people.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I rise in this debate to make 2 points about Aborigines in Victoria. One concerns the Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative in Victoria. I make this point: This Co-operative fills what everybody in this chamber would concede was a long felt want. One cannot talk about democracy or people’s rights or their right to go to law if they are not provided with the means to go to law. The Aboriginal Legal Service in Victoria had asked for $442,000. In actual fact it has received $3 1 5,000, which is a cut of 25 per cent. Apart from that, fees for barristers and solicitors in Victoria have risen by 25 per cent in the meantime. So in actual fact the effective cut that has been made to the money sought by that Service is 50 per cent. I think, as we all believe in democracy and people’s right to go to law, this Government ought to look at that point very seriously to see what can be done about it.

The other point I raise concerns Aboriginal housing. In Victoria there are 8 Aboriginal housing co-operatives only one of which has been funded to the point of providing housing. The other seven had been funded to the point of administrative costs. An amount of $700,000 was made available to the Victorian State Government for housing. The co-operatives had budgeted for $614,000, so one would not think they were being excessive in their demands. The fact is that they feel from what they have heard on the grapevine without any direct communication that they will be lucky if they get $22,000 of that amount of money and the $22,000 of course covers the administrative costs. In the meantime there has been an Aboriginal housing section set up in the Housing Commission in Victoria. One does not really have to be a genius to know that the bulk of the money will go to the Commission to provide housing for Aborigines.

I suppose that the housing position in Victoria is not as bad as it is in some other States, and that does not say a lot for the other States. One could not, I suppose, say that housing for Aboriginal people in my State of Victoria is so bad, but nonetheless it is bad according to the way white people in Victoria like to live. The Housing Commission in Victoria tends to build in certain areas bulk lots of housing. It in fact creates ghettos rather than distributing people through the communityand Aboriginal people are part of the community and they want to live in the community as do other people. There is no way that the Housing Commission in Victoria will take special note of the special needs of people. To further my argument I cannot do better than to quote from the report of the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders on the conditions of Aborigines. I wish more people had read this report and read it thoroughly. One of the points made in that report is this:

Aborigines lack adequate housing because they are poor. Their poverty is a self-perpetuating cycle, originally partly a consequence of their having been dispossessed of their land. To a great extent, the solutions to Aboriginal poverty are the same as those measures designed to eliminate poverty in Australian society generally, but in addition we must take account of Aborigines’ desire to maintain a distinct cultural identity

Aborigines are poor and so they have bad housing. They have bad housing and so they remain poor and ill-educated. So far the Victorian Government is doing little to break that cycle. As I said, there is not as great a need in Victoria as in some other States but in Victoria under State grants 50 houses were provided for Aborigines in 1975-76 although the outstanding applications as at 30 June 1976 numbered 160- three times as many as the number of houses provided. So far we have no evidence that the outstanding 160 will be caught up with. Yet if cases were made for 160 other sorts of people requiring decent housing in Victoria it would be done overnight, but evidently in this particular area the houses will not be made available. Aboriginal housing societies were set up not just to provide housing for Aborigines. They were set up with other sorts of aims. I quote again from the same Senate Select Committee report which was presented in this place. It says shortly and to the point why Aboriginal housing societies were set up. It reads:

It is important to remember that the Aboriginal housing societies were originally established with several aims in mind, of which the provision of housing was only one. The societies were primarily to be vehicles for encouraging selfdetermination and community development at a local level. To this end, as well as the provision of housing, they were also charged with the task of developing management expertise among local communities, and also with providing apprenticeship and training programs to alleviate unemployment. They were also used as testing grounds for the application of new ideas in architecture and environmental design in relation to Aborigines. There was, therefore, a variety of tasks assigned to the Aboriginal housing societies, and it should be borne in mind also that the order of priorities was not constant, but changed according to economic circumstances and government policy.

One of the points about which the Committee felt strongly was that Aborigines as much as any other section of the community had to be given the chance to make mistakes and to learn by their mistakes. They had to be given the chance to manage, to take responsibility, to be whole people. Senator Jessop referred to this aspect.

For the benefit of Aborigines and for the benefit of Aborigines living in Victoria in particular I urge this Government to make more money available so that these tasks may be accomplished. The Government should ensure that money is spent where it is really needed.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I want to raise a couple of matters in the Committee stages of the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill because of my concern about a number of areas in which money is appropriated by this Federal Parliament to a State government which has absolutely no intention of using it. I made mention of this some weeks ago in a speech in this place on the Budget. In speaking about Aboriginal affairs I expressed my concern at the return of $4.5m which had been appropriated by the Federal Parliament to the Western Australian State Government through the State Housing Commission- money specifically designed to cater for the needs of some of the Aboriginals who are on the waiting list for housing in that State. I am concerned once again that in Western Australia there are more than 900 Aboriginal applicants on the waiting list of the Housing Commission. These people are the ones who have known housing problems. There are many, many more- hundreds morewhose housing needs are not known by State or Federal governments but are known only by the Aboriginals themselves. I get very concerned to see that in my State particularly there are so many Aboriginals living in abject misery. They are living in the most appalling conditions that one would have to see to believe. They are living under sheets of iron. They are living in what could be described as cardboard boxes and in packing cases. Yet, as I mentioned, under the 1975-76 appropriation, the Western Australian Government last year determined that it did not need $4,556,000 which it subsequently returned to Treasury.

There is another area that disturbs me greatly and which I do not think has yet been touched upon. It concerns one of the myriad of problems associated with Aboriginals. Although we have racial discrimination legislation, I do not think that it is being fully utilised. I believe that particularly in States such as Western Australia its provisions are not being applied effectively. I know of hotels in which it is still not possible for blacks to drink in the same bar in which whites in the upper socio-economic class drink. Of course, they can drink in those bars in which the whites in the lower socio-economic groups drink. In Collie, which is a mining township in Western Australia, black people are not allowed to drink in a particular bar or in the lounge. I am not saying that that situation exists only in Collie; it probably exists in other places. A newspaper report told us not so long ago of a black man and his wife being refused accommodation at a hotel even though the wife was obviously pregnant and very distressed as a result of a long drive through extreme heat conditions. They had to return to a reserve in order to get accommodation that night because the hotel management determined that, as they were black, they were not allowed to live in the white man’s hotel overnight. I know of another instance- again this is in the south-west of Western Australia- of a band not being able to get bookings purely and simply because the members of that band are Aboriginals. I am disturbed by the fact that we are granting money to States and we suggest to the States that we would appreciate their perhaps giving support to our legislation; but no one seems to be doing anything about it.

I am concerned about the unemployment problems that Aboriginal people throughout Australia face. If my memory serves me correctly, a working party was set up by this Government earlier this year to report on the problems of Aboriginal unemployment. I have not seen the report of that working party. I do not think it has been presented to Parliament. I would like to know what is the position with regard to that working party. Is it still in operation? Is it still seriously looking at the problems of unemployment among Aborigines, or is it saying: ‘Let us wait until something drastic happens before we go ahead with it’? There is tremendous unemployment among Aborigines in Western Australia. I speak of Western Australia so often because the people of Western Australia elected me to represent them in this place. Be they black or white, they cast their vote, and the majority of them cast their vote in my favour, and that is why I am here. So I am concerned when any member of my constituency finds himself or herself in the situation where no employment is available for them. This applies a great deal in the north-west of Western Australia and in the gold fields areas where, in spite of our racial discrimination legislation, Aboriginals still seem to be third and fourth class citizens.

I would like the Minister to explain at some stage what will happen in relation to the housing situation and the discrimination that occurs in the hotels. I think that the latter situation is adequately covered by the racial discrimination legislation which is not being put into effect. Will the Minister advise the Senate what is happening or what has happened to the working party report on the unemployment situation?

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I intervene briefly to take up a point raised by Senator Melzer. I am glad that she referred to the report of the Senate Committee which dealt with housing for Aborigines. I was interested in the mathematical projection which we were able to make from a paper provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The paper is entitled Desirable and Anticipated Actual Housing Program for Aboriginals for the 3-year period 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1979. The paper indicates a need for 1 8 000 homes to meet the housing needs of the Aboriginal people. I make the point that, when we were travelling through New South Wales taking evidence on Aboriginal housing needs, we were a little alarmed to learn from the officers who talked to us in various localities that no special arrangements existed to cater for those Aborigines who would be requiring homes under the Housing Commission program. I notice the honourable senator acknowledging that we obtained that evidence. The indication was that they were to be treated like everyone else. Our feeling was that that was not a proper approach from the Housing Commission. There were special needs and special kinds of responses were required. We were not getting those in New South Wales.

Really, what I want to do, perhaps to balance up against what Senator Melzer said about housing commissions in one or other State, is to draw attention to the experience we had in South Australia. In that State we saw operating through the Housing Trust of South Australia a cooperative venture which was highly successful. A body called the Aboriginal Housing Board of South Australia worked with the State Government in determining a number of matters in relation to Aboriginal housing. Without labouring the point and going into detail, I believe it established a kind of model as to how housing might be provided using State instrumentalities and yet still recognising that the Aboriginal people want their own say and want to make their own decisions. My own view of the situations we saw operating throughout Australia is that the most satisfactory was the South Australian model. It is one that I would like to see extended and applied more generally.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– Let me take a little further the points on housing raised by Senator Melzer. I agree that it is highly desirable when housing Aborigines in urban areas to avoid the collective situation. I think it is a fair comment and a constructive thought that the Victorian Government Housing Commission ought to recognise. As Senator Baume has correctly pointed out, South Australia should be praised for the work it has done in this area. I speak from personal experience. When I was a member of the Port Augusta City Council, we tried to achieve the objectives expressed by Senator Melzer. But it is extremely difficult to do so in all areas, and that highlights the problem with which we are faced when we try to overcome the difficulties among Aboriginal people and to cater for their needs. Their needs are quite different in various areas. I can recall when I visited Ernabella a number of years ago seeing several homes that had been constructed by the Commonwealth Government at that time. The Liberal-National Country parties were in government at that stage. The houses were unoccupied. The reason they were unoccupied was that an elder of the tribe had died in one of the houses; the evil spirits were still there. Until an appropriate elder of the tribe said that the evil spirits had gone, those houses would remain unoccupied. They remained unoccupied for some 1 8 months.

I think Senator Ryan mentioned the poor conditions under which Aborigines live. We must recall that many Aboriginal people in Australia prefer not to live in houses, anyway. I can recall another case of a full-blooded Aboriginal patient who was in the hospital at Ernabella. She had rolled into a fire and burnt herself quite seriously. She was put into the hospital. She remained there for 2 nights. On the morning following the second night the matron was doing her rounds and discovered that that lady was not in her hospital bed. She was found back in her natural environment, preferring to live in her whirlie or however one would describe it. So, that illustrates the difficulties with which we are faced. At Ernabella half a dozen homes, costing probably several hundred thousand dollars, were idle. That is the reason why I believe the present Government was determined to reassess the needs of Aborigines. Perhaps there are areas in which money is being wasted in some respects. We want to divert that money that appears to be wasted and reassess the priorities so that the areas of need can be catered for. I thought I should mention that point. I commend Senator Melzer for raising it.

I suggest that the other States of Australia could look at South Australia as an example. They have managed to provide old Aboriginal people at Davenport in particular, with an ideal type of home with the fire right in the centre of the room. This enables the Aboriginal people to lie around it if they wish, as is their tribal custom. I think many States of Australia could follow the example that has been laid down not only by the present Government- and I pay a tribute to it- but by former governments of my colour of politics. I support what Senator Melzer said.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– It is evident from the many comments that have been made by honourable senators that housing is a matter of extreme importance to the advancement of Aborigines. I shall draw to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs the several matters that have been raised. With regard to the Victorian aboriginal housing associations mentioned by Senator Melzer, I understand that the details of funding will now be known to the associations, but I do not have those details with me. With regard to the Victorian Legal Aid Service, it is to receive slightly more than it spent last year. The fact that it asked for- in Senator Melzer’s terms- $442,000 and received some $300,000 does not reflect a cutback on what was received last year but rather that we were not able to give them fully the funds which they had requested.

I feel sure that the matters of housing in various States will be of interest to the Minister. I understand that the matter raised by Senator Keeffe is the subject of a question on notice from him in respect of which the Minister is obtaining information. Senator Coleman raised the matter of racial discrimination legislation. As she would know, the Commissioner for Community Relations deals with complaints of the kind that she has mentioned. I hope that the matters which are brought to his direct attention do result in the removal of the discrimination which in many ways has been practised and perhaps accepted in this country.

I think that those other matters that have been raised will need to be the subject of consideration by the Minister for a response from him. I wish to indicate that the Government does not accept the amendment of the Opposition. The Bill that is presented reflects the Bill of the same name that was presented by the former Government. In that Bill there was not specification of the words which are sought in the amendment. As I said during the second reading stage, it is more appropriate for details of that type to be provided in other ways- the sorts of ways mentioned by Senator Jessop- such as during Budget debates or in Senate Estimates Committees or by specific request to the Minister concerned. For these reasons we are not able to accept the amendment of the Opposition.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I have a couple of brief observations to make. I note that the Minister has said that details of funds for the housing associations will be available soon. With respect, I ask that the Minister persuade the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, to produce a list of those housing associations that will get benefits and circulate it, at least to members of this chamber, but preferably to all members of the Parliament and of course to Aboriginal organisations.

The other point that rather intrigued me was that I take it from what Senator Jessop said, if in fact he was voicing official Liberal Party policy in relation to housing, that this continued cutback will be part of an on-going program because Aboriginals do not like living in houses; they would rather live on the ground. Perhaps the Minister will reply as to whether there has been any overall change in policy in relation to housing from that of the previous Government. Those are my final comments.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– It is typical of Senator Keeffe frequently to misrepresent the statements that are made on this side of the chamber. I can understand his attitude. He gets a little bit overwrought when we are discussing a subject which has been of continuing interest to him. But what I was trying to point out to Senator Keeffe- and if he knows anything about Aboriginal people he ought to know this- is that housing problems in different areas take on quite different implications for the people concerned. I was illustrating that those 6 homes that were lying idle would probably represent a cost of about $ 1 m to the taxpayers of Australia.

Senator Keeffe:

– The 6 houses? Good heavens!

Senator JESSOP:

– Well, it might have been more. I do not think that Sim is an unrealistic figure. But the point is that that money, if it is not being used for the benefit of those people, could well be diverted for use in the area that Senator Melzer was talking about. I was just drawing attention to the proper consideration of the priorities of this Government and its examination of where money was needed. It has a little bit more businesslike approach to the matter than the previous Government had. It is not a question of withdrawing or withholding money from people in need. It is a matter of reallocationa pause and the allocation of more money where indicated to people in the greatest need.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I did not desire to enter this debate on the allocation of funds to the States, with which in the main, I think everybody agrees, but I wish to answer several remarks that have been made. We seem to be moving into the area of suitable housing for Aboriginals and what government has done the most for Aboriginals. I was a Minister in a government that had a policy on housing for all Aboriginals.

Senator Jessop:

– You were a good Minister too, I might say.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Well, Senator Bonner said that I was not a good Minister. He said that I was known as a disaster. However, if I were a bad Minister, the opportunity has now come for me to make up some of the deficiencies I had as a Minister. We had a policy which provided for the housing of all Aboriginals within 10 years. Through the curtailment of finance this year that policy has been put back. I take it that our policy is not the policy of the present Government. But the solution to the whole problems of the type of housing for Aboriginals has not yet been found. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has an architectural panel for the purpose of trying to find the best type of housing for Aboriginals in different areas. The peculiar type of housing at Laverton was the result of a design by an architectural panel. I would go so far as to say it was suitable. There was the destruction of houses in some areas because Aboriginals were of the opinion that they did not want that type of housing. Of course even though they were told that their own housing association had decided on the type of housing, they found that that association was under the influence of a white architect.

I do not think that this Bill relates to those problems; it is a plan for money for the States. The Government of which I was a Minister developed a scheme under which the most efficient housing authority was considered to be the State Housing Commission. This would probably be generally recognised. The State housing commissions, in the main, get the biggest proportion of housing moneys for the purpose of housing Aboriginals. Of course the Aboriginal tenants must meet the tenancy requirements of those housing commissions. They provide accommodation only for a particular class of Aboriginal- the one we are discussing in the Bill today. There are other classes of Aboriginals from the tribal areas who have never been accustomed to European-type homes. They have never seen a bathroom or a toilet in their lives. To install these facilities in a home would mean a revolution in their whole style of living. Provision has to be made for this sort of thing.

There is also the type of Aboriginal who receives welfare housing because of his family income or the lack of opportunities making it impossible for him to pay rent. The Government had to make provision for this type of Aboriginal if it was going to house all Aboriginal families. That has to be done on a welfare basis whereby the rent is subsidised by the Commonwealth. Some other attitude has to be taken in respect of that class of Aboriginal family. These are all problems which have to be met from time to time in housing Aboriginal communities. The essential point is that before we can do anything about the bad health of Aboriginals we must get them into homes. That is important in order to improve the health of Aboriginal families.

Previously, we had legislation whereby the Commonwealth Government appropriated moneys for the States, setting out what it was provided for. The States had to use the moneys for those purposes. The Labor Party proposed that money be appropriated to the States by means of this Bill, giving the Minister the right to make grants to the States which would be reviewed within appropriations. We would not have had to have a Bill every year. An appropriation would have been made every year under the Act. Of course, it is open to question what the States do with the money appropriated to them. This Bill makes provision for the Minister to give an annual report of what happens to that money. Clause 7 states:

  1. The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a report on the operation of this Act during the year ending on that date.
  2. A report referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) shall include a statement setting out the amount paid under this Act to each State during the year to which the report relates.

That becomes a public document which I think would have a greater circulation than the report of an Estimates committee examining the appropriation. There is no check through this report on whether the Federal Government in its appropriation to the States, or the States in receiving the money, are giving priority to the essential housing needs of Aboriginals or whether they are neglecting the housing needs because they believe that they have housed all members of the Aboriginal community who meet the tenancy requirements of the Housing Commission. There is no way of checking whether the States have spent the money on some other purpose with the Minister’s approval.

The proposed amendment seeks to ensure that the Minister’s annual report shows the amounts paid to the States and the purposes for which the amounts were paid. We could then find out how much was paid to each State for Aboriginal housing each year and how much was paid to them for health and education. That is what the Opposition wants to see in the report. I cannot see for the life of me why there is an objection to that addition to clause 7. It does not alter the Bill. It puts no greater liability on the Government. It only seeks to ensure open government giving freer information in the annual report which is a public document. I support the amendment. It is not one of the issues on which we would go to the barricades but I think that there are big problems in relation to Aboriginal housing. Even with the best of government intentions the housing needs of the Aboriginal community are not always fulfilled in the way we would desire. This is not always the fault of a government.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be added.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 31

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole?

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

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have5 amendments which relate to clauses 3, 40 and 43 and propose the insertion of a new schedule. The relevant clauses read in part:

Clause 3.

  1. In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears- exploration licence’ includes a permit in respect of land under the Petroleum (Prospecting and Mining) Ordinance 1954 of the Northern Territory, as amended from time to time;

Clause 40.

  1. A mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless-

    1. both the Minister and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated have consented, in writing, to the making of the grant; or
    2. the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires that the gram be made.

Clause 43.

  1. Where, byvirtueof sub-section 40 (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) or a Proclamation under paragraph 40 ( 1 ) (b), a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land may be granted without the consent of the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated, the mining interest shall not be granted unless the applicant for the mining interest has entered into an agreement under seal with the Land Council for the payment to the Land Council by the applicant of an amount or amounts specified in, or calculated in accordance with, the agreement and the acceptance by the applicant of such other terms and conditions as are provided for in the agreement
  2. 1 ) In Clause 3 in the definition ‘exploration licence ‘, after includes ‘ insert ‘a prospecting authority and also’.
  3. In clause 40, after sub-clause (6) insert the following sub-clause:-
  4. Sub-section ( 1 ) does not apply in relation to the land described in Schedule 3, being the land known as the Eastern Areas on Groote Eylandt. ‘.
  5. In clause 43 (2), leave out ‘or (6)’, substitute ‘,(6) or (7)’.
  6. In clause 43 (2), leave out ‘agreement under seal with the Land Council for the payment to the Land Council by the applicant of an amount or amounts specified in, or calculated in accordance with, the agreement and the acceptance by the applicant of such other terms and conditions as are provided for in the agreement. ‘

Substitute ‘agreement under seal with the Land Council containing such terms and conditions as are agreed on by the parties having regard to the effect of the grant of the mining interest on Aboriginals, which terms may include a requirement for the payment to the Land Council by the applicant of an amount or amounts specified in, or calculated in accordance with, the agreement. ‘.

  1. After Schedule 2 add the following Schedule:

page 2814

SCHEDULE 3

Section 40

page 2814

EASTERN AREAS ON GROOTE EYLANDT

All those pieces of land in the Northern Territory of Australia containing an area of 43.96 square kilometres more or less.

Firstly

Commencing at the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 01 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 01 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 03 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 03 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 30 minutes 45 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 02 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 30 minutes 45 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 02 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 30 minutes 45 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 01 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds.

Secondly

Commencing at the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 04 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 04 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 31 minutes thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 04 minutes 30 seconds with longitude 136 degrees 31 minutes thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 04 minutes 30 seconds with longitudes 136 degrees 34 minutes 15 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds with longitudes 136 degrees 34 minutes 15 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds with longitude 136 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 06 minutes wth longitude 1 36 degrees 3 1 minutes 30 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 06 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 30 minutes thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 05 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 30 minutes thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 05 minutes with longitude 136 degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds thence proceeding to the intersection of latitude 14 degrees 04 minutes with longitude 1 36 degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The amendments are circulated in my name. The first amendment refers to clause 3 and relates to the definition of exploration licence’. The amendment is of a technical nature and will make it clear that any authorisation allowing mineral exploration in the form of either the former authority to prospect and the current exploration licence will be treated in a similar manner. It was the Government’s intention that all exploration rights be covered in the legislation. The original authorisation to explore and the authority to prospect were replaced by an amendment to the Northern Territory Mining Ordinance by the current exploration licence, the term used in the Bill. There was legal doubt as to whether ‘exploration licence’, as it is referred to in the Bill, was a general enough term to cover authorities to prospect. The definition is important especially in relation to the protection of existing interests mainly in mineral lease applications as referred to in clause 43.

The second amendment is to clause 40 and seeks to insert an additional sub-clause (7) which relates to mining interests and mining operations. It has been brought to the Government’s attention that the Bill unless amended would not adequately meet the Government’s commitment to protect existing rights in relation to a 1969 agreeement for mining at Groote Eylandt. Accordingly, this amendment and a consequential amendment to clause 43 (2) and a proposed new schedule will guarantee that the Commonwealth is able to meet its legal obligations to grant further mineral leases in the eastern areas of Groote Eylandt under the agreement. The amendment removes the necessity to obtain Aboriginal consent for the granting of these rnining interests but the company will still be obliged to negotiate fair terms and conditions. The agreement provides that if the company constructs a smelter before 30 June 1 977 or an agglomeration plant by 30 June 1980 additional special mineral leases will be granted by the Commonwealth. Already the company has met its obligation to construct smelting facilities and an agglomeration plant is close to completion. The company is therefore in a position to call on the Government to meet its obligation to provide additional leases and it is considered appropriate that the Government should be able to meet these obligations.

An additional schedule 3 is necessary in relation to new sub-clause 40 (7) to provide a precise description of the areas referred to as the eastern areas of Groote Eylandt.

My other amendment relates to clause 43 (2). It is a consequential amendment to ensure that where additional leases are granted at Groote Eylandt it will be subject to negotiation of fair terms and conditions with the Aborigines. An additional amendment to the sub-clause makes it clear that while additional payments may be negotiated it is not mandatory that agreements between land councils and applicants for mining interests include provision for the payment of sums of money. As originally provided, payments- even nominal payments- would have been essential to comply with the provision. In some instances payments additional to statutory royalties and rentals must be sought by land councils. Mr Justice Woodward noted in relation to oil and gas at paragraph 704 of his report that the financial interests of Aborigines would be well served by the appropriation of a 10 per cent royalty payment to their benefit.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Opposition opposes the amendments although we have agreed to them being moved together. We feel that this is a further extension of the interference of the Australian Mining Industry Council in the drafting of amendments for the Government. Obviously the amendments are designed to cover up loopholes. Although the Aborigines may have made some gains, it is the intention of the Government to ensure that the interests of the mining companies are not damaged in any way. The introduction of the new schedule indicates this because the Bill itself contains protections for the Ranger area generally. The Opposition is most unhappy about the amendments. Admittedly we are not worried about the consequential amendments because they merely follow the major amendment. I do not think there is any need for me to elaborate. We covered this in detail yesterday when we pointed out that we would have objections to certain aspects of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill even after these amendments were moved. We have the same objections to the amendments which have been moved by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle).

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I feel that I must say a few words about these amendments. Possibly many of the amendments which the Opposition will move are covered by these amendments so we may be justified in taking some time speaking about them now rather than when the Opposition amendments are moved. Many of the Opposition’s amendments are opposed to the advantage which is given to mining companies. The main amendment and the 4 consequential amendments do nothing else but extend the power of the mining company in Groote Eylandt. This is the point I was making last night. It is all right to get up and say what ill treatment we have given Aborigines. It is all right to make the utterances we have made in support of Aborigines. But this is the testing time for those Aborigines who have a traditional claim to their lands or, as we heard last night, the sacred land of those people which comes out of their dreamtime. They are identified with the land. It is land that means so much to them. Can it be dug up in the interests of a mining company without the Aborigines having a say? That is the whole issue here. It applies only to land that may be found to be traditional Aboriginal land with all its myths, traditions and everything else.

Because there is a mining company and Mr Justice Woodward said that we have to preserve present contracts, we now have these amendments. Under the provisions of the licence, if the company does certain things before 1980 the Government will give it a further grant of land to mine. It is not just a question of honouring contracts, it is a question of preserving the interests of the mining companies. With all our fine speeches about our knowledge of the Aboriginals’ love of the land because it is their land, it is their identity, it is where they were born, the whole thing goes into the melting pot because a mining company has found rich minerals there. The most important point the proposed alteration to clause 40. The amendment states:

After sub-clause (6) insert the following sub-clause:

Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to the land described in Schedule 3, being the land known as the Eastern Areas on Groote Eylandt. ‘

Sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 40 states:

A mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless-

both the Minister and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated have consented, in writing, to the making of the grant; or

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires that the grant be made.

That relates not just to the present contracts but to the whole area of Groote Eylandt set out in the Third Schedule, and neither the Land Council nor the Minister have any say in whether mining shall go on. I acknowledge that it is Government policy to protect the mining interests, but let us get away from the idea that there are great patriots on the other side of the chamber who are concerned about Aborigines.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– It is hypocrisy.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-It is hypocrisy. They are not concerned about Aboriginals. Party policy and the Party, which is financed and supported by mining companies, come first. There is a glaring illustration of the difficulties which run right through this Bill and to which the Opposition’s amendments are directed. It is one of the things which the Opposition must violently oppose because it distinguishes between the attitude of the Opposition and the attitude of the Government on the question of Aboriginal land rights.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I think that Senator Cavanagh must also pay some regard to the benefits which flow to the Aboriginal people from the mining operations.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Well, admit it.

Senator JESSOP:

– I beg your pardon.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Admit it.

Senator JESSOP:

-The Aboriginal people -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I do not want an argument across the chamber. I ask Senator Jessop to address the Chair.

Senator JESSOP:

– I have been to the areas which have been mentioned, and to Groote Eylandt in particular, and I have noticed many Aboriginal people driving bulldozers and equipment such as that in the area. They are attracting quite substantial salaries and are profiting from the operations of the mining company. I do not think we should underestimate the value of that to the Aboriginal people. There is also the question of the royalties paid into the Aboriginal trust funds. These are of tremendous economic advantage and benefit to the Aboriginal people. I think that point should be made when we are dealing with this question.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I did not think that Senator Jessop would come up with an argument like that. It is just not the point we are talking about. The principle goes deeper. My colleague, Senator Cavanagh, I thought had settled the argument when he pointed out some of the reasons why this sort of authority ought not to be given to the Government in these circumstances. The Aboriginal people will be dispossessed of their own lands. The Government cannot crawl to the mining companies all the time in the name of so-called progress. I remind Senator Jessop that mining companies in this country have a diabolical record in relation to the employment of Aboriginal people. They have an equally diabolical record for putting their bulldozers into sacred sites, into areas of significance which belong to the Aboriginal people. Yet Senator Jessop defended the mining companies against the Aboriginals. What does he think they are going to do? Does he think they will come roaring into Comalco with spears and woomeras and get stuck into the white people? Is that what Senator Jessop fears? The opposition he put was so childish that I cannot believe it came from somebody on that side of the chamber as ultra-conservative as Senator Jessop. Again, I join with my colleague Senator Cavanagh in our total opposition to these 5 amendments.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I remind Senator Keeffe that relationships between the company on Groote Eylandt and the Aboriginal people are at a pretty high level. One of the first questions I asked the mining people on Groote Eylandt concerned sacred sites and the extent of the company’s encroachment or near encroachment on those sacred sites. I asked how the company avoided that and I was told that it was done in consultation with the elders of the council. The company takes an elder over the area it proposes to develop to ensure with absolute certainty that it is not encroaching on sacred ground. That was the experience I had when I went there on more than one occasion, and I believe the point ought to be brought out.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am prompted by Senator Jessop ‘s remarks to re-enter this debate. I appreciate what he has said, and I think he truly portrays the attitude of the Government to the question of Aboriginals and mining interests. Senator Jessop forgets that no suggestion has been made that there should not be mining there. He pointed out all the benefits which flow from mining and the distribution of funds to the Aboriginal Trust Fund and to the local Aboriginals. Of course those benefits do flow, but again Senator Jessop put the benefits on a commercial basis. For how much do you sell your sacred right? That is the question. What price do you put on your sacred right? There has been no difficulty in mining on the Aboriginal lands in the Northern Territory. At Oenpelli, where there was some confusion and the Aboriginals withheld their agreement, I believe they are now anxious to enter into an agreement. But where there are minerals in an area, each Aboriginal has to make a decision about the value of the land to him in his traditional way. He has to consider the benefits that flow if he permits the mining company to come in. He makes the decision. Clause 40 provides:

A mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless-

both the Minister and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated have consented . . .

It is a question of getting the consent of the Aboriginals, but there are Aboriginals who do not want their traditional land dug up at any price. We talk about arbitration, but it may be that although the Aboriginals resent the land being dug up in the search for minerals they would permit it at a certain price. But provision is made for an arbitrator, who can tell the Aboriginals that they do not have the option to barter their land and that he will fix what he considers to be a fair price. These amendments take away the right of the Aboriginal to decide and, as Senator Jessop has just shown, it is impossible for the white man to decide on the value to the Aboriginal of the undisturbed land. We say that benefits will flow on, but we do not understand the Aboriginal mind. Where there are minerals and we think it is desirable to develop them, we say that there should be approval by the Aboriginal Land Council and the Minister. Because there may not be approval or because the price of approval is too high, in relation to Groote Eylandt the Government can tell the mining company that it can go ahead, not with present contracts but with future contracts, if it does certain things, not in relation to paying Aboriginals, which they must do, but in relation to honouring a contract to build some conglomeration before 1980. As I said before, that situation illustrates the difference between the policies of the Liberal and Labor Parties on Aboriginal land rights.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– At this stage I want to clarify what seems to be some misinterpretation of the amendments moved by the Government. The use of the Third Schedule is specifically to exclude a small and specific area of Groote Eylandt. This will meet legal obligations under a specific agreement. I am talking of an area of just less than 44 square kilometres. As I said when introducing the amendments, they are to meet the Government’s commitment to protect existing rights in relation to an agreement of 1969 on mining at Groote Eylandt. That is the reason for and purpose of the Government’s amendments. Some of the motives which have been imputed in the speeches which have been made from the Opposition are not based on these facts as I have just stated them.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I appreciate what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has said, but both speakers on this side of the chamber are basing our protest on facts. I am wondering how far this campaign is going. We are receiving telephone calls from Central Australia saying that all radio broadcasts have been cut off in the area. If there is a service fault, I accept that as an excuse. But if it has been decided to change to some other program at Government direction, I think this is keeping information away from people. Radio broadcasts are the only source of information that Aboriginal people in the remote areas of Australia have. I suggest, Mr Chairman, with great respect that an urgent inquiry ought to be made to find out why there is a radio blackout in Central Australia.

This Bill concerns the people in that area presently more than anybody else in Australia. Should some of our amendments be agreed to and incorporated in the Bill they will tidy it up considerably. I should like to see them all agreed to, of course, but judging by the present mood of the Government that is unlikely to happen. Of course if that were to happen it would make this Bill similar to the original Bill that was introduced in the other place late in 1975. 1 suggest with great respect to the Minister that we have a genuine opposition to the introduction of these amendments. We cannot change our mind on them because that would be totally inconsistent with what we intend to do with our own amendments.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Guilfoyle’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 22

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

  1. 1 ) This Act, other than section 70, shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.
  2. Section 70 shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation, being a date later than the date fixed for the purposes of sub-section ( 1 ).
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Opposition intends to move an amendment to clause 2. Now that the amendments moved by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) have been accepted, I believe that the tone for the whole debate on this Bill has been set. In other words this now means that the Aboriginal people will be denied the basic aspects associated with their land rights except for a few crumbs the Government will sweep off the table for them. While I am on this subject, I might as well arrange for a correction to be made. I think it might be nice if we start off with the record completely straight. At page 2744, column 2, of yesterday’s Hansard Senator Kilgariff is reported as seeking leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter. I shall give his own identification. He said:

I have identified it. It seems strange to me that Senator Cavanagh did not hear me when I clearly indicated that the author was Rev. Paul Albrecht, a most distinguished and conscientious man in the Northern Territory.

I have been told by Dr James O’Connell, who is from the Research School of Pacific Studies, Department of Pre-History, in a recent telephone message that in fact paragraph 3 of that submission is untrue. I shall briefly quote it in order to get it in its right perspective. Incidentally, the letter was signed: ‘Yours sincerely, B. Kilgariff (for) P.G.E. Albrecht (Rev.)’. The offending paragraph reads:

Criticism has centred on the persons involved in recording and translating these submissions and conversation which has had the effect of distracting attention away from what these Aboriginal men have to say. The additional information is given because various individuals and organisations have made written evaluations and appraisals of the transcripts primarily for the enlightenment of the Government but at the same time giving them wider general circulation. To the best of our knowledge these evaluations have been made without any attempt to communicate with the Aboriginals who made the statements. The insinuation that the transcripts are submissions of the Finke River Mission are quite false. Of the Aboriginals involved in making submissions, quite a number have seen the criticisms and they have found it almost impossible to believe anyone could generate such ideas with any pretence of honesty.

Dr O’Connell, who worked with the Aboriginal people at MacDonald Downs, said that 2 transcripts were made in that area in July. Dr O’Connell returned to the area at a later date. He claims that the tapes and transcripts are not correct. So obviously some political manipulation has been going on in relation to the drafting of lands rights legislation. We on this side of the chamber have said consistently right throughout that there has been a teaming up by a number of people, mostly dominated by the National Country Party of Australia, to prevent the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory from getting that land to which they are entitled. As I said yesterday, the situation will revert to the position where the Gurindjis now will have to make a fresh application. The people of Willowra, who should have been able to get their land in the foreseeable future, will not get it. It is all very glib, smooth and slick for Government spokesmen to say: ‘All they have to do is apply to the Lands Commission’. It is not as simple as that. I return to the amendment which the Opposition wishes to move to clause 2.I move:

Leave out the clause, substitute the following clause: ‘2. This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. ‘.

I know that the Government is having tremendous troubles with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and that it is having as much if not more trouble in drafting its ordinances as the Government had when it was trying to draft the various clauses of this Bill which are going to assist the mining companies. Clause 2 now states that, whereas the Act is to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation, proposed section 70 is to operate at a later date. The Opposition wants to know why the Government is having six of one and half a dozen of the other in relation to this clause. Incidentally, proposed section 70 is related to that section of the Bill which deals with the right of entry onto Aboriginal land. Mr Justice Woodward, in paragraph 109 of his second report, said:

I accept the Northern Land Council’s view that the system should be administered by the officers of the land councils, who would, where necessary, consult with the local community and clan leaders before issuing a permit.

How does the Government propose to regulate entry? I know that it has made some statements in relation to this matter in other parts of the Bill. Quite frankly, the whole thing mystifies us to a considerable degree. It may be that it has clarified our minds because we think that there is something ulterior in the way in which the Government has framed it. We are suggesting that this clause be amended in the manner in which I have outlined, that is, according to the words of the amendment circulated in my name.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The Government does not accept the Opposition’s amendment. As is known by those who have read the Bill, the commencement date will be fixed by proclamation, but the operation of proposed section 70 may be deferred. As Senator Keeffe has stated, it relates to entry onto Aboriginal land. The reason for the deferment of proposed section 70 is that this deferment will allow for a law of the Territory to exempt certain classes of persons from entry permit requirements and provide machinery for other persons to obtain permits to enter Aboriginal land before proposed section 70 becomes operative. The delay in the proclamation of proposed section 70 will allow a law of the Northern Territory- that is, the Social Welfare Ordinance controlling the permit requirements -to continue operation until such time as the ordinance is appropriately amended. As the Social Welfare Ordinance contains a total package for the administration of the entry onto Aboriginal land, it would be preferable to allow its amendment before allowing it to operate concurrently with the Commonwealth Act.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to ask a brief question. With the coming into operation of the Act, at least that land in the First Schedule will immediately become Aboriginal land. Clause 70, which prohibits entry without a permit onto Aboriginal land, will not apply until such time as a proclamation is made bringing clause 70 into operation. Until then will there be no prohibition on the entry onto Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The delay in the proclamation of clause 70 will allow a law of the Northern Territory to continue in operation until such time as the law is appropriately amended. As the Social Welfare Ordinance contains a total package for the administration of the entry onto Aboriginal land, it would be preferable to allow its amendment before allowing it to operate concurrently with the Commonwealth Act. That will cover the situation mentioned by Senator Cavanagh.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– In his introductory remarks prior to moving his amendment Senator Keeffe made some rather garbled charges -

Senator Keeffe:

– No, not charges- just statements.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Some garbled statements. I wish to refute them. It is the right of the honourable senator and anyone else to believe that the translations that I have said are readily available are incorrect. But I suggest that he read them. I also suggest that he look at other authorities. I refute completely what Senator Keeffe has said.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 32

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation)

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I have an amendment to the portion of clause 3 which states: alienated Crown land ‘ means Crown land in which a person (other than the Crown) has an estate or interest, but does not include land in a town;

The interpretation of ‘alienated Crown land’ in the Bill is not consistent with the interpretation of the Opposition. I move:

In the definition ‘alienated Crown land’, leave out ‘, but does not include land in a town*.

This has been a subject of difference between the Opposition and the Government over a period of time. I have 3 amendments to this clause. I had proposed to try to get the three of them taken together, but if the Government is absolutely, ruthlessly and utterly determined to carry the whole of this Bill without accepting any of the Opposition’s amendments then honourable senators opposite will just have to stand the pain of standing up and being counted and having their names recorded every time they refuse something to the Aboriginal people.

I had a little kerfuffle with my friend Senator Kilgariff a few moments ago. I remind him that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) said in the House of Representatives that he did not agree with the Albrecht theory. So we have one parliamentarian on the Government side of this chamber and the Minister in another House disagreeing on how land rights legislation ought to be implemented. As time goes on it will not be Mr Viner who will be implementing the land rights legislation; it will be that party to which Senator Kilgariff belongs, the broken down Country Party of the Northern Territory, which has now changed its name to the LiberalCountry Party or something like that to give it some air of respectability, but it is still made up of all the political horse traders of the past who are out to protect the land for the white minority in the Northern Territory, not for the Aboriginal people. They want it for themselves. They want to exploit it in their own interests. That is the way they are going to prostitute this Bill the moment it leaves this chamber.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I would like to say a few words on this clause and the 3 amendments to it which have been circulated by Senator Keeffe and which are designed fundamentally to change the nature of the Bill and to translate it into something substantially different from what is contemplated at the moment. Senator Keeffe tells us that we will have to stand up and be counted on each amendment. If he thinks we are worried by that sort of schoolboy threat, I assure him that we are not. I assure him that we are capable of understanding, in the course of our deliberations of this Bill and the very long discussions that have taken place, that there are some things that some of us would like to see in the Bill that are not encompassed and cannot be encompassed at present.

Opposition members- Why not?

Senator MISSEN:

– Because in relation to the 3 Aboriginal Bills we have been debating today there have been many representations, many things done and many amendments. I am very satisfied with the great bulk of the amendments which have been made to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill, which I think have improved it very considerably. If I as an individual or someone else in this chamber thinks there might be another here or another one there, then it is a matter on which we must weigh up all the concerns and all the entitlements of people involved in the area and do what is best with prime consideration for the interests of the Aborigines, who I think are concerned with this.

Senator Coleman:

– You are saying you do not have the courage to do those things now.

Senator MISSEN:

- Senator Coleman is saying that I do not have the courage of my convictions. I think I have demonstrated the courage of my convictions on some occasions. I have never seen any members of the Australian Labor Party with any courage. They have pretty well no conviction at all. They are not the people to talk about the courage of your convictions. Clause 23, dealing with the powers of the land councils, deals with traditional Aboriginal land. This is one of the major matters encompassed in the Bill. Of course there are other concerns that must not be forgotten. They must be dealt with. I hope they will be constantly under review and that the Committee of the Parliament which is being formed to consider the implementation of this Bill will have these things in mind. I hope it will also have in mind the claims, which are another matter of dispute, of need of the land not based on traditional rights but on need. I hope that will be considered as still a fundamentally important matter, but it will be dealt with in a different way from what has been done in this Bill. It appears worth while recalling what is stated in the Woodward report. I have a great deal of respect for both the author of the report and the report itself. In paragraph 274 of the second report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission Mr Justice Woodward states:

Only a very small percentage of city and town dwellers could establish a traditional claim to the areas where they now live.

He went on to accept the aspects and views put forward by the counsel for the Central Land Council, who said:

In respect of practically all of these township people, certain common features exist. They are all Aborigines who have been over the years dispossessed of their traditional land and have occupied areas of land for a number of years as virtual squatters. They have become attached to these areas of land and generally speaking desire to continue to live there. In no case could it be established that the land in question also constituted the traditional land of the particular persons now occupying it, although it may have formed part of the general tribal area of these people. In practically each case the land upon which they are now living is Crown land. The circumstances in which they are living is totally unsatisfactory to both themselves, to the white population of these towns and to Australian society as a whole ‘.

I certainly hope that nothing in regard to the passage of this Bill, which deals substantially with traditional land and gives back traditional land which may well relieve a considerable proportion of the difficulties which people who are fringe dwellers and town dwellers may have, will lead to a lack of consideration for those rights, but obviously this is not the Bill that deals with them and this amendment is therefore, I feel, quite inappropriate.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I am surprised to hear Senator Missen quote the very same extracts from the Woodward report as I had intended to quote at this point of the Committee stage because it seems to me that any reasonable interpretation of the extracts which were just quoted would lead one to the conclusion that Justice Woodward did intend that needs claims rather than traditional claims be included in this Bill. The purpose of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is to give effect to those recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward, which were that the Aboriginal Land Commissioner have jurisdiction to make recommendations relating to grants of land for Aboriginals within towns. Senator Missen has said we must weigh up all the possibilities, we must look at all the people affected and so on. I do not think that is what we should do at all. What we should be doing is facilitating the ability of Aboriginal people, whether they be town dwellers or reserve dwellers, to make land rights claims. Unless the Government accepts these amendments the fringe dwellers in places like Alice Springs will not be able to make land claims under this Bill and nothing that Senator Missen has said will change that fact.

Several of us spoke in the second reading debate about the needs of people living in fringe areas of Alice Springs and I do not think there is any need to repeat them, but if Government supporters who spoke at such length about their concern to rectify the wrongs done to Aboriginal people and to make up to the Aboriginal people for the destruction of their culture and their traditional way of life meant what they said for one minute then I fail to see how they can refuse to support this amendment because it is those people, as Justice Woodward said, who have been moved away from their traditional land in camps around Alice Springs and similar places who are the worst victims of the racism of this country. The people living in their traditional way on their traditional land are not as badly disadvantaged as the people in the fringe areas of Alice Springs. I fail to comprehend any logic from any Government supporter who says on the one hand ‘We are concerned in this Bill to rectify the mistakes of the past; we are concerned to give Aboriginals a way of establishing their land claims’ and in the same breath says ‘but of course this Bill does not do that; it will be done in some other way’. The proper way for all Aboriginal people to make land claims should be through the Land Commissioner as Justice Woodward recommends.

I want to make just one other point, which Senator Missen has half made for me, by quoting again from the Woodward report, and that is that the number of people involved in these camps around the towns is very small- 2374 Aborigines in greater Darwin and 1269 in Alice Springs. It is a small number of very disadvantaged people about whom we are talking. Why is it that this small number of people cannot be given the protection and the facility offered in the legislation before us? It is not as if there are going to be thousands and thousands of people in towns making claims which will be very difficult to resolve. Some of this small number of people are already living on vacant Crown land around Alice Springs- land that presumably nobody else wants or that nobody else has been using. It seems to me to be quite inhumane to say that these few Aboriginal people living around Alice Springs cannot under this Bill lay claims to the land on which they have been living in some cases- I am sure Senator Bonner is aware of this -for 20 or 30 years. Certainly it is not land to which they have traditional rights but it is the land on which they have been living, some of them for their whole lifetime- particularly the younger members of the tribes that are living in this way. Why cannot those few Aboriginals make claims under this Bill for which Government senators have made such claims and which I believe would if the provisions were extended to these people offer a lot more protection than would be available to them in making land claims through the Department of the Northern Territory.

I do not intend to speak at length on other amendments which will be moved by the Opposition, but I would like to say very clearly for the record that it is on this point that the sincerity of Government senators’ intentions in regard to the Aboriginal people will be tested. If Government senators cannot see that acceptance of this amendment will immeasurably improve the Bill then I think there is no sincerity in anything they have said up to this point. I repeat, a small number of Aboriginal people are involved. It is the most disadvantaged section of the Aboriginal community which is involved. To support these amendments would be to support the spirit of the Woodward report and would enable the fringe dwelling Aboriginal people to have the same legislative rights as people living in traditional areas. I exhort Government senators at this stage to look seriously at the amendment and to support it.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I rise because of my disappointment, I suppose, at the lack of understanding by Opposition supporters as to what this Bill is all about. This Bill deals with traditional Aboriginal people making traditional claims to traditional lands. Sure there are fringe dwellers. There are fringe dwellers in every city and town throughout the length and breadth of Australia and governments up until now have taken no account of them, but fortunately under the present Government an Aboriginal Lands Trust is able to look after the fringe dweller in the situation Opposition supporters are talking about. Fringe dwelling Aborigines can apply to the Trust to have the land purchased and handed to them. This has nothing whatever to do with this Bill which is dealing with tribal Aboriginal people- people who have traditional claims to traditional land. I cannot understand why the Opposition is trying to make out that we are not concerned for the fringe dwellers. I am concerned with them because I am of a fringe dwelling situation and want to see it taken care of not only in the Northern Territory in Alice Springs and in Darwin but also throughout the length and breadth of Australia. I am glad that in the Northern Territory at least the fringe dwelling situations there can be looked after under the Trust which has $lm, as I understand it at the moment. The Trust can purchase land around Alice Springs and hand it to the fringe dwelling people. It is not necessary to incorporate this amendment in this Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– This amendment seeks to delete from the definition ‘alienated Crown land’ the words but does not include land in a town’. A further amendment to be moved later will seek to omit from the definition ‘unalienated Crown land’ the same words. The Committee has heard the contributions from the other side of the chamber. Senator Bonner will acknowledge that I am one of the Opposition supporters whom he accuses of not understanding what the Bill is about. I accept from the statements of Senator Bonner that he knows full well what the Bill is about. As he says, this Bill seeks to give tribal land to tribal owners. I would alter that statement by suggesting the words ‘some tribal land to some tribal owners’. This is the complaint of the Opposition. The Woodward report referred to land for Aboriginals but this definition is restrictive. We both agree that the Bill is not sufficient. The proposal to leave out the words ‘but does not include land in a town’ is consequential because it fits in with the other proposed amendments which seek to make the Bill one for Aboriginals.

I would not doubt the courage of Senator Missen. I congratulate him on his attitude. I think that he has expressed a reasonably liberal attitude since he has been a member of this place. We hope to get some support if we are deciding matters on logic and in a desire to achieve justice for the Aboriginal people. Of course, he read what Mr Justice Woodward said. We cannot accept that Mr Justice Woodward excluded fringe dwellers.

Senator Missen:

– I did not say that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No. He read from the summary of recommendations. Paragraph 328 of that summary reads:

  1. Planning for Aborigines in towns must involve consulting them to discover their wishes. Their preferences will range from normal town houses, through clustered community accommodation to permanent facilities for camping . . .
  2. Regional Land Councils should each assign an officer to find out the housing requirements of Aborigines in towns within the region.
  3. The Land Councils should then make submissions to town planning authorities and to the Aboriginal Land Commission.
  4. The Land Commission after considering these submissions, making its own investigations and consulting with planning authorities, should make recommendations to the Government concerning the acquisition of the necessary land for Aborigines in towns.
  5. Where moneys are required for such acquisitions, they should come from the Aboriginal Land Fund.

That is the section that Senator Bonner read out. The summary of recommendations continues:

It is expected that such purposes would probably receive a high priority because the need is so pressing in many places.

By the end of 1976 all Aboriginal groups, except those actually travelling, should be living on land where they are content to be and where they have a recognised right to be, because it is held on their behalf by Aboriginal trustees.

It is pointed out in one of the paragraphs that the proposition that Aboriginals should be pushed out because the site on which they have been living is required for housing development should not be accepted. That is the approach at which he suggests that the Commission should be looking. But the use of the terms ‘alienated’ and unalienated’, which has the effect of excluding the land in the towns, prevents the Commission doing the very things that Mr Justice Woodward said that he wanted it to do and it should do. Therefore such areas cannot be considered for purchase by the Trust as places where Aboriginals should settle. We are defeating Woodward ‘s proposals by doing that. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, the amendments proposed by the Opposition are for the sole purpose of improving the Bill to the standard of the recommendations of the Woodward Commission.

Mr Justice Woodward also found that possibly the whole of the site of Darwin is located on tribal Aboriginal land. Although he did not suggest that that land be handed over to the traditional owners of Aboriginal land, he did suggest that other land should be provided as compensation for that land which we are unable to return to the traditional owners of the tribal land.

Senator Missen:

– That is hardly appropriate under this legislation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I would have thought that it was most appropriate, especially when we have a Commission whose duty it is to look after the claims of Aboriginals and whose duty it is then to recommend what we can do to satisfy such claims. In the case of a claim made for the site on which Darwin is located, I think it is proper for the Commission- the Commission has looked into the Kulaluk claims- to recommend to the Minister that a particular area should be granted to those Aborigines who had a legitimate claim to the Darwin site. Firstly, they should be given land by way of compensation, not the site on which Darwin is located. Secondly, as is envisaged by Woodward, we should have a commission which ensures that the fringe dwellers are not pushed further and further into the outback just because the white man wants to use the land for a housing development. That is the justification for and that is the whole purpose of the amendment. It would not have the effect of excluding a township. Its only effect would be to permit the Commission to look into the matter and make a recommendation on it. But the Government prohibits it from looking into those matters. It prohibits the Commission looking into matters concerned with land other than traditional land. The Commission cannot do what Woodward envisaged.

I notice that mention is made in the report of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in conjunction with the Minister for the Northern Territory, granting a lease to Aboriginals in Alice Springs. But it is a lease which can be terminated. It is not proposed to give the Aboriginals land. It acknowledges that they are going to be there. They are going to live there. But they are excluded from owning the land. The whole purport of the Woodward report was to give land to Aboriginals. The whole purpose of the Opposition’s amendments is to do that very thing.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government has decided that the provision of land in towns claimed on a needs basis should be handled under the normal process of Northern Territory law. It is for that reason that the Government is unable to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. The Government has already decided that most of the land claimed in Alice Springs, for example, will be granted under the Northern Territory leasehold system as recommended by Mr Justice Woodward. Aboriginal groups have indicated that they will cooperate with the Government in the preparation of development plans for that land. The combined action of the Government and of the Aboriginals hopefully will result in the resolution of some of the problems facing fringe dwellers in these areas. I do not doubt that we all have very grave concern about the fringe dwellers of the towns and cities in this country and about the need to provide adequate housing and land acquisition opportunities that will provide for them the standards which we believe they are entitled to have for their living arrangements. The Government believes that it is inappropriate, as Senator Bonner has said, to complicate legislation which deals with traditional land rights. As there are already appropriate administrative machinery arrangements for dealing with claims based on need, we believe that the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition to this clause cannot be accepted.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– Once again Senator Keeffe has made loose charges and carried on with what I would describe as vilification. The Country-Liberal Party is the majority Party in the Northern Territory and is supported by the majority of the people. Regardless of how Senator Keeffe feels towards that Party it has been made the majority Party by the people to represent the people in the Northern Territory. It has the support of a large number of Aboriginals. It has that support because of the interest it takes in the Aboriginal people.

Senator Keeffe referred to the Albrecht theory. What a ridiculous statement he made. It is ridiculous because obviously he does not understand the situation. I could say also that other people obviously do not understand the situation. There is no Albrecht theory. There is no theory which applies just to central Australia. I refer interested people and all of those people who possibly have been poorly advised and who believe that there is an Albrecht system to the joint parliamentary committee which is proposed to be formed for the purpose of reviewing the provisions of this Bill. I support to the best of my ability the setting up of that committee. In fact, I am one of those who insisted that that committee be formed so that it can oversee the legislation to ensure that it works. Once the legislation is enacted that committee can look at any problems which occur and hopefully make recommendations to the Government which will then act upon those recommendations and seek to cure the ills involved.

This is the first Federal Bill of its kind in Australia. There will be problems. As I have indicated before, I believe, as a person who lives in the Northern Territory, that there will be problems with the traditional land owners. This legislation is related to the traditional owners of the traditional land. The concept of Aboriginal land owning clans is not properly recognised. But to illustrate that there is no such thing as an Albrecht theory, I suggest that people interested read Kin and Totem by Johannes Falkenberg; Aboriginal Man in Australia, which was written in honour of Professor Elkin and edited by Professor Berndt and Katherine Berndt; The World of the First Australians by Professor Berndt and Katherine Berndt; Man, Land and Myth in North Australia, once again by Professor Berndt and Katherine Berndt; Aranda Traditions by Professor Strehlow; and Tribes and Boundaries in Australia, which is edited by Nicholas Peterson. They indicate that in the Northern Territory, there are land owning clans which, despite their laws, naturally do differ. But what I have been trying to impress upon the Senate is that there are such people as land owning clans throughout the Northern Territory. This is where a lot of the misunderstanding has taken place.

In answer to some of the criticisms regarding fringe dwellers in Alice Springs, the situation is this: In the first place there are the Arunta people. They own the land. They have lived there from time immemorial. No other tribe or clan come into that area unless they were given permission. Those people lived in the river beds. They have not lived in those river beds for 20 or 30 years. That is their land and they have lived there for a long time. Over the last few years there have been intrusions through various assimilation policies of other tribes and clans coming into the area. The result was that there was quite a mixture of people. There was trouble within those people. The Aboriginal people themselves got together and agreed that they would require certain pieces of land on which they could separate into their own clans, families and so on and live in peace in the Alice Springs area. They had consultations with local government and with government with the result that certain leases have been granted, applications for leases are practically completed and one or two leases have yet to be processed.

So the situation is this: There are leases that have been granted, there are leases that have been almost completed and there are others that are yet to be processed. Honourable senators should take note that these leases are not on the fringe of the town. They are ordinary leases under the Northern Territory land laws. They are in the town and they will be there for a long time. In fact the Aboriginal people will always own them. It will not be a case of Aboriginal people being pushed out and always being on the fringe. It is realised that if these people are to live in the community- and this is being encouraged- they should have the land or buildings or whatever facilities they require. Once again there has been misunderstanding here and not only misunderstanding but misrepresentation. I suggest to honourable senators on the other side of the chamber that if they want to make the noises they have made, they should be a little bit more accurate in future and at least give some recognition to the good that is being done by government for the Aboriginal people. They should not, as Senator Keeffe is always doing, tear apart government policy and make false assertions and so on. He is the shadow Minister for the Northern Territory. In view of the way in which he is carrying on and always attacking the Northern Territory I have no doubt that he will remain, and be nothing more than, the shadow Minister.

There have been many comments that I have had to answer, but I wish to refer briefly to another one. I wish to put this matter before the Government as I believe that in the future it will have to have a review of the interpretation of the definition of ‘Aboriginal’. I recommend to the Government that it take seriously the thoughts that have been expressed by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in the other place a few days ago. He suggested that the definition of ‘Aboriginal should read:

Aboriginal’ means a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia and is registered or entitled to be registered under the provisions of paragraph 24 (a) or who has been nominated by a person so registered as a member of his land-owning clan or group.

He continued:

If honourable members look at sub-clause 24 (a) of the Bill they will see that it enables Aborigines to make a register of people whom they consider to be Aborigines.

This Bill allocates traditional land. Its title speaks of traditional Aboriginal land . . .

Another view of the matter is contained in the Hansard of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly of 1 April 1976. The Majority Leader, Dr Letts, said: . . in the present bill is the definition of ‘Aboriginals’ which is not consistent with Northern Territory reality. It is necessary to distinguish between the more traditional Aboriginals whose self identity has been culturally shaped and formed and those Aboriginals whose self identity has been largely formed on the basis of colour. Aboriginals as recognised in the Northern Territory have no difficulty in making this distinction. For them an Aboriginal is one who knows and has been put through the law. Under this definition, there would not be difficulties in determining Aboriginal ownership of traditional land in the Northern Territory.

As I have said, I believe that the Government should review its definition of ‘Aboriginal’ in relation to the law that are being passed now.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– It was not my intention to take part in this debate because I felt that the Opposition was being well represented by people on this side of the chamber, who are well qualified to speak on Aboriginal matters. Since I have been a member of this House in Opposition in Government and now again in Opposition, Senator Keeffe has untiringly put a case for Aboriginals. I have always admired Senator Keeffe for his efforts on behalf of the Aboriginal people over the years. I suggest to Senator Kilgariff, in view of the words he has just uttered, that it might do him good to get some of the Hansards of this place going back over many years and to read for himself of the efforts that Senator Keeffe has made on behalf of Aboriginal people in this Parliament alone, leaving aside what he has done outside the Parliament. I think that Senator Keeffe ‘s record over the years would read much better than that of Senator Kilgariff.

Senator Keeffe, the shadow Minister for Aboriginal affairs and the shadow Minister for the Northern Territory is handling this legislation for the Opposition. Supporting him is an ex-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh. I had the pleasure of visiting many Aboriginal settlements with Senator Cavanagh when he was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I compliment him on the work he has done for Aboriginals. He is another person who is well qualified to speak on this legislation and to put a case for the Aboriginals. Sitting right in front of me is Senator Ted Robertson who, from my own personal knowledge, has a very intimate knowledge of the problems of Aboriginal people. I have been to the Northern Territory and visited many settlements in the company of Senator Robertson and I know that he is respected by the Aboriginal people. What he has said today is only the truth. He has done his best as he has done on many other occasions to support the cause of the Aboriginal people.

What prompted me to rise in this debate were the remarks made by Senator Missen. If I heard Senator Missen correctly when he was replying to Senator Keeffe who had said that the Opposition was going to divide on every amendment put forward by the Opposition to this Bill so that Government supporters would have to stand up and be counted, he said that he had never seen anyone in the Labor Party with the courage to stand up for their convictions.

Senator Missen:

– I did.

Senator McLAREN:

– That is quite out of character for Senator Missen. In the time that he and I have been in the Senate I have learnt to have a great respect for his views and the moderation he takes as a member of the Liberal Party. But he disappoints me when he says that. I should like to remind him that members of the Labor Party have always been prepared to stand up for their convictions. Senator Keeffe is one person who has been vilified by members of the Liberal Party over the years I have been in the Senate for standing up for his convictions in support of the Aboriginal people. On many occasions he has been called some nasty names but that has not deterred him from putting the case for the Aboriginal cause. I am sure it will not deter him in the future.

I should like to remind Senator Missen that many years ago, during the referendum on communism when members of the Labor Party had the courage of their convictions, he was one member of the Liberal Party who had the courage of his convictions. He stood up in public and got himself into trouble with his own Party.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– I take a point of order. There are a lot of clauses in this Bill which we wish to discuss. If the honourable senator could confine his remarks to the clause we are now discussing this would facilitate the Committee debate.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I note the point which the Minister has made. I have been listening to Senator McLaren. I was waiting until he finished to raise that point I would be pleased if he would come back to the matter relating to the clause which, as he knows, refers to land in town.

Senator McLAREN:

-That is the clause to which I was directing my remarks. As I said when I rose to speak -

The CHAIRMAN:

– May we have some specific debate on the clause?

Senator McLAREN:

– I am referring to clause 3 ( 1 ) on page 2 where Senator Keeffe has moved to leave out the words ‘but does not include land in a town’. That is the clause we are debating. It was to that clause that Senator Missen was addressing himself when he accused members of the Labor Party of not having the courage to stand up for their convictions. Surely honourable senators on this side of the House, when they are accused of those things, should be allowed to stand up and protect themselves despite what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) says. The proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast today and I am not going to sit here and allow those accusations to be made against honourable senators on this side of the House, in particular against me, Senator Keeffe, Senator Cavanagh and Senator Robertson, without having the opportunity to give the lie to those accusations.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think that Senator McLaren has made that point firmly. Can we now come back to the specific matter about land in a town?

Senator McLAREN:

– I will come back to that matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honourable senator refer to the clause?

Senator McLAREN:

– I have just quoted the clause, Mr Chairman. If some supporters of the Government, including Senator Missen, had had the courage of their convictions 12 months ago this Bill would now have been law. We would not be sitting in the Parliament with the Government tinkering with the Bill, which was the Labor Party’s measure. The Aboriginals would have had the Bill, it would have been law, and it would have been fully acceptable to the Aboriginal people.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to clause 3 of the Bill in reply to Senator Kilgariff. I have waited for 2 days for someone to give me some word of praise. For the first time I have received it from one on my own side. My heart is now filled with compassion. Never again will I say a hasty word against anyone. I congratulate Senator Kilgariff on his honesty, as I did last night. He showed direct character in advocating what he believes in. He quoted Mr Wentworth and supported his action in defining Aboriginals as only those who are entitled to be on the register kept by the lands councils. This is a register of tribal Aborigines with tribal claims who are the owners of the land although they may not live in the area. Mr Wentworth and Senator Kilgariff want to divide the Aboriginals. They want to have a class of tribal Aboriginals and kick out all the others. I think this is in accordance with the attitude Senator Kilgariff expressed last night. He said that in the Northern Territory there are decent, old Aboriginals and young, drunken Aboriginals. I suppose we would have 3 classes: Tribal Aboriginals, young, drunken Aboriginals and other Aboriginals. Senator Kilgariff is attempting to divide them. It is evident that Senator Kilgariff has been living in the Northern Territory for 46 years. His thoughts are for the land-owning, cattle station properties in the Northern Territory. It is good that he is honest about that. I take it that his speeches will be reported in the Northern Territory. I think it is a sign of honesty that he has declared fully his attitude to the position of Aboriginals.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I want to make a brief contribution to this debate simply to express regret at the extremely divisive approach which is being adopted by Opposition senators. It is quite clear that in a calculated way attempts are being made to set black against white and black against black. This is quite pathetic. It is a great disservice to the community. I make that statement with great seriousness because I think that the judgment of the Government that traditional land should be dealt with under this Bill and that other claims should be dealt with under the general law is a reasonable approach. It does not involve debate of the sort we have just heard from Senator Cavanagh. I have expressed great admiration for

Senator Cavanagh in the past. I have supported him on occasions when he has been acting on behalf of Aborigines. But I believe the remarks he has just made are not relevant to this clause. They are simply a device which will set people in the Northern Territory against each other. I regret this. I hope the debate might be able to proceed without such contributions.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I cannot let the remarks of Senator Chaney go by without commenting on them. I always thought that he was a small ‘1’ liberal but his remarks were probably some of the most racist ever enunciated in this chamber. I regret that they came from Senator Chaney and that he tried to create a division. That indicates that he is struggling for a Party which realises that it has taken away from the Aboriginal people that which is theirs in order to look after their own mining companies and what have you. It is obvious, as we said at the beginning of this debate, that the Government has put up a phony Bill and that it is not out to look after the Aboriginal people. I regret this incident and I hope it does not happen again.

The Opposition promised to co-operate in getting this Bill through in a hurry or at least to assist as far as we could in the speedy passage of the Bill. It is not working out that way, mainly because people on the other side of the chamber have wanted to enter into a protracted debate and the accusations coming from Senator Kilgariff are doing nothing to help the harmony of the organisation. I want to refer Senator Kilgariff to a speech made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) which is reported in Hansard of 17 November. Perhaps he will believe what the Minister said when the words are read out to him. Hansard cannot be classified as a subversive document or something subject to the Censorship Board. The Minister said:

Mr Justice Woodward was thoroughly conscious of the need to provide within Australia domestic law for the traditional interests of Aborigines. He was conscious of the need to provide a system of law within which the position of traditional owners is respected and entrenched. I know the views of Pastor Albrecht. I have sat with him and his 2 assistants at Hermannsburg for 2 days and discussed his propositions at length. I respect the views which he holds. However, they are not the views which are held by respected anthropologists or by others who have studied this area of Aboriginal interest for many years. With due respect to the views of Pastor Albrecht, I do not accept them. I think that what His Honour Mr Justice Woodward has provided in his report and what is reflected in this legislation will do all that is required to provide for the traditional ownership rights of Aborigines in the Northern Territory.

Provided that this Bill is extended to those areas about which we are now arguing, the Labor Party’s views would not differ very much from those of the Minister.

Senator Kilgariff:

– Those are not my views.

Senator KEEFFE:

-The honourable senator should wait until I have finished. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking. I met Pastor Albrecht a number of times. I respect him for what he tries to do in other areas. I think that he has been misled. He has had the wool pulled over his eyes. He has been led by the nose by characters such as Senator Kilgariff and Dr Letts, the majority leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. It is obvious that these 2 gentlemen have been working against the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill for a very long time because in reply to a question asked by my colleague Senator Robertson on 6 December, recorded at page 2672 of Hansard, an astronomical figure was disclosed as having been spent on travelling by Dr G. A. Letts and Mr B. F. Kilgariff, now Senator Kilgariff. Dr Letts spent $ 10,2 12 for the financial year. I guess a lot of this was on travelling expenses while campaigning against the type of Bill we have here today. Mr Kilgariff in 5 months and 13 days spent $3,441 on travelling expenses. That is a lot of money; they must have been really travelling around. I hope that we have now heard the last word on it.

For the sake of Senator Bonner who did not think the Aborigines were very interested or upset about the Government’s Bill, as there are still telegrams and messages coming into my office I thought that I would quote just one because it came from Western Australia. It reads:

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Student Union support you in your land rights debate. Keep fighting.

That was from the Western Australian delegate and was sent from Perth half an hour ago. So there are Aboriginal people who want these amendments carried and I suggest that the amendment I have moved seeking deletion of certain words would set the stage for some sort of co-operation between the Opposition and the Government. We are persisting with that amendment.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I had no intention of again entering the debate on this clause but I cannot let go the comments by Senator Keeffe in relation to my colleague Senator Chaney. Senator Chaney is a person whom I hold in high regard and respect and I attribute a lot of the achievements of this Bill to the hard work of Senator Chaney. I rebut the accusation by Senator Keeffe that Senator Chaney was making racist remarks.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

- Senator Keeffe said: ‘Let us be done with it’, but in saying that what does he do? He keeps on shovelling more dirt into the debate every time he stands. I do not know what the honourable senator was referring to when he mentioned the majority leader spending $10,000 and me spending $5,000 in travelling expenses. If he was referring to the Legislative Assembly, and presumably that is what he was referring to, I remind the honourable senator that the majority leader has responsibility for over half a million square miles and has to do a tremendous amount of travel- almost as much as Senator Keeffe. Senator Keeffe spoke of people having pulled the wool over the eyes of Pastor Albrecht. If anybody has pulled the wool over Pastor Albrecht ‘s eyes it is the Aboriginal people because he speaks on behalf of the Aboriginal people. It is not the Albrecht theory, and because they have no one else to represent their viewpoint they use Pastor Albrecht, who is a conscientious and honest man.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be len out.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The next amendment the Opposition desires to move relates to sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3. 1 move:

In the definition of ‘town’, omit ‘, and includes any area that, by virtue of regulations in force under that law, is to be treated as a town’.

I point out that there is support for the Opposition’s amendments. I have just had a message from some people in East Gippsland. A number of them are listening to this debate and are supporting the amendments. The message states:

There are a lot of Aboriginal people in Australia listening to the Senate debating the Land Rights Bill today. They have heard the comments made by Senator Bonner on fringe dwellers. The fringe dwellers in the Northern Territory are also Aboriginal people in that category, therefore they should have land rights. They hope Senator Bonner as an Aboriginal will support the amendment on fringe dwellers. There are a lot of higher powers other than the Senate listening to the outrageous comments made by the Government today. Many phone calls have been made in the last few hours regarding the contents of the Bill.

A whole group of Aboriginal people in the East Gippsland area has been listening, quite unsolicited, to this debate and has expressed its opinion. I hope that we do not get into the same dogfight on this amendment as we did on the last one.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I understand that Senator Keeffe is moving an amendment which would have the effect of removing the words:

  1. . and includes any area that, by virtue of regulations in force under that law, is to be treated as a town.

I turn to a Bill which was introduced in to the Senate earlier this year by Senator Keeffe, I find in that Bill is a definition of ‘town’ which includes those same words.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is not to say that it would not have been amended when it came before the Senate.

Senator BAUME:

– I am asking a question of the Chairman. I interpolate here to say that the debate is not helped when we hear words from the other side such as ‘racist’ and ‘sell-out’. We are here determined to try to examine these clauses. The honourable senator has moved an amendment to delete words which were included in the definition in his private member’s Bill. I rise simply to invite him to explain to the Committee why that should be so.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not think I should need to make an explanation. Senator Baume should be able to work it out for himself. The Opposition said earlier that the Government has prostituted the terms of the original Labor Bill by comparison with the terms of this Bill in such a way that one becomes suspicious of a full stop at the end of every paragraph in case some hidden meaning is included to deprive Aboriginal people of their just rights.

It ill behoves Senator Baume to cast aspersions on me or on anybody else on this side of the chamber when he set the tone for this debate when he followed me yesterday and decided that he would go off the verbal deep end. If Senator Baume wants to invite debate and prolong the agony, he is entitled to do that. However, I make the point that the Northern Territory under the present system has been very slow and indifferent about processing land claims in towns. We had a lengthy discussion yesterday, and brief reference was made to it again this morning, about the reluctance of the Government to re-institute the freeze when it expires on 3 1 December this year in order to give Aboriginal people a decent go.

There are 3 amendments to which I will refer later for the benefit of Senator Baume. There is the amendment the Opposition has just lost, the one we are currently debating and another one which I will be moving directly after this vote is taken. There is a lot of confusion about the Northern Territory, and as the Government is handing over most of the powers in the Bill to ordinances which will be drafted under Northern Territory laws it will have to take into consideration the fact that the Opposition is reluctant to see it cast away land in towns which may be properly claimed by Aboriginal people. If the matter is left at that point and the proposed section includes the reference to land in a town, it will exclude Aboriginal people. Perhaps that might have sunk through to the normally fairly sharp witted brain of Senator Baume, which seems to have become rather confused on land rights.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I say simply that I have listened with interest to what Senator Keeffe has had to say. He has offered no intellectually satisfying explanation why this definition, which was good enough when he put it into his private member’s Bill, is not satisfactory now. I hope the Government will not accept the amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

Mr Chairman, there is an explanation, and I should have thought that Senator Baume would have realised it. I have always maintained that to talk of consistency is to speak of a weak mind. I do not know the details, but there is no similarity between this Bill and the Bill to be introduced by Senator Keeffe. It may have been a proper definition for the purposes of Senator Keeffe ‘s Bill. On the other hand, it could well have been that the Bill having come from the draftsman with that wording, if it had come here for debate, might have been amended. Senator

Keeffe might have seen the justification for withdrawing it. That is not strange. After all, this Government introduced 42 amendments to its Bill. I think that Senator Keeffe and the committee looking at the Government Bill were of the opinion that the definition was undesirable in that form. While the Opposition has been defeated on its amendment relating to the commission looking at Aboriginal land in a town, the Government seeks to extend the area of a town to include any area which is proclaimed under the regulations in force. I do not know the extent of that, but it could exclude from time to time areas of land at which the commission is looking. The reason for the change in attitude by Senator Keeffe is that there is a great suspicion at Booroloola that there could be a declaration of a town there on Aboriginal land. To compare the words in one document with words in another document with a different intention is entirely misleading and unfair.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government is unable to accept the amendment. In common with the one which preceded it and with the next one, this amendment overlooks the fact that the Bill deals exclusively with traditional land rights. As I said before, the Government decided that any request from groups for land in the towns should be dealt with outside this Bill and through the ordinary administration of land use in the Northern Territory. It should be recalled that Mr Justice Woodward, when speaking of town claims, clearly indicated that the tenure of any land in towns by Aboriginals should be the same kind of tenure as that for all other persons and that any request for such land should go through the normal town planning procedures of the Northern Territory. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), when speaking in the debate in the other House, said that that would be done. As the Government has indicated throughout the discussion on the matter of towns as they relate to this legislation, it is not appropriate to accept the amendments which the Opposition is moving.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I move:

In the definition ‘unalienated Crown land’, leave out ‘but does not include land in a town’.

I thought we might have conveyed the significance of these relevant amendments to Government senators but it appears that the lesson has not yet been totally absorbed. I wish to quote from a section of the Woodward report. It states:

A number of later submissions-

This is dealing with Aborigines in fringe areas, etc.: . . have pointed out, quite rightly, that the difficulties in which many of these people find themselves do arise from the loss of their traditional lands or the loss of their sense of Aboriginal identity caused by their mixed ancestry. Whatever their reasons for living in a town, it can certainly be said that most of the fringe-dwellers of the cities and towns have suffered more from the coming of white settlement than have those still living on reserves or cattle stations.

That is the crux of the problem that the Opposition has been trying to point up during the whole of the debate on these relevant subclauses. I feel it is hopeless making an appeal to the Government senators, but they have still their last chance if they want this sort of identification incorporated in the Bill. If they are not prepared to vote for this amendment, obviously they do not care what happens. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

Leave out sub-clause (4), substitute the following subclause:

A reference in this Act to the granting of a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall be read as including a reference to the renewal of a mining interest. ‘.

The amendment is designed to ensure that mining interests with options or other rights must seek consent when land becomes Aboriginal land. The 1975 legislation provided that mining interests seeking extensions should be subject to consent. For instance, Nabalco had a 42-year lease with an option for another 2 1 years. Yet it has the right under this Bill to get automatic renewal. This applies also to a number of other mining interests. I do not think I need go any further in advancing my argument on that; I think it is self-explanatory. It is the sort of thing that the members of the Opposition have been saying since this debate started yesterday.

I think that some people on the other side of the Parliament are a bit touchy. They are people who belong to the left wing of the Liberal Party of Australia as opposed to the right wing. They have to live with their consciences. We are not trying to say to anybody: ‘Leave your Party and cross the floor and vote with us’, All we are saying, in a very reasonable way, is: ‘These sorts of amendments are not going to bankrupt your Government. Why do you not accept them as they are?’ They are genuinely moved amendments and they ought to be accepted as they are. There is no reason for anybody to break away from the Liberal Party or for Senator Kilgariff, as the sole representative of his Party in this chamber, to break away all by himself. There is no need for that sort of thing. We are not trying to intimidate honourable senators opposite to do that. But we are making an appeal to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and the honourable senators opposite to see a bit of sweet reason and to accept the amendments. I admit that the amendments are too left wing for the right wing of the Liberal Party. But there are people in the left wing of the Liberal Party who have a more progressive attitude and who sometimes believe in the rights of people, even minority groups like Aborigines. Honourable senators opposite ought to be prepared to accept the amendments. But if they are not prepared to accept them there is nothing that we can do.

A member of the Liberal Party said to me a few days ago: ‘Why should we tear our guts out in the Party room over this sort of Bill when, the way Mai is going, we are sliding into oblivion and you blokes will be there in 1978 and you will amend the Bill in the way we want to amend it anyway?’ That is a very negative approach but there are people of that mind in your Party who are taking the easy way out. If only you would fight for some of these things -

Honourable senators interjecting

THE CHAIRMAN- Order! I do not want a slanging match across the Senate and I want the speaker to direct his remarks to the Chair.

Senator KEEFFE:

-I must say that I had no intention of setting off a slanging match. I was merely -

Senator Archer:

– You started it.

Senator KEEFFE:

-If you want to argue the point I will not back away from you. I will back away on this issue much less than I would on some other issue.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you have the courage of your convictions?

Senator KEEFFE:

-I certainly do. That is a very well posed question, Senator Cavanagh. I notice that someone on the other side of the chamber who was saying that sort of thing a while ago has now gone to dinner. Good luck to him; I hope he enjoys his pea soup. I wish to quote from further sections of the Woodward report, which has particular reference to the subject we are now debating. I refer firstly to paragraph 623, which reads:

No doubt all those companies which can show substantial expenditures should and will receive priority when any areas of Aboriginal land become available for exploration under any new arrangements that may be decided upon.

Paragraph 624 reads:

However I think it is essential that they should all be required to adhere to the new arrangements and should not, as the Australian Mining Industry Council has urged on me, be exempt from them.

This comes right back to what I have been saying in this debate, namely, that the Australian Mining Industry Council drafted the Bill for the Government and that the Government inserted one or two amendments here and there and is now trying to sell it to us as its property. In paragraph 625 Mr Justice Woodward said:

When the understandable expectations of these companies that they would be able to continue exploration under the rules which governed them to begin with, are weighed against the equally reasonable expectation of Aborigines that their wishes about reserve lands will now be respected, I have no doubt in my mind which expectation must be disappointed.

Woodward, of course- in the same way as the Australian Labor Party would do in Governmentwould ensure that the miners would be disappointed. That is not to say that we are antimining. We would provide the sort of legislation that would give everyone a fair go. When the Minister is replying she might perhaps give me an explanation of sub-clause 5 of clause 3, which reads:

A description of land in Schedule 1 shall be deemed not to include any land on which there is, at the commencement of this section, a road over which the public has a right of way.

I think there is probably a fairly simple explanation for it, but I am wondering whether the Minister might comment on that when she makes some comments on this clause.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. This clause protects existing mining interests, as recommended by Mr Justice Woodward and accepted by the Government. If the renewal of mining interests which carry an option or right of renewal were not protected from consent procedures it would mean that existing legal interests were not fully protected. Mr Justice Woodward’s draft legislation provided protection for all interests, including interests- I quote him- ‘agreed to be granted by the Crown’. The definition of alienated interest’ in his draft Bill refers to these matters. The comments of the Opposition in relation to this matter do not state fully the attitudes of Mr Justice Woodward on this point.

With regard to sub-clause 3(5), a limited number of public roads, the use of which has not been subject to control by the permit system, are excluded from the grant, but Aboriginals will control entry on to their land. Other matters were referred to by Senator Keeffe. He talked of the rights of people and made somewhat inflammatory statements. I do not think they clarify the matters with which we are dealing. The rights of people include the dignity of people, and I think that includes our colleagues in this chamber. I would like to think that the constructive comments of the Opposition can be freely heard in this debate, but I would like to think that we are able to proceed with the dignity of debate that honourable senators are able to provide on an occasion as important as this.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 30

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 9-by leave-taken together.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I seek some clarification of clause 5 sub-clause (1) (b), which states: to exercise its powers as owner of land referred to in paragraph (a) for the benefit of the Aboriginal groups concerned;

The Government in its drafting has had a tendency to switch from ‘groups’ to ‘communities’. I would like a definition from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) as to what she thinks is a community and what she thinks is a group and an explanation of any other definition that the Government may put on these words. As a forewarning, I state that the next amendment will be to clause 10 (3).

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) I do not want you to get on to that now.

Senator KEEFFE:

-No, I will not. I merely indicate what I will do after. The Minister can reply to my query now.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– A question was asked with regard to communities. The reference to communities has been deleted to bring clause 5 into line with other provisions to the effect that land is held for the benefit of groups of Aboriginals entitled by tradition to its use and occupation.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 10

  1. For the purposes of this section, a lease of land granted under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals shall be deemed to be an estate or interest in that land if the lease was granted before the date of commencement of this section or in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the Commonwealth before that date.
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

Leave out sub-clause ( 3 ).

Basically the arguments for this are the same as I advanced for the previous amendment which was defeated in the last vote. This sub-clause is regarded with the same sort of suspicion, if one may categorise it that way, as the members of the Australian Labor Party and the Aboriginal people have of this Government and this rather phoney Bill that it is putting up.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The Government does not accept the proposed amendment. I refer to two or three matters in order to clarify the position. The amendment which the Government has made to the Bill which was introduced in June will preserve the special purpose lease granted to Nabalco at Gove under the Special Purpose Lease Ordinance and the Mining (Gove Peninsula Nabalco Agreement) Ordinance by ensuring that these are treated as land leases to be held in escrow and not mining interests. In other words, in the same way as the Bill preserves existing interests in land, in these respects the Bill preserves the special mining interests of the companies at Nabalco.

I point out also that the Government has protected the Aboriginals in situations such as that at Gove and Groote Eylandt in that where extensions are required to the interests in land of the companies concerned pursuant to contractual obligations of the Commonwealth entered into with the companies, those companies must negotiate proper terms and conditions for any new lease. Where, however, the companies require new mineral leases, the granting of those new mineral leases will be subject to the same requirements of consent and negotiation of fair terms as all other mineral interests.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 29

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Clause 11 (Recommendations for grants of Crown land, other than that described in Schedule 1.)

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-We do not intend to move an amendment to clause 11, but I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to give us some background to sub-clause ( 3 ) of clause 1 1 , which reads:

A reference in sub-section (1 ) to land shall be read as not including a reference to any land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way.

I seek an explanation from the Minister of the full implications of that reference.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The reference is as it is expressed. It shall not be read as including a reference to any land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way. This clause allows trusts to be established and recommendations made for the transfer of title to them in respect of traditional land which is vacant Crown land, other than reserves and other lands listed in the Schedule, on the recommendation of the Land Commissioner. This clause, as we have amended it, will in addition allow a land trust to be formed for alienated land where title is held by Aboriginals; that is, pastoral properties which are leased to Aboriginals and which might become Aboriginal land if the Commissioner so recommends. Sub-clause (3), as has been stated, shall be read as not including a reference to any land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-That explanation has rather confused the issue. Perhaps I might cite as an instance the Simpson Desert where there is a road which goes from the Northern Territory through to the Queensland border and which, I understand, passes through some traditional areas. Does this sub-clause mean that Aboriginal people who may wish to make a claim to those areas in fact have no claim at all because the road and not the Aborigines will have the highest priority?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Sub-clause (3) of clause 1 1 reads:

A reference in sub-section ( 1 ) to land shall be read as not including a reference to any land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way.

Such roads are denned. To me that sub-clause is self-explanatory.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Surely the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) is merely taking the sub-clause at face value. I am not happy about her explanation. We will not have a crisis over it; we are not going to call a division on it or move an amendment to it. Perhaps at a later stage when we refer to one or two other areas that are fairly closely related to this matter we might get a more complete explanation.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I think the matter has been explained very clearly. If a national road runs through some land which the Aboriginal people claim, they cannot actually claim the road that passes through that land. I think that is fair and just. If national roads and recognised roads, on which the general public has travelled over the years, run through land on which the Aboriginal people make a claim, I think it is fair enough that they are not able to claim that actual strip of land on which the road is built. I see no complications in that situation.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-That has really confused the issue now. Taking the Simpson Desert example, that means that if a road passes through a sacred site the Government is ready on behalf -

Senator Bonner:

– There are no roads going through sacred sites.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Roads have gone through sacred sites. I am merely citing this as an illustration. That means that what the Government is doing on behalf of the Aborigines is repudiating that sacred site.

Senator Bonner:

– Not at all; there are not national roads going through sacred sites.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise only to confirm Senator Bonner’s interpretation of sub-clause (3) of clause 1 1, which reads:

A reference in sub-section ( 1 ) to land shall be read as not including a reference to any land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way.

The land referred to does not include such land over which there is a right of way. If there is a public right of way of 30 feet width, that land is not referred to as being 50 000 square miles; it is just that strip of land over which the right of way belongs to the public which is excluded.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I think the situation is a little more complicated than the way in which Senator Wright has explained it. I think Senator Wright missed the whole point. The question is: What is or what is not Aboriginal land? I agree that in the case of a road over which the public has a right of way there should be some provision in the Bill which retains that public right of way.

Senator Archer:

– That is exactly what this clause does. Tell Jim Keeffe.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Let me explain; I do not think it does. Sub-clause (3) of clause 11 reads:

A reference in sub-section ( 1) to land shall be read as not including a reference to any land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way.

Sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 1 1 reads:

Where-

  1. the Commissioner recommends to the Minister in a report made to him under paragraph SO ( 1 ) (a) that an area of Crown land should be granted to a Land Trust for the benefit of a group or groups of Aboriginals entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the use or occupation of that area of land, whether or not the traditional entitlement is qualified as to place, time, circumstance, purpose or permission;

So under that sub-clause the Commissioner can find that an area of land is traditional Aboriginal land, but he has to exclude the road that runs through that land. Surely the mere fact that someone has put a road through what is traditional Aboriginal land cannot cause that land to cease to be traditional Aboriginal land.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know that they are the operative words, and that is why I am protesting. I take as being the authorities on this matter those honourable senators who have spoken for the Government on the matter.

Senator Wright:

– And the House of Lords and the Bishop of Oxford.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, I take a greater authority than the House of Lords and the Bishop of Oxford on this matter. I take as my authority those honourable senators from the Government side of the chamber who have spoken on the matter. It is well known that it is difficult to peg Aboriginal land. But each group knows its land. Surely if they know their land and they know which land is Aboriginal land, it must be their land, whether or not it has a road passing through it. They cannot be excluded from what is their land and what they know to be their land simply because somebody has built a road through it. I accept the proposition that perhaps there should be some control over the road by which there could be open access to it. But what is proposed in this provision is that the Commissioner cannot include that land as Aboriginal land. Clause 50 ( 1 ) reads:

The functions of the Commissioner are-

on an application being made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of Aboriginals claiming to have a traditional land claim to an area of land, being unalienated Crown land or alienated Crown land in which all estates and interests not held by the Crown are held by, or on behalf of, Aboriginals-

to ascertain whether those Aboriginals or any other Aboriginals are the traditional owners of the land; and

to report his findings to the Minister. . .

So even though there may be a claim to Aboriginal land, the Commissioner cannot find that that area is Aboriginal land. The Commissioner does not have the ability to find out whether it is Aboriginal land. Surely it is not the function of the Commissioner to decide whether land is Aboriginal land. It may be that on that land there is a road to which the public has access. Possibly we should provide that they have continuing access. But considering all the sacred traditions of Aboriginal land, we cannot say: ‘Well, that land ceases to be sacred to you because someone has built a road through it’. That is simply ridiculous.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is Senator Bonner’s interpretation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes, but it is not logical to carry on this pretence to protect the rights of someone who has gone before.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13

  1. Sub-section (1) does not prevent the grant by the

Crown of an estate or interest in land referred to in (b) sub-section in any of the following circumstances:

  1. Where-

    1. an arbitrator appointed by the Minister is satisfied, after hearing both the views of the applicant and the views of the Land Council on the matter, that the hardship that would be occasioned to the applicant by a refusal of his application would be greater than the hardship that would be occasioned to the Aboriginal communities or groups interested in the land by an approval of the application;
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

In sub-clause (2) (b) (iii) after ‘matter’, insert ‘and after giving paramount consideration to the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners ‘.

The clause will then read: an arbitrator appointed by the Minister is satisfied, after hearing both the views of the applicant and the views of the Land Council on the matter and after giving paramount consideration to the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners that the hardship that would be occasioned to the applicant by a refusal of his application would be greater than the hardship that would be occasioned to the Aboriginal communities or groups interested in the land by an approval of the application.

To use old Australian slang, the Government has had ‘2 bob each way’. There are a number of reasons why the Opposition’s amendment should be accepted. I might add that if honourable senators on the other side of the chamber think that there was no interest in this matter during the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I can tell them that I received several more messages including a message from a large number of people in the Sydney area saying that they want the amendments inserted. Basically the purpose of the amendment to the clause is to ensure that where land is held in escrow and by a Land Council, a person seeking to renew his interest in that land for a further period or to convert his interest, an arbitrator appointed by the Minister to report on hardship that would be occasioned must give paramount consideration to the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners. This reverts back to the discussion we had previously on clause 1 1 .

Given the tendering of anthropological evidence, it is difficult to see that anything could outweigh the hardship caused to Aboriginals by deprivation of their traditional land. The wording that we have suggested follows that which has been judicially interpreted by Australian courts. It is hoped that this interpretation will be adopted by any person appointed as an arbitrator. We feel that if we insert those words as a further guide to the arbitrator it will make the case more waterproof as far as the Aboriginals are concerned.

Without the amendment it seems clear that the criteria considered may be against the interests of the Aboriginals, as honourable senators on the other side of the chamber would be aware. Contemporary criteria, particularly in the Northern

Territory, is often related to economic wellbeing. For Aboriginals, however, no claim as to the possibility of capital loss can be made. All they may offer to the arbitrator is their religious and traditional links with their land. I come back to Senator Bonner’s remarks again. If there is a sacred site over which a road runs, the fact that that sacred site has been desecrated by a road does not, as Senator Bonner says, take away the sacredness of it. It is still a sacred site. I commend the amendment moved by the Opposition and hope that at long last the Government will accept one amendment.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government does not accept the Opposition’s amendment. This clause prevents the Crown from granting interest in Aboriginal land the subject of a title deed held in escrow, except where the Crown is obliged under law to grant such interest or the relevant Land Council consent or in the circumstances outlined in sub-clause 2(b). With respect to subclause 2 (b) (ii) I point out to the Senate that the provisions cast a burden upon the applicant to make out his case before the arbitrator and thereby to override the interests of the Aboriginals. In that sense, the applicant having such a burden, the interests of the Aboriginals, by the force of the legislation, are superior. That has the same effect as that which the Opposition is seeking in its amendment- to recognise the paramountcy of the Aboriginal interest. Therefore, the amendment proposed by the Opposition is considered unnecessary by the Government because, as I have indicated, the legislation already recognises the superiority of Aboriginal interests. I mention that this does not refer to mining interests, but to estates or interests in land. The clause which is in the Bill is in line with the provisions of the 1975 Bill. The addition of the words which were suggested by the honourable senator would serve no useful purpose as the views of the Land Council must reflect the views of the traditional owners and the arbitrator must take account of the Land Council ‘s view.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-Paragraph (iii) of sub-clause (b) of clause 13 refers to an arbitrator appointed by the Minister. Where do I find the relevant information about the appointment of an arbitrator?

Senator Guilfoyle:

– If the senator reads subclause (2) (b) (iii) he will find that it refers to an arbitrator appointed by the Minister.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Sub-clause (2)(b) reads:

Where-

  1. the grant is made in consequence of an application by a person having a right, under a law of the Northern Territory, to make that application for a renewal of his estate or interest in the land for a further period or a conversion of his estate or interest in the land into another estate or interest;
  2. a copy of the application is served on the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated; and
  3. an arbitrator appointed by the Minister is satisfied, . . .

Therefore I take it that the first suggestion is that the Minister shall appoint an arbitrator to decide whether an application for a continuation is justified or not. But we find no qualifications for the arbitrator. I think that in other cases we have specified a person who should be impartial. But for the first time, these words bob up: ‘An arbitrator appointed by the Minister’. The Minister has to appoint an arbitrator to decide this question. I read the rest of the clause: . . is satisfied, after hearing both the views of the applicant and the views of the Land Council on the matter, that the hardship that would be occasioned to the application by a refusal of his application would be greater than the hardship that would be occasioned to the Aboriginal communities or groups interested in the land by an approval of the application;

I take it that this means an application to extend a mining interest. The Minister appoints an arbitrator of his choice. There is no stipulation in the Bill that the arbitrator should be someone thought to be impartial in relation to this matter. He decides whether the loss or hardship to the applicant would be greater than the hardship to the Aboriginal community or group which owns the land.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is so. We referred to the renewal of a mining licence previously. The arbitrator has to consider where is the greatest hardship. The qualifications of the arbitrator are not set down in a statute. His appointment will be dependent upon the Minister at the time. I cast no reflection upon Mr Viner in this respect. He may be an arbitrator selected to find hardship in a certain direction.

The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment is that whoever may be appointed to the position of arbitrator, and whatever his bias might be, he should give paramount consideration to the interest of the traditional Aboriginal owners and not make a decision on the probability that the applicant may be at the greatest disadvantage. I think that this is linked up with all that I said during the second reading debate this afternoon. This Bill relates to traditional Aboriginal lands. The greatest consideration should be given to

Aboriginals. Men who make profound statements in this Senate and expect to be accepted as people who are interested in the cause are now more clearly than ever before faced with the conflict of interest between an applicant for renewal of rights to mine land and the traditional owners of the land. The Opposition now has the effrontery to ask that the arbitrator- biased as he may be, and there is no way of ensuring that he will not be- shall give paramount consideration to the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners! Where are these great protectors of Aboriginals? What is their attitude on this matter?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Mr Chairman, permit me a word to respond to that dripping prejudice arising from a misunderstanding of the clause. Clause 13 relates to land held in escrow. A claim may be made by a person who has an estate or interest for a renewal of that estate or interest or a conversion of his present estate into another. Where there is a conflict of interest the Bill as drafted provides that an arbitrator appointed by the Minister shall arbitrate upon the comparative hardship caused by the refusal to the applicant of his application to renew as against the claim of the Aboriginal community. It is provided that where the arbitrator, after hearing the views of both the applicant and the Land Council, is satisfied that the hardship that would be occasioned to the applicant by the refusal would be greater than the hardship to the Aboriginal community the applicant shall be allowed a renewal of his estate. That expression means that the applicant carries the onus of showing the greater hardship. If the senseless words advocated by Senator Cavanagh were inserted there would be no need for arbitration. We would be writing into the statute a stipulation that the person appointed shall give paramount consideration to the interests of the Aborigines, whereas all that is being arbitrated upon is a claim to an interest by a person who has an existing estate as against the Aboriginal community which claims that it has Aboriginal rights over the land. The arbitrator will arbitrate upon the comparative hardship of refusing those applications and give a verdict in favour of the European applicant only if he is satisfied that the greater hardship falls on him. It would be quite otiose and not at all in keeping with sense to provide in a statute that an arbitrator be appointed and then say that (A) shall have paramountcy, that is that the arbitrator shall decide for (A).

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I acknowledge the legal capabilities of Senator Wright. I admire and accept them. I think he is right in everything he said. I am of the belief that Government senators who have an interest in Aboriginal affairs, such as Senator Chaney, Senator Baume and Senator Bonner, should take Senator Wright aside and tell him that this is a question of Aboriginal justice rather than legal justice.

Senator Keeffe:

– He has left.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-He has taken my advice. Neither Senator Chaney, Senator Baume nor Senator Bonner will follow him out and tell him where he is wrong. I am confident that he is wrong. On the legal basis the actual hardship must be considered. When the hardship is greater for the applicant the legal decision will be in his favour. But this appears in a Bill to provide land rights for Aboriginals- their legal entitlements. We have heard so much about the great desire to help Aboriginals in their land claims. All we are asking the arbitrator to do when he is defining the question of hardship is to take into account the paramount considerations of the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owner. We are not asking him to permit that consideration to decide the issue. All we are asking is that when he is deciding hardship he take the interests of Aboriginals into consideration. In the legal mind of Senator Wright such consideration gives a preference to the Aboriginals. But is not that what this Bill is all about? Is it not the intention to give preference to Aboriginals.

Senator Missen:

– Not preference but paramountcy.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is not the extent of his consideration in making a decision. He has to weigh up the paramount consideration of the interest of the traditional Aboriginal owners against the hardship inflicted on the applicant. That is what he has to consider. What else is there?

Senator Missen:

– He is to give paramount consideration over all other matters.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He is to give paramount consideration to the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners in his decision. Again I acknowledge the capabilities of a legal man to tell us the legal meaning of the word ‘paramount’. That brings me to the point I raised in the first place. In considering the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners who do not want a renewal of the application we are faced with the bare facts of whether we are concerned with the hardship to the mining interests or the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners. That is what we have to decide.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I do not want to delay the Bill on a clause to which no amendment is sought by the Opposition. The addition of the words suggested would serve no useful purpose as the views of the land council must reflect the views of the traditional owners and under this clause the arbitrator must take into account the land council’s views. I would have expected Senator Cavanagh to have a better understanding of that clause. It is precisely the same as the clause which was included in its entirety in the 1975 Bill. I assume that the Minister, Mr Viner, would be able to find an impartial arbitrator just as the former Government expected that impartiality in the arbitrator would have been achieved under a clause expressed in similar terms.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I would like to make some brief additional comment to that made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). If the words which Senator Cavanagh has suggested be added are taken at face value the amendment is not necessary. The fact is that the clause as it stands gives preference to Aboriginal communities or groups interested in the land because it requires that the applicant should have greater hardship than they if he is to succeed. So Aborigines are in a preferred position. The difficulty with the Opposition’s proposal is that the word paramount’ primarily means ‘supreme’. I simply agree with the view expressed by Senator Wright that if we were to put in the word ‘paramount’ we would probably make any arbitration totally meaningless because the decision could go only one way.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) The question is that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. All those in favour say ‘aye’, all those against say ‘no’. I think the ‘noes’ have it.

Senator Keeffe:

– The ‘ayes’ have it. A division is required.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr Chairman, I heard only one voice demanding a division.

The CHAIRMAN:

– A division has been called for by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is in charge of the Bills for the Opposition. I take his word for it that a division is necessary.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 20- by leave- taken together.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I seek clarification of sub-clause 14 (4). The clause reads:

This section does not apply in relation to an occupation or use of land that is authorised by the Atomic Energy Act 1953 or any other Act authorising mining for minerals and this section does not prejudice the operation of the Atomic Energy A ct1 95 3 or that other Act, as the case may be.

Also in sub-clauses 19(2) and 19(3) the word may’ is used in the second line. I wonder what significance there is in the use of the word ‘may’ rather than the normal legal word ‘shall’.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-Sub-clause 14 (4) limits the Commonwealth’s powers under the Atomic Energy Act to the sections onmining. With regard to clause 19, sub-clause (2) states:

At the direction . . . of the relevant Land Council, a Land Trust may, subject to sub-section (7) . . .

That is the form of the Bill, and it is the way in which the Government presents it.

Senator Keeffe:

– Does that then give the Northern Territory ordinance equal force with the Atomic Energy Act 1 953?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The effect of clause 19 is that leases over Aboriginal land may not be granted except at the direction of a land council. Where the lease is to a non-Aboriginal, other than the Crown, a Crown authority or a mission, the consent of the Minister is also required. Paragraph 144 (x) of the Woodward report refers to these matters. The changes which were made to sub-clauses (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) confirm the passive role of trusts by removing the phrase with the consent’, which might suggest that the trust might have power to act on its own initiative, and substituting the phrase ‘at the direction’. Sub-clause (4) (b) permits the transfer of part of land from one trust to another to allow for the possibility of vesting land in individual clan groups. Aboriginal land may also be surrendered to the Crown. Sub-clause (5) prevents a land council from giving consent to a lease if the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land do not consent to the grant.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I am not satisfied with the Minister’s reply. I am not sure who is trying to fool who. That was a very good play on words, and I am sure that neither I nor anyone else on this side of the House has a clear understanding of the explanation.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman Senator Keeffe, I do not think that the Minister is trying to fool anyone.

Senator KEEFFE:

-I do not mean that. The Minister is much too charming to do that. It was obviously a play on words, and that is a political ploy. There is nothing wrong with that. I am not saying that the Minister is being dishonest about it, but I am not satisfied with the explanation. However, as it does not mean blowing up Lake Burley Griffin or burning down the Sydney Harbour Bridge, I will not pursue it and I am prepared to go on to the next clause.

Clauses agreed to.

Proposed new clause 20a.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I will approach this by moving for the deletion of clause 20. If that motion is not successful, I will move for the insertion of a new clause 20a. The Opposition is opposed to clause 20 and seeks its deletion from the Bill. The effect of the deletion will be that holders of existing leases under the Special Purposes Leases Ordinance of the Northem Territory will have to renegotiate their existing leases with the Aboriginal owners or their delegates. That will mean that contracts and agreements entered into by former governments are no longer operative, but the Government has taken a lot of precautions to make sure that they are operative. With the exception of Oenpelli, the Aborigines affected by such agreements and contracts were not consulted as to terms and conditions for the use and exploitation of their land. That was the practice of previous governments, with the exception of the last Labor Government. One of the principal reasons why the Opposition seeks to have the clause deleted is that it makes no provision for refusal by the Aboriginal owners for an applicant to continue operations. Although the clause provides for renegotiation in sub-clause (2), that too is hamstrung by the reference to sub-clause ( 1 ), which provides that such leases should be ones where the rights and obligations of the parties are as near as practicable the same as those under existing Crown leases.

There are a number of other arguments why the clause must be deleted and the new clause inserted. I assume that all honourable senators on the other side of the House have read the new clause. So that the time for the debate can be cut down to some degree, I shall keep the balance of my argument for the debate on the insertion of the new clause 20a or for inserting new clause 20 in the place of the one which I hope the Senate will agree to delete.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Senator Keeffe, the Committee gave me as Chairman permission to take clauses 14 to 20 together. I put those clauses and they were passed, including clause 20. Your amendment relates to the insertion of a new clause after clause 20. 1 called you on my understanding that you proposed to insert a new clause.

Senator KEEFFE:

-It is a technical matter, but I am not going to argue over it, Mr Chairman. It would have been logical to delete clause 20, which would have made things much simpler and much clearer. However, because of the way the numbers in this chamber are running, obviously the clause would not have been deleted. In relation to proposed new clause 20a, I therefore move:

After clause 20 insert the following new clause: ‘20a. (1) Where-

no person (other than the Crown) has an estate or interest in an area of Crown land;

the Minister is satisfied that the land should be granted to an Aboriginal Council in the area of which the land is situated to be held and applied by the Council for a particular purpose or purposes, being a purpose or purposes within the scope of the functions of the Council; and

the Aboriginal Council agrees to hold and apply the land for that purpose or those purposes, the Minister may recommend to the Governor-General that a grant of an estate in fee simple, or some lesser estate, in the land be made to the Aboriginal Council.

Where a grant of land is made in accordance with a recommendation under sub-section ( 1 ), the Minister shall, by notice published in the Gazette, set out the purpose or purposes for which the land is to be held and applied and may, from time to time, with the consent of the Aboriginal Council, by notice published in the Gazette, vary or add to that purpose or those purposes.

Where a grant of land is made to an Aboriginal Council in accordance with a recommendation under sub-section ( 1 ), section 1 9 applies in relation to the Council in respect of that land as if the Council were a Land Trust.

Where the Minister is satisfied that land granted to an Aboriginal Council in accordance with recommendations under sub-section ( 1 ) is not being applied in accordance with the statement of purpose or purposes published with respect to that land under sub-section (2), the Minister may recommend to the Governor-General that the grant of the land be revoked.

On the receipt of a recommendation under subsection (4), the Governor-General may revoke the grant of the land to which the recommendation relates and, upon publication in the Gazette of a notice of that revocation, that and shall revert to the Crown.

Where land reverts to the Crown under sub-section (S), compensation is payable by the Commonwealth to the owner of any estate or interest in the land granted by the Aboriginal Council and subsisting immediately before the reversion of the land to the Crown for the loss to that owner of that estate or interest, but compensation is not otherwise payable in respect of that reversion.

Where the grant revoked under sub-section (5) has been entered in the register kept under the law of the Northern Territory relating to the transfer of land, the RegistrarGeneral or other appropriate officer under that law shall, on the publication of notice of the revocation in the Gazette alter that register accordingly. ‘.

While the current clause gives effect to the recommendation in paragraph 144 of the Woodward report, in theory it flagrantly breaches the intention of the Commissioner that the benefit of mining or other operations on Aboriginal land, even where an existing right operates, should go to the Aboriginal owners of the land, For too long miners, and in particular overseas mining interests, especially the multinationals in the strictest sense, have had a free run, not only in the Northern Territory but also in other mining operations throughout Australia in the face of massive dislocations of local groups and communities. This Government and its predecessors believe that the quickest way to make a fast buck is to dig a hole in the ground. If it is in a developed area, use the bulldozer and the axe and chop everything down. In this case we are deciding that the Aboriginal people are entitled at least to a fair crack of the whip. Under the Government’s existing clause 20, they are not going to get it.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I regret it if there were any misunderstandings originally in regard to dealing with clause 20, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he is prepared to proceed in this way. It should be remembered that clause 20 gives power to the Minister to issue a lease of land to meet the Government’s obligations under agreements for mining at Gove and Groote Eylandt on behalf of a land trust where negotiations have failed, but only after an arbitrator has been appointed and has determined fair terms and conditions for a lease. The Government is unable to accept the additional clause put forward by the Opposition. This Bill deals with traditional land rights. The granting of vacant Crown land to Aboriginal councils would be handled administratively outside this legislation where the request for land was on a needs basis. If there is a traditional claim, other provisions of the Bill adequately provide for vesting land in trusts. It is unnecessary to confuse the situation with parallel procedures for grants to councils. It should be recalled that His Honour Mr Justice Woodward at paragraph 89 of his report recommended the use of a trust, that is a land trust, in all cases for convenience of legislation and ease of understanding. It was proposed that such a provision would be implemented in case it might be needed, but the Government does not consider that the amendment moved by the Opposition is required in terms of this Bill. We therefore do not accept the amendment.

Question put:

That the proposed new clause be inserted (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be so inserted.

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 30

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 2 1 and 22- by leave- taken together.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I have a query of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) with respect to clause 21. I realise that clause 2 1 defines the area over which Aboriginal land councils have a responsibility. My query concerns the position of tribal areas that overlap State borders. Does the jurisdiction of this Bill stop at a State border if in fact the tribal land overlaps the border of say, Queensland, Western Australia or South Australia? Is there any requirement for State legislation to deal with that position? I should like the Minister to make that clear in my mind.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I am advised that this Bill does not intrude on State legislation. The answer to the honourable senator’s question is that, under clause 21, this Bill establishes what constitutes a land council. There are two that have been established. They were set up following the first report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission. But the Bill does not restrict the number of councils. It is possible that Aboriginals may decide that responsibility for the administration of their land should be on a more local basis, in which case additional land councils may be established. But this legislation does not intrude in any way on State legislation. Therefore, the answer to the honourable senator’s question is that the Federal legislation would not involve borders between States.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I gather from that answer that, if a tribal land extends into a State area, the border of the Northern Territory is where the influence of the land council ceases? I think it is an important point.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I recall that the honourable senator raised this matter at an earlier stage when we were dealing with the Bill. I am advised that Aboriginals who live in the States and not in the Northern Territory are able to be members of land councils, but this legislation would not deal with land outside the Northern Territory.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 23 (Functions of Land Council)

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

Leave out the clause, substitute the following clause: 23. (1) The functions of a Land Council are-

to administer Aboriginal land in its area that is held by Land Trusts;

where the Land Council holds in escrow a deed of grant of land made to a Land Trust under section 12-

to negotiate with persons having estates or interests in that land with a veiw to the acquisition of those estates or interests by the Land Trust; and

until those estates or interests have been so acquired, to negotiate with those persons with a view to the use by Aboriginals of the land in such manner as may be agreed between the Land Council and those persons;

to negotiate, on behalf of traditional Aboriginal owners of land in its area held by a Land Trust, being those owners as shown in the register maintained by the Council under section 24, and any other Aboriginals interested in the land, with persons desiring to use, occupy or obtain an interest in that land;

to investigate, and to make representations concerning

the requirements for land of Aboriginals living in its area;

the use, whether by means of the acquisition of an interest or otherwise, by Aboriginals of Crown land in its area in which no person (other than the Crown) has an estate or interest; and

priorities in the expenditure of public moneys in connexion with the acquisition or development of land in its area for the benefit of Aboriginals;

to compile and keep-

a register recording the names of the members of the Land Council; and

a register recording the names of the members of the Land Trusts holding, or established to hold, Aboriginal land in its area and descriptions of each area of such Aboriginal land; (0 to co-operate with, and assist, the Land Commissioner in exercising his functions and powers in connexion with land in its area;

to issue, and revoke, permits to persons, other than Aboriginals, entitling them to enter and remain on Aboriginal land in its area and to impose conditions to be complied with by holders of permits so issued; and

to supervise, and provide administrative assistance for, Land Trusts holding or established to hold, Aboriginal land in its area.

In carrying out its functions with respect to any Aboriginal land in its area, a Land Council shall have regard to the interests of, and, where practicable, shall consult with, the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land as shown in the register maintained by the Council under section 24 and any other Aboriginals interested in the land and, in particular, shall not give a direction under section 27 to a Land Trust with respect to any matter in connexion with land held by that Land Trust unless the Land Council is satisfied that-

the persons (if any) shown in the Register maintained by the Council under section 24 as the traditional Aboriginal owners of that land understand the nature and purpose of the proposed direction and do not oppose it; and

any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the proposed direction has been consulted and has had adequate opportunity to express its view to the Land Council.

Where a Land Council issues or revokes a permit to enter and remain on Aboriginal land in the area of an Aboriginal Council, the Land Council shall notify the Aboriginal Council, in writing, of-

a ) where a permit is issued-

the fact that a permit has been issued with respect to land in the area of the Aboriginal Council;

the particulars of the person to whom the permit is issued; and

the conditions (if any) to be complied with by the holder of the permit; or

where a permit is revoked-

the fact that a permit with respect to land in the area of the Aboriginal Council has been revoked; and

the particulars of the person who was the holder of the permit.’.

The Opposition has moved this amendment to reinstate the 1975 provisions listing the functions of land councils. This has been a focal point of Aboriginal agitation and representation since the introduction of this Bill in June of this year. Despite the amendment moved by the Government to return to the land councils those functions relating to the co-ordination and application of the land councils- the function that both the Northern and Central Land Councils have, until restrained by the Government earlier this year of course, performed most successfullythere still remains a number of areas in which the Woodward recommendations on the functions of the councils have not been followed. In fact this Bill that the Government has produced on land rights is significant for its very great and grave departures from the Woodward recommendations. The most important of these are contained in paragraph 359 of the Woodward report. Paragraph 359 recommends that land councils have power to make representations to the land commission about priorities in the expenditure of moneys for land purchase and land development. Control over the issuing of entry permits to non-Aborigines visiting Aboriginal lands is much emphasised.

The Opposition is still receiving letters of support for its stand on this legislation. The Executive Member for Information of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee has forwarded a letter which gives added emphasis to points that I am trying to make. I do not have time to quote the whole letter but I shall read a couple of relevant clauses. It states:

In general the NACC supports more the original 1 97S Bill, as we understand the previous Australian Government on 16 October 1975, was clearly intent and undisturbed in seeking to grant some real land title to traditional Aborigines in the Northern Territory.

The NACC, in my view, could not clearly support the present 1976 Commonwealth Government’s amendments to the original Lands Bill as it has been subjected to change, which appears to favour the sectional interests of the European community in the Northern Territory.

However, the NACC accepts Prime Minister Whitlam ‘s most historic decision in December 1973, that his government would grant land rights, and as such, the NACC understands and supports the amendments that you as Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs have or will move.

Such messages of support are continuing to come in. They are particularly relevant to this amendment that I have moved.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-The Government does not accept the amended clause 23 as proposed by the Opposition. As has been said, clause 23 defines the functions of the land councils. Those that are included in this clause of the Bill are the functions that the Government sees as being required by the land councils. Bearing in mind ali the other provisions of the legislation, we are not able to accept the amendment. We recognise that it seeks to return to the Bill the 1975 provisions with regard to the functions of land councils, but there are many and detailed reasons why the proposed amendment would not be acceptable to the Government. Some of these are the functions of the land councils as required under this legislation.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be len out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 39- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 40 (Grants of mining interests).

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

Leave out the clause, substitute the following clause:

A mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless-

both the Minister and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated have consented, in writing, to the making of the grant; or

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires that the grant be made and that Proclamation has taken effect in accordance with section 42. ‘.

The Opposition does not accept the current clause 40. We are moving for its deletion and the insertion of a new clause, the terms of which have been circulated. I make brief reference to the reasons why we want the new clause inserted in the Bill. The Opposition wants to make it clear that when the national interest is invoked it is to be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny, as is provided for in clause 42. I do not think that there is any need for me to talk at great length on this matter because it has been the subject of argument between the respective Parties over a long period of time.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 41 (Application of Acts authorising mining on Aboriginal Land).

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

Leave out the clause, substitute the following clause:

The Atomic Energy Act 1 953 or any other Act authorising mining for minerals does not apply in relation to land that is Aboriginal land so as to authorise the entry or remaining of a person on the land or the doing of any act by a person on the land unless:

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that both the Minister and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated have consented to the application of that Act in relation to entry on that land; or

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires the application of that Act in relation to entry on that land and that Proclamation has taken effect in accordance with section 42.’.

The arguments that I use for the deletion of the clause and the insertion of a new clause are basically the same as I used in support of the amendment proposed to clause 40. I will leave the matter there and hope even now that the Government will relent and accept one of the Opposition’s amendments.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42

  1. 1 ) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the making of a Proclamation referred to in paragraph 40 ( 1 ) (b) or 41 ( 1 ) (b), cause a copy of the Proclamation to be laid before each House of the Parliament.
  2. Either House of the Parliament, within15 sitting days of that House after a copy of a Proclamation has been laid before that House under sub-section ( 1 ), may, in pursuance of a motion upon notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the declaration in the Proclamation.
  3. If neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with sub-section (2) disapproving of the declaration in a Proclamation referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), the Proclamation takes effect on the day immediately following the last day upon which such a resolution could have been passed.
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

After sub-clause (3), insert the following new sub-clause: (3A) If notice of a motion to disapprove of a declaration in a Proclamation that has been laid before either House of the Parliament under sub-section ( 1 ) is given in that House within15 sitting days after the copy of the Proclamation has been laid before that House and on the last day on which the resolution could have been passed-

the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or

the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, that House shall be deemed to have passed, on that day, a resolution disapproving of the declaration in the Proclamation.’.

The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the role of the Parliament in overseeing the declaration of proclamations made under clauses 40(l)(b) and 41(1) (b). Such proclamations will be made where it is considered that the national interest requires that Aboriginal consent for mining on Aboriginal lands should be overridden. I know that the Government in the first set of amendments it brought in- the first 42 amendments- made some concessions, but the Opposition is of the opinion that this provision ought to be tightened up totally. The effect of such a proclamation is wide ranging and it is to be hoped it will be infrequently used. However, the Parliament must exercise its responsibility granted to it through the 1967 referrenda to oversee Aboriginal affairs. The form of the amendment follows that provided in the Acts Interpretation Act in section 48(5) relating to regulations. The effect of the amendment is to provide that where notice to disapprove a proclamation is given under sub-clause (2) such notice must be debated by either House or otherwise withdrawn. Without such debate or the withdrawal of such a notice any proclamation made under the provisions of this legislation will be treated as null and void from the day after the fifteenth sitting day from when it was laid before the Parliament.

I sound a note of warning that if this amendment is not accepted it will be possible that where a motion to disapprove a proclamation is moved such a motion may remain on the notice paper for the required fifteen sitting days and not come before either House for debate, but the amendment ensures that when such proclamations are made they will remain subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and debate thus fulfilling the constitutional requirements given to this Parliament in 1967. The Minister will probably say that we did not have that in the 1975 Labor Bill. Although it was not included in the 1975 Labor Bill the Opposition, having considered the Government’s earlier legislation which did not provide for any parliamentary scrutiny at all, has decided that the clause in the 1975 legislation now adopted by the Government should be strengthened by the inclusion of this amendment. I hope that the Minister on behalf of the Government will agree to accepting this amendment. Whilst it may not provide the ultimate in the protection of the rights of Aborigines at least it does strengthen their case to a very large degree. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I rise to speak on this amendment so that I will not miss out. I was surprised that the Minister did not seek to speak to this matter since it is such an important question. In the original legislation there was a provision that upon the declaration of national interest the Minister could appoint a person to inquire into the question of national interest and decide the issue. Honourable senators will remember that Mr Justice Woodward said in his report that the only time that a rnining interest would have a right to go into Aboriginal lands would be if it were in the national interest. So that there would not be some frivolous claim that it was in the national interest Mr Justice Woodward put in his report the safeguard that the Governor-General had to make a proclamation- I take it on the advice of the Minister- that it would be in the national interest and that proclamation had to be laid before the Parliament in accordance with the regulations which provide that in each House of the Parliament a motion may be moved to disagree with the declaration in the proclamation. The agitation between the time of the presentation of the first Bill and the second Bill was such that the legislation was amended to insert provisions in accordance with the Woodward report. The amended legislation provided that the proclamation had to be laid before the

Parlaiment. Any member of either House of the Parliament had the right to move to disapprove the declaration in the proclamation.

It was thought that this was covered by regulation, but as I stated this morning in relation to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill, if there is no safeguard in the legislation one has only to consider the practice of the Senate in the giving of a notice of motion to disallow an ordinance. The day after giving notice the motion is called on and the President asks whether it is formal or not formal. Upon the Senate declaring that it is not formal- this can be declared by any one person in the Senate- the motion then goes on to the waiting list of Government business. If the Government decides in this case to bring it on within 1 5 days it will be discussed and the Senate will make a decision as to whether the declaration that it was in the national interest was justified or whether the minerals in the particular area should not be classified as being in the national interest.

Senator Baume:

– It could be brought on by a motion to alter the order of business.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-We will examine that. Peculiar things happen here. I take it that because of your infancy in this place you do not know this. It has always been ruled that to alter the order of government business there had to be an absolute majority vote. Senator Murphy disputed this when he was here and he won the point that every such question had to be decided by an absolute majority. The other day when I sought leave to move a motion to suspend the Standing Orders I was advised by one of the officers that- I may not be correct on this- a senator does not have to seek leave to move the suspension of the Standing Orders but if the motion is moved without leave there must be a majority of the whole of the Senate for the motion to be successful.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– An absolute majority.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– An absolute majority. Of course this is contrary to the whole argument of the Murphy concept which we accepted. Of course if leave is granted the motion can be agreed to on the majority vote of those who are present. I do not know which advice is correct.

Then we come to the question of why a regulation is needed. Does the Government need to force itself to bring on such a matter. There was provision in the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill (No. 2), with which we dealt this morning, for disallowance if the matter is not dealt with in 15 days. Therefore if the Government does not bring on the matter and if the person moving the notice of disallowance cannot get an absolute majority of the House- I do not know what provision is made in the Standing Orders in the other place- the matter is not discussed and there is no expression of opinion of the Parliament, despite the fact that the majority of the Parliament may be of the opinion that it should be disallowed. If after 15 days the proclamation has not been disallowed by the Parliament, it then becomes valid.

That sort of provision is made in relation to regulations, ordinances and the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill (No. 2). It seems that where mining interests are involved it is not insisted upon. The amendment seeks to alter that position. It does not seek any advantage. It does not seek to give anything to Aboriginals. It seeks to refer a proclamation back to this chamber. So, the Government is forced of necessity to deal with it within 15 sitting days or suffer the consequences. That is the matter to which I referred. When an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was present in the chamber he could not give any explanation to the Minister for the exclusion of such a provision. I do not know what the Minister may say now in reply, but she was not anxious to get up before and give an explanation. I think at least honourable senators opposite should have enough decency to see that the Committee is forced into the position of considering a question such as this.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I was interested to listen to the remarks of Senator Cavanagh who usually puts with great clarity the problems involved in procedural matters. I understand that the present provision is different from that which was in the Bill which we originally introduced and which did not contain this capacity for disallowance within the Parliament. I remind Senator Cavanagh, if he finds the present clause so objectionable, that, again he may care to look at Senator Keeffe ‘s Bui.

Senator Keeffe:

– We talked about this.

Senator BAUME:

– You cannot get away from it, because Senator Keeffe ‘s private member’s Bill- the Labor Party Bill- contained in clause 71 identical words to those which appear in this clause, the only difference being that it referred back to different clause numbers. But in terms of the process of disallowance, it was exactly the same, word for word.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Are you saying it is the same?

Senator BAUME:

– I am just impressed by the fact that it is the kind of provision which is good enough when the Labor Party is proposing it but which requires amendment when we propose it. I am not impressed by an argument that there is something inherently wrong with this clause when I find that Senator Keeffe, who carefully prepared his private member’s Bill, thought it was good enough in the appropriate clause to put in exactly the same wording, with exactly the same provisions, in exactly the same fashion. He will have to do better than that to convince me.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am concerned about the views that Senator Baume has expressed, because I thought that he was a person who in decency would consider the proposition. He did not say that anything I said was wrong or that it would not benefit Aboriginals. His justification for depriving Aboriginals of this benefit is that Senator Keeffe did something in the past. If we have to answer for every sin of Senator Keeffe, God knows where we will finish up. Aboriginals will possibly end up with nothing. Senator Baume does not know whether I would have objected to Senator Keeffe ‘s Bill if it had come before the Parliament. As a fair and honest man who tried to appeal to us during the second reading debate, let him say whether I am right or wrong. If I am not wrong in my interpretation, is it right that, because the Government can prevent the bringing on of a matter which will result in the expression of an opinion of the Parliament, rnining interests should be permitted to mine on Aboriginal land.

I would have thought that this matter was above the issue that we have been debating, namely, mining interests and so on. It is a question of common justice. We are making provision in the Bill for giving the Parliament the right to decide on the disallowance of a proclamation which takes away the rights of Aboriginals. I suppose that the Parliament would decide according to the view to which Party was in power at the time. Therefore we are putting forward as an amendment the proposal that the Parliament has the right to make such a decision. There is an escape clause whereby the Parliament can never be given the opportunity to decide and the rnining interests can go on to Aboriginal land despite the fact that some members of this Parliament are against it. Is that not quite contrary to what Senator Chaney and Senator Baume said during the second reading debate? We have sought to improve the provision. We have sought to make it compulsory to bring before the Parliament a proclamation.

In defending the existing clause simply because of something that Senator Keeffe did in the past, Senator Baume has indicated that, while he now knows that his Government has done nothing for Aboriginals in comparison with the treatment of mining interests, he goes along with the proposal to support the mining interests in their right to mine Aboriginal land. I think it is atrocious. I cannot understand the objection. The provision is so plain; it is so just. It is providing in relation to every other regulation. I do not know why the Minister and why the Department will not accept it. I am not saying that Aboriginal interests should take precedence over mining interests. Let us at least give the Parliament an opportunity to discuss these matters. I cannot think of any reason why this provision would be objected to. I am concerned for those honourable senators who have expressed concern for Aboriginals. Senator Baume, who has been in the forefront of this debate, went to the extent of expressing concern for Aboriginals but that expression of concern is now overridden by something that Senator Keeffe did in the past. That is his only objection, but I am sure that other honourable senators opposite will not apply the same criteria.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I am amazed at Senator Baume twisting the words in the amendment around to suit his own attitudes. He displays an almost paranoid approach. One would think that he is suffering from guilt feelings. When we rise tomorrow, or on Friday, or on Christmas Eve, he will have six or eight weeks in which to seek psychiatric treatment if he feels he needs it.

Senator Steele Hall:

– That is a stupid and absurd thing to say.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Senator Hall is now interrupting. He has never been known to do anything in the field of Aboriginal affairs. Perhaps when the Liberal Party is finished with him, he can go back to the Liberal Movement, if it will have him back. I suggest that he keeps his interjections to himself. It was never suggested that the 1976 private member’s Bill was the perfect Bill; nor was it ever suggested that the 1975 Bill was the perfect Bill. But honourable senators now on the Government side of the chamber, had they remained in Opposition, would have been perfectly entitled to move amendments to the 1975 Bill if they wanted to. Had we remained in government, it is quite possible that we would have moved amendments also because there were some aspects of it about which we were not happy. The 1976 private member’s Bill was introduced in this place by me when it was fairly obvious that the new Government had no intention of introducing any son of legislation at all to grant land rights to Aboriginal people. It had an alternative. It did not have to wait around and hold up land rights legislation, such as you could call it, for a year. It could have brought on my private member’s Bill at the time it was right had it wanted to. There was nothing to stop that private member’s Bill from being brought on. The Bill could have been amended. It is not only childish but it smacks of political duplicity for Senator Baume who now has to live with his conscience to come out and make atrocious statements like that. The Opposition is still convinced that the amendment I have moved is the one with which we ought to stick.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I merely say that clause 71 of Senator Keeffe ‘s Bill is still identical with the clause in front of us. I think the Keeffe clause should be supported.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Despite the sincere statements that have been made with regard to the Opposition’s amendment by Senator Cavanagh, the Government does not accept it. As will be seen from clause 42, any proclamations made under paragraphs 40 and 41 shall be tabled before both Houses of Parliament and will be subject to a motion cf disapproval. I think that Senator Keeffe does not do much justice to his own Bill when he implies that he introduced it in the belief that it would never be debated in the Parliament.

Senator Keeffe:

– I did not say that.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The honourable senator implied it. He said that he had brought it in, and did not believe that any Bill would be debated in the Parliament. As far as the amendment is concerned, the matter of dealing with disallowance was of considerable interest to the Government Parties. We believe that it should be possible for a parliament to have a scrutiny and disallowance provision with regard to matters that were proclaimed under the Bill. The one presently drafted in the Bill, as has been said by several honourable senators, is based on the same provisions as were included in the 1975 Bill. While the amendment, as suggested, may be technically sound, I think the political reality is such that if there is a proclamation made under the legislation and there is a movement from Government Parties or private members or the Opposition Party for the Parliament to debate it, it would be brought on for debate in the Parliament. The suggestion that this House would necessarily follow the wishes of the government of the day is something that shows short memories. I well recall in recent years the disallowance of Government regulations and other matters in the Senate contrary to what may have been the wishes of the government of the day. So within this clause there is the provision for a proclamation to be laid before each House of Parliament and for the disallowance of it to be undertaken. I believe that on a matter as important as the one that is covered by this clause, there is a political necessity for it to be brought forward and to be debated in the Parliament and, if thought fit by a majority of the House of Parliament concerned, to be disallowed. It is for those reasons that we are unable to accept the amendment of the Opposition.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I wish to correct a misapprehension that the Minister appears to have. I did not say that when I introduced my private member’s Bill it was done with the thought that it would never be brought on. What I did say was that the new Government, after its election on 13 December last, showed no indication of bringing on land rights legislation of any sort at any time despite the famous Ellicott promises. So that private member’s Bill was introduced. The Government prevented that Bill from being brought on for debate and implementation. Had it been brought on for debate and implementation without any amendment, it would have been SO times better than the legislation we have before us tonight.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am most concerned at the Minister’s reply. I think perhaps that my remarks about a motion to disallow any proclamation being decided in accordance with the opinion of the government of the day were unfortunate. I accept the fact that this has not been the case at all times. Usually, on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, for example, there are normally 4 members of the Government forces who feel in duty bound, in accordance with their allegiance to the Government, to vote against a proposal from the Opposition. They generally succeed in defeating the proposal. It might well be that a decision might go against the government of the day on a particular occasion. But the Minister comes into the chamber and says: ‘Well, we agree. It would be brought on’. Why are we given such a promise on this occasion when everything else is put in the statute? We might not have a Minister as obliging in future as we have at present. But this would be the law. It would have to be applied. But it would be applied only on those occasions when the Aboriginals do not agree to mining on their land- the land that we acknowledge in this statute as being Aboriginal land which is handed over to the traditional owners.

If the Aborigines do not agree to mining on their land and if the Governor-General is of the opinion that it is in the national interest, he issues a proclamation. Mr Justice Woodward recommended that a declaration of national interest should not be in accordance with the opinion of the government of the day. He thought it must have a greater test. He thought that the greatest test would be to submit it to Parliament which would have the right to disallow. Whether the matter was or was not in the national interest, the decision of Parliament was supreme. This particular clause provides that anyone can bring a notice of disallowance of the proclamation before the Parliament. If either House of the Parliament decides by a majority to disallow the proclamation, then Parliament has decided that it is not in the national interest.

If Parliament votes on a motion to disallow but the motion is not carried, then Parliament has not revoked the Governor-General’s proclamation that it is in the national interest and mining will go ahead. We have been told by those Government speakers who spoke on the Bill that it contains provision to protect this positions. But we find that if someone gives a notice of motion to disallow the proclamation and it is not brought on for discussion after 1 S days, there can be no disallowance of the proclamation. No decision can be taken by the Parliament. Therefore, this overrides the right of the Parliament to decide such questions of national interest.

The Minister has moved 5 amendments. This means that the Bill has to go back to the other place. So it is not a question of holding up the Bill here. The only suggestion that it is not logical that the interests of Aboriginal communities should be brought before the Parliament came from a backbencher. That Senator Keeffe did something a couple of years ago is the only justification the Government has for its objection to the amendment. The Minister says: ‘I cannot justify it, but I think I agree that it would come on for discussion’. Have honourable senators ever seen Aboriginal people or any people, for that matter, treated in such a way? I raised the point this morning on the Aboriginal Councils and Associations (No. 2) Bill that the power of the House to override a proclamation on Aboriginal rights lapses if the matter is not brought on for discussion after 15 days. But where mining companies’ interests are concerned it can simply be avoided and the Parliament is not permitted to discuss this matter. When agitation necessitated that the Bill be amended between the time when it was first introduced during the last session and now, honourable senators opposite said they had cleaned it up. By the refusal of the Government to accept this amendment it deliberately hoodwinked its supporters into believing that they had cleaned it up with the knowledge that the interests of the mining companies are safe. It has to be recognised by the Aboriginal community that the Government- we heard this on the memorable occasion of last night- is selling every interest of the Aboriginal people down the drain by not letting them or the Parliament have a say in their affairs. I am still waiting for the Minister to give us some explanation why this cannot be done and why there is any injustice in permitting Parliament to decide in future on this matter.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 30

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Clause 43 was amended by an earlier motion. The question is:

That clause 43 as amended be agreed to.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I seek clarification of clause 43 (3) (b). It states: where the rate of royalty payable to the Crown in respect of minerals of that kind in force at the time those terms and conditions are determined is a higher rate than the rate in force at the commencement of this section, the Minister has made a determination under sub-section 63 (3) in respect of the royalties at that higher rate.

Perhaps the Minister can explain that rather hazy clause.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The clause referred to provides that the Government may determine the amount of royalty which will go to Aboriginals where: the rate of royalty payable to the Crown in respect of minerals of that kind in force at the time those terms and conditions are determined is a higher rate than the rate in force at the commencement of this section, the Minister has made a determination . . . in respect of the royalties at that higher rate.

This is to cover that situation.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45

  1. 1 ) Where the Minister is satisfied that a Land Council has refused, or is unwilling, to give its consent to the grant of a mining interest by reason that the applicant for the grant will not enter into an agreement proposed by the Land Council as consideration for the giving of its consent to the grant, the Minister may, after consultation with the Land Council and with the applicant for the grant, appoint an Arbitrator, being a person whom the Minister considers to be in a position to deal with the matter impartially, to determine the terms and conditions of the agreement that, in the opinion of the Arbitrator, should be acceptable to the Land Council and to the applicant as consideration for the giving by the Land Council of its consent to the grant.
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Opposition objects to the clause in its present form and I move:

Leave out sub-clause (1), substitute the following subclause:

1 ) Where the Minister is satisfied that a Land Council has refused, or is unwilling, to give its consent to the grant of a mining interest by reason that the applicant for the grant will not enter into an agreement proposed by the Land Council as consideration for the giving of the grant, he shall require production to him of a copy of a statement in writing by the applicant for the grant and an acknowledgement in writing signed by not less than one half of the members of the Land Council that they have seen and understood the proposals contained in the statement in writing. ( 1a) If the Minister considers the proposals contained in the statement in writing referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) by the applicant for the grant to be just and equitable in the circumstances, after consultation with the Land Council and the applicant for the grant, the Minister may appoint a person whom he considers to be in a position to deal with the matter impartially to be an Arbitrator to determine in accordance with the law for the time being in force in the Northern Territory with respect to Arbitration, the terms and conditions of the agreement that, in the opinion of the Arbitrator, should be acceptable to the Land Council and to the applicant as consideration for the giving by the Land Council of its consent to the grant. ( IB) The written statement referred to in sub-section ( 1) shall set out-

the amount of payments which the applicant for the grant is prepared to make for the Land Council on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land-

in consideration of the right to enter upon the land to explore and prospect for minerals; and

by way of royalties in respect of minerals, if any, extracted from the land;

b ) the amount and nature of any other interest or benefit which is proposed to be granted to, or to any person or Land Council on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land;

the type of employment proposed to be available for Aborigines in connexion with the activities which the applicant for the grant proposes to carry out upon the land;

the manner in which the applicant for the grant proposes to preserve and protect any site or object upon the land which is of significance to the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land;

the nature of each type of activity which the applicant for the grant proposes to carry out upon the land, and the order in which such activities are proposed to be carried out; ( 0 the manner in which the applicant for the grant pro poses to consult with the Land Council and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land in respect of activities carried out by him or by others on his behalf upon or in respect of the land; and

such other matters as the Minister may require. ‘.

The Government has included in this legislation a number of specific areas which an arbitrator, if appointed, should examine. The new sub-clause ( 1 ) ensures that the Minister will invoke this section only after it has been made clear that a dispute exists between the applicant for a mining lease and the Land Council. Sub-clause (lA) outlines the procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator and is the same provision as that contained in the Bill already. Sub-section ( IB) gives effect to paragraph 708, sub-paragraphs (x), (xi) and (xii), of Mr Justice Woodward’s recommendations which provide that matters of concern should be given emphasis when mining rights are being negotiated. These sub-paragraphs read:

  1. Matters to be negotiated, if the Aborigines concerned are prepared to consider the proposal, would include payments for exploration rights, royalty payments and, perhaps, an equity interest in the venture.
  2. Other matters for negotiation would include the protection of sacred sites, Aboriginal employment and the setting up of appropriate liaison arrangements between Aborigines and the company.
  3. As a basis for the negotiation the company should produce a statement showing as clearly as possible just what the Aborigines are being asked to agree to at the respective stages of exploration, proving, development and production.

Again the Opposition is tightening a clause which we feel has too many weaknesses. I hope that the amendment will be carried.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Under clause 45, where consent to mining is withheld only because negotiations on the terms of agreement with the applicant mining company, or with the Commonwealth where the Atomic Energy Act is involved, break down the Minister may appoint an arbitrator. The clause provides that terms and conditions determined by the arbitrator shall be acceded to by the land council if accepted by the applicant for the grant. The Opposition ‘s amendment which provides for the addition of subclauses 45 ( 1A) and ( IB) seems unnecessarily to complicate the provision. There is no need evident to the Government to spell out in the legislation the procedures for determining the terms and conditions of agreement. Where it was necessary all those matters would be dealt with by an independent arbitrator in that way. We do not feel that there is any necessity to add the detail that is provided in the Opposition’s amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Keele’, amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 30

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 49- by leave-taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 50

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Commissioner are-

    1. on an application being made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of Aboriginals claiming to have a traditional land claim to an area of land, being unalienated Crown land or alienated Crown land in which all estates and interests not held by the Crown are held by, or on behalf of, Aboriginals-
    1. to ascertain whether those Aboriginals or any other Aboriginals are the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land; and
    2. to report his findings to the Minister and to the Minister for the Northern Territory, and, where he finds that there are Aboriginals who are the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, to make recommendations to the Minister for the granting of the land or any part of the land in accordance with sections 1 1 and 12;

    3. to inquire into the likely extent of traditional land claims by Aboriginals to alienated Crown land and to report to the Minister and to the Minister for the Northern Territory, from time to time, the results of his inquiries;
    4. to establish and maintain a register of the traditional land claims referred to in paragraph (b);
    5. to advise the Minister in connexion with any other matter relevant to the operation of this Act that is referred to the Commissioner by the Minister; and
    6. to advise the Minister and the Minister for the Northern Territory in connexion with any other matter relating to land in the Northern Territory that is referred to the Commissioner by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for the Northern Territory.
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Opposition does not agree to this clause in its present form and I move:

Leave out the clause, substitute the following clause:

( 1 ) The functions of the Commissioner are(a) to ascertain, and to report to the Minister on, the needs of Aboriginals, whether as individuals or communities, for land in the Northern Territory to be used for residential, employment or other purposes;

to ascertain, and to report to the Minister on, the availability of land to satisfy the needs referred to in paragraph (a);

to prepare for the consideration of the Minister plans for the acquisition and development of land in the Northern Territory by, or for the benefit of, Aboriginals and financial estimates of the cost of carrying out such plans;

to advise the Minister in connexion with-

the making of recommendations for the granting of land under section 1 1 or 20a:

the resumption of Crown Land held under a lease that is required for Aboriginal community purposes;

the reservation by planning authorities of land for Aboriginal community purposes in towns;

the revocation of a grant of land made to an Aboriginal Council under section 20a; and

v) any other matter relevant to the operation of this Act that is referred to the Commissioner by the Minister;

on an application being made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of land, being Crown land, to inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, the desirability of securing that land for the use of those traditional owners; and

to compile and keep maps and other records concerning traditional Aboriginal owners of land, other than Aboriginal land, in the Northern Territory. “(2) In carrying out his functions the Commissioner shall have regard to the following principles-

Aboriginals who by choice are living at a place on the traditional country of the tribe or linguistic group to which they belong but do not have a right or entitlement to live at that place ought, where practicable, to be able to acquire secure occupancy of that place; and

Aboriginals who are not living at a place on the traditional country of the tribe or linguistic group to which they belong but desire to live at such a place ought, where practicable, to be able to acquire secure occupancy of such a place.”.

The proposed new clause will have the same title- ‘Functions of Commissioner’. This is a very sensitive area, and the Opposition is of the opinion that in its original form there were many weaknesses in the Government’s Bill. It is true that there were some minor improvements in the first series of 42 amendments which were made to the Bill. Nevertheless, the Opposition is far from satisfied with it, and on this occasion our amendment is designed to reinstate the 1975 provision relating to the functions of the Land Commission. The clause to be omitted effectively castrates- that is probably the most appropriate word- the role of the Commissioner which was envisaged by Mr Justice Woodward and given legislative substance by the Labor Government. One is tempted to reflect on whether that is due to the success of the interim commission of Mr Justice Ward and his adjudication of land claims heard so far this year. Of course, we all know what happened to the land claims, starting with the claim in the Booroloola case that was heard on 26 August. Those claims are just not being heard.

This amendment widens the scope of the functions of the Commissioner to include the processing and recommendations of claims for land by non-traditional owners based on need. The present legislation excludes from consideration by the Land Commissioner claims by one of the most disadvantaged groups in the Northern Territorythe fringe dwellers and those Aboriginals of mixed ancestry, whose aspirations and morale could be substantially boosted through the possibility of obtaining some form of recompense for their life-long suffering. Under this legislation without amendment, claims based on need will be determined not by an impartial land commissioner but rather by the Department of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Land Board. The Labor Party in Opposition, right throughout the period since the introduction of this legislation, has asked time and time again for the freeze to be extended for at least 12 months, but if the Government cannot see its way clear to going that far ahead then at least it ought to be done for 6 months.

The amendment widens the scope for claims which may be made by traditional owners for alienated Crown land to include hearings and recommendations on the desirability of securing such land for the use of traditional owners. The new provision also allows for the Commissioner to intiate claims for traditional land based on need and provides that his reports include recommendations relating to the use of land for Aboriginal community purposes in towns. That last function is very important, and it is an area which has been sadly neglected in the development of the Northern Territory in the past. Without this function being undertaken by a statutory independent body which reports specifically to the Minister and the Parliament, it will continue to be neglected. In addition, the replacement of the present clause will remove the bias favouring pastoralists and miners, who have had the run of the Northern Territory virtually rent free for the last 50 years. I hope that this amendment will be accepted by the Government.

The people in the area of need are those who are most neglected by this new Bill, and the Opposition is trying to rectify some of the omissions. I have said before and I say again, even though I know that Senator Kilgariff is a little sensitive about it, that every time it rains in Mee Springs 1000 people get wet and cold and illness is brought on. There are no water taps; there is no provision for any of the things that normal human beings expect. If this amendment is accepted by the Government, it will strengthen the Government’s hand in ensuring that those people get some sort of justice.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment moved by the Opposition relating to the functions of the Land Commissioner. Clause 50 dennes the purposes for which a Commissioner is to be appointed, and that is essentially to investigate and report upon Aboriginal traditional land claims. Throughout this debate the Government has said repeatedly that the Bill deals with traditional land rights and that needs are to be dealt with under Northern Territory law. There are other functions within the Bill which are distorted by the amendment from the Opposition, and for reasons which have been apparent throughout this debate the Government requires the functions as they are denned in clause 50.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be len out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 30

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 62- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 63 (Payments into Trust Account and consequential appropriation)

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I seek clarification from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in relation to clause 63 (3) which reads:

Where, by reason of an increase in the rate of royalty since the commencement of this section an amount of royalties referred to in sub-section (2 ) is in excess of the amount that it would have been if no change in the rate of royalty had taken place since the commencement of this section, such part only of that excess as the Minister determines shall be taken into account for the purpose of ascertaining the amount payable into the Trust Account under that sub-section in respect of those royalties.

I ask the Minister: Precisely what does that subclause mean?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-Sub-clause (3) provides for ministerial determination of the rate of royalty to be paid where the statutory rate is increased above the rates applying at the commencement of the legislation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not know whether that explains the position to Senator Keeffe. The Minister has a discretion of deciding to where the increased royalties are paid, but between whom? Does so much go to the Land Trust and so much to a benefit fund; or does so much go to Aboriginal interests and so much into the Consolidated Revenue Fund? What is the position?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The ministerial determination is the one which exists for the allocation of funds between the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Trust Account. By way of explanation I also say that very high rates of royalty may be imposed on particular minerals- for example, uranium. Sub-clause (3) provides for ministerial determination of the rate of royalty to be paid where the statutory rate is increased above the rates applying at the commencement of the legislation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– That is only repeating the wording of the sub-clause in relation to the ministerial discretion of distribution. I want to know what is the power of the Minister? Where can he distribute this? Does it all go to Aboriginal interests or can some of it go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund? Or, can the Minister take a trip around the world with the proportion he does not allocate?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-As I stated, the subclause provides for a ministerial determination to be made between the amount paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the amount applied to the Trust Account. That is a matter for ministerial determination where the statutory rate is increased above the rates applying at the commencement of the legislation. It is determined by the Minister. The Minister determines how much will go into the Trust Account and how much will go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund where the rate is varied from the date of commencement of the legislation.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I am afraid that is not the real explanation. I do not cast any aspersions on the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). But may I suggest with respect- we will not hold up the Bill over this- that the Minister might get the information and let us know about it at a later date. If the position is as the Minister explained I am sorry that the Opposition does not have an amendment prepared to opposed this provision.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not think it is fair to suggest that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) is not telling us the true position. If my memory serves me correctly, money that is paid in royalties, unless otherwise stipulated in the agreement which is entered into, goes in part to the Land Trust and some of it is paid to the Trust Account. Some may be paid to the land council which must be financed. This is set out in the agreement- if it is not in the agreement I think it is provided somewhere in the legislation- and the proportions are shown together with where the money will be paid. But the occasion arises at some date subsequent to the agreement when the royalties demanded by the Government increase. While that amount of the royalty which was decided at the time of the agreement is provided for, the money from the increase in rates can be distributed at the discretion of the Minister. I would be much surprised if the Minister has a discretion to pay a certain proportion of the amount into the Consolidated Revnue Fund. I would have thought that the discretion was whether the money was to be paid to the Trust Fund or the Land Council. I seriously suggest that if, because of an increase in the rate of royalty, the Minister has a right to decided to pay the money into the Trust Account, that provision should be seriously opposed.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– So that there is no misunderstanding about it, I say that clause 63 (3) is quite precise with regard to the ministerial determination. It is not appropriate for the comments that have been made by Senator Cavanagh and Senator Keeffe to go unchallenged. What I have stated with regard to the ministerial determination of the amount to be paid into Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Trust Account is provided for in this sub-clause. It is precise. The requirement is for the Minister to determine in these circumstances. All of the provisions of clause 63 relate to the payments into the Trust Account and the consequential appropriation. If these matters have not been previously examined by the Opposition. I commend that the Opposition now examine them. It will see that there is provision for a ministerial determination to be made.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 64 to 67- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 67A.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

After clause 67, insert the following new clause: 67a. (1) An Aboriginal is entitled, with respect to land contained within a lease for pastoral purposes granted under a law of the Northern Territory-

to enter and remain on the land;

to bring on to, and use on, the land, horses for the transport of persons or goods;

to take and use the natural waters of the land; and

subject to sub-section (2), to kill wildlife for food on the land.

Where regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 that are expressed to be made for the purposes of the protection or conservation of an endangered species of wildlife prohibit the killing of members of that species on land to which the regulations apply, an Aboriginal is not entitled, under sub-section ( 1 ), to kill members of that species on that land.

3 ) Where there are no convenient natural waters on land referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), an Aboriginal is entitled to use bore waters on the land for drinking, cooking, washing or watering horses.

In exercising his rights under sub-section (3), an Aboriginal is not entitled knowingly to disregard any reasonable requirements of the lessee of the pastoral lease in connexion with the bore waters on the land.

Sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) do not apply at any point within a distance of 1 kilometre from any homestead on the land.

A person who, without just cause, proof of which lies upon the person, prevents or obstructs, or attempts to prevent or obstruct, an Aboriginal from exercising his rights under this section is guilty of an offence against this section punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding 1,000.*.

This proposed new clause is one of the very important clauses that has been omitted from this Bill but which was in the 1975 Bill. The first part of the proposed new clause deals with Aborigines and their entitlement to enter on pastoral leases, etc. The Government has done 2 things: It has left this clause out of the Bill and it has left these matters out of the terms of reference of the Standing Committee that is being established. We feel that these matters are of such importance that this clause ought to be inserted in the Bill. The original 1975 Bill clearly spelt it out. It provided that Aborigines be entitled to remain on any pastoral lease except within one kilometre of a homestead, to use natural waters and to kill wildlife for food. Sub-clause (2) of the proposed new clause 67A provides that the right to kill wildlife for food may be limited in the case of a species in danger of extinction.

Bore waters may be used where there are no convenient natural waters, but an Aboriginal is not entitled to disregard any reasonable requirements of lessees regarding the use of bore waters. A penalty can be imposed for preventing or obstructing an Aboriginal from exercising his rights under the clause. Northern Territory pastoral leases are granted subject to a reservation in favour of the Aboriginal inhabitants of the Northern Territory, which is defined by section 24e of the Crown Lands Ordinance. It is in terms that a reservation in favour of the Aboriginal inhabitants of the Northern Territory shall be read as a reservation permitting Aborigines to enter on and be on lease land, to use the natural waters and springs on the lease land and to kill upon the lease land and use for food the birds and animals that are natural to the area.

Dr Letts, the Majority Leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, has said that this right, for which the Assembly will be responsible unless this amendment is accepted, must be limited to traditional Aborigines. He has specifically included groups which use 4-wheel drive vehicles and hunt with rifles. I think that that ordinance may have been still-born, but there is the ever-present threat that it will be reintroduced. To give this right, to give this great power, to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly is a denigration of the rights of Aborigines. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not allow this right to go to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I can assure her that if it goes there it will be abused totally by the people who are now dominating the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The rights of the pastoralists will be totally preserved and protected- not the rights of the Aboriginal people.

I know that it is sometimes claimed that the Aboriginal people are responsible for killing off certain species of wildlife. That does not happen. The Aboriginal people kill only that game which they need for food. I have accompanied them on many occasions when they have been hunting for food. They do not shoot or kill just for the sake of sport. The people who are creating scarcities in certain species of wildlife in the Northern Territory and other places are the southern sportsmen. In most instances they are people who are prepared to go out and shoot anything that moves. They are the ones who are causing the numbers of some species of wildlife to be seriously reduced. I have travelled throughout most of this area on many occasions. I recall being recently in a very nice little spot in an area where there was a regular water supply and seeing somebody moving up in an old truck and emptying two or three tins of arsenic into the creek. It may be said that the tins were not full of arsenic. It probably was not present in large quantities, but they were old tins that had to be disposed of. It is like the people who want to dig for uranium and who bury the waste 2 foot underground and pray to God that nothing will happen about it. The same sort of pollution is found in these areas. This kills off wildlife, too. I suggest that those honourable senators opposite who really want to protect the rights of Aborigines should vote for this amendment and the next three or four amendments because they are at the very crux of the matter. If honourable senators opposite hand over this right to the Northern Territory they should hang their heads in shame and never raise them again.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– This amendment concerning the insertion of a proposed new clause is not acceptable to the Government. Clause 67 prevents acquisition under an ordinance of the Northern Territory but it does not prevent acquisition of Aboriginal land under the Lands Acquisition Act, since that Act has application in the Northern Territory independent of the Northern Territory Administration Act. The new clause that has been proposed by the Opposition is one on which I would comment that, in line with the decision that some powers be given to the Northern Territory, the Government has considered it appropriate that rights of entry onto pastoral properties should remain a matter for Northern Territory law- the Crown Lands Ordinance. The proposed clause also deals with matters covered in clause 73 of the Bill. Although it has been suggested by Senator Keeffe that there would be abuse in these matters under Northern Territory legislation, I remind him of the many ways in which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Commonwealth Government will have consultations with the Northern Territory on proposed legislation or existing legislation that may affect these matters. The Government does not accept the Opposition’s proposed new clause.

Question put:

That the proposed new clause (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be inserted in the Bill.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 30

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause 68a.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

After clause 68, insert the following new clause: 68a (1) Regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 providing for the protection or conservation of, or making other provision with respect to, wildlife, whether those regulations were made before or after the commencement of this Act, do not apply in relation to an area of Aboriginal land unless-

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the application of those regulations to that area of land had been consented to by a Committee for that area established under this section; or

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires the application of those regulations to that area of land and that proclamation has taken effect in accordance with section 42,

For the purposes of paragraph ( 1 ) (a), the Minister shall, on the application of the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 197S, establish a Committee for an area of Aboriginal land.

) A Committee shall consist of-

a Chairman appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1 975;

such number of members, not being less than 3, as the Minister determines appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Land Council for the area in which the Aboriginal land concerned is situated; and

a number of members equal to the number determined by the Minister under paragraph (b) appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife.

The Chairman shall convene a meeting of a Committee for the purpose of considering the giving of a consent to a proposal to apply, in relation to the area of Aboriginal land for which the Committee is established, regulations made, or proposed to be made, under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 providing for the protection and conservation of, or making other provision with respect to, wildlife.

The Chairman shall preside at a meeting convened under sub-section (4).

The consent of a Committee for the purposes of paragraph ( 1 ) (a) shall be given by resolution passed at a meeting of the Committee by a number of votes greater than the number determined by the Minister for the purposes of paragraph (3) (b).

Where a resolution referred to in sub-section (6) is moved, the Chairman shall endeavour to reconcile any conflicts of opinion among the other members of the Committee but the Chairman shall not vote on that unless the voting of the other members is equal and, in that event, the Chairman has a casting vote.

The Chairman shall, on the request of a member of a Committee who is an Aboriginal, arrange for the translation of the proceedings of the committee as they occur into the language of that member.

Subject to any direction of the Chairman, a member of a Committee who is an Aboriginal may be accompanied to a meeting of the Committee by such advisers as he may wish to accompany him. ‘(10) In this section- “ Chairman”, means the Chairman of a Committee; “Committee”, means a Committee established under subsection (2).

Where an area of land becomes Aboriginal land, regulations in force under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 providing for the protection or conservation of, or making other provision with respect to, wildlife, that were applicable to that area immediately before it became Aboriginal land continue, notwithstanding sub-section ( I ), to be applicable to that area but cease to apply to that area at the expiration of the period of 12 months commencing on the day on which that area became Aboriginal land unless, before that time-

a ) the regulations are repealed; or

the requirements of sub-section (1) are complied with in relation to the regulations. ‘.

The proposed new clause deals with the protection and conservation of wildlife on Aboriginal land. The Opposition is tremendously sensitive about this aspect, as are the Aboriginal people themselves. Speaking to the last amendment I pointed out that the greatest destruction of wildlife was not by Aboriginal people but by socalled white sportsmen who shot at everything that moved. I believe that the protection and conservation of wildlife ought not be left in the hands of the Northern Territory. I regret that I have to say this about the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Assembly has a long, notorious record for preserving nothing and for destroying anything that it thinks it can get a return out of. I think those few pertinent remarks might be sufficient to introduce the amendment.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I note the remarks of Senator Keeffe. I read to the Committee a message that I have received. It states:

The Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory today-

This is 1 8 November - on the motion of the Majority Leader, deleted from the Territory parks and wildlife legislation sub-clause 3 of clause 122 referring to the prohibition on Aboriginals using vehicles and fire-arms for hunting.

The principles which we seek to preserve are that Aboriginal people should be entitled to hunt on their land for traditional purposes such as food and ceremonial reasons, even where protected animals are involved, and, on the other hand, we seek to ensure that wildlife is not exploited commercially by any ethnic group.

The removal of this provision is an indication of the good faith of the Legislative Assembly in its efforts to secure the best possible legislation for the Aboriginal people and the whole community. It is further evidence of our desire to approach all questions of Aboriginal advancement and welfare m the spirit of consultation and co-operation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government does not accept the insertion of the proposed new clause. In line with the decision that some powers be given to the Northern Territory, it was considered appropriate that rights of entry on to pastoral properties should remain a matter for the Northern Territory. Similarly, with regard to the new clause we have decided that this is a matter that should be handled by the Legislative Assembly, but within strict guidelines set down in the Commonwealth legislation. The guidelines and other safeguards available to the Government will ensure that appropriate legislation is passed. The requirements are specified in clause 73. The clauses that are being dealt with now relate to one another and to our attitude with regard to Northern Territory legislation. We are unable to accept the insertion of the proposed new clause.

Question put:

That the proposed new clause (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 30

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69 (Sacred sites).

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– The Opposition opposes this clause. We seek to insert a new clause under the heading Land not to be desecrated’. I move:

Leave out the clause, substitute the following clause:

( 1 ) A person shall not desecrate land in the Northern Territory that is a site of significance according to Aboriginal tradition.

Penalty: $1,000

  1. Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have desecrated a site if, on or near the site, he knowingly does an act, or causes damage, of such a nature that the doing of the act or the causing of the damage, as the case may be, would, if witnessed by Aboriginals to whom the site is significant, be offensive to them by reason of the Aboriginal tradition in respect of that site.
  2. It is a defence to a charge under sub-section ( 1 ) if the person charged proves-

    1. that the doing of the act, or the causing of the damage, as set out in the charge was accidental;
    2. where the site was not on Aboriginal land- that the person charged had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the site was of significance according to Aboriginal tradition; or
    3. where the site was on Aboriginal land- that:
    1. the person charged was lawfully on the land and sought the services of a guide from the Land Council for the area in which the site was situated; and
    2. a guide was not provided within a reasonable time or the guide provided failed to identify the site as one of significance according to Aboriginal tradition.
  3. The regulations may declare areas of land in the Northern Territory to be sites of significance according to Aboriginal tradition for the purposes of this section.
  4. In proceedings for an offence against sub-section ( 1 ) in relation to an area declared under sub-section (4)-

    1. the declaration is conclusive proof that the area to which it relates is a site of significance according to Aboriginal traditions; and
    2. b ) the defences set out in paragraphs ( 3 ) ( b ) and ( c) do not apply.
  5. This section does not apply in relation to an act done in relation to land if-

    1. the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated has given consent in writing to that act; or
    2. that act is done in the course of, or in connexion with, mining operations authorised by a law of the Northern Territory or by the Atomic Energy Act 1953 or any other Act authorising mining for minerals and the Minister has authorised, in writing, the doing of that act.
  6. A Land Council may agree with an applicant for a consent referred to in paragraph (6) (a) for the giving of that consent by the Land Council in consideration of the payment to the Land Council by the applicant of an amount specified in the agreement.
  7. The Minister shall not grant an authorisation under paragraph (6) (b) unless he is satisfied that the applicant for the authorisation had sought the consent of the relevant Land Council to the doing of the act to which the proposed authorisation relates and that consent has been refused or has not within 60 days after application for it was made, been granted, and, in deciding whether to grant or refuse such an authorisation, he shall have regard to-

    1. the extent of the hardship that the proposed act would cause to the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land concerned if the authorisation were granted;
    2. b ) the extent of the loss to persons interested in the mining operations concerned if the authorisation were not granted; and
    3. the extent to which the national interest would be affected by granting or refusing to grant the authorisation.’.

This is actually the clause which appeared in the original 1975 Bill. We are disturbed, for the reasons which I stated earlier tonight, that some portions of the clause are quite unclear unless we accept this amendment, the first part of which states:

A person shall not desecrate land in the Northern Territory that is a site of significance according to Aboriginal tradition.

It then sets out the penalty. There is one part of this clause which we feel may be a little harsh on somebody who accidentally desecrates an area of significance. Consequently some thought was given to inserting a minor let-out. Unless there is debate on this matter I will not proceed with a discussion on the background of this amendment. This might enable us to move one more amendment before the Senate rises.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The amendment moved by the Opposition is not acceptable to the Government. This is a matter that the Government decided is appropriate for Northern Territory legislation. The provisions of clause 73, as I referred to earlier, will require Northern Territory ordinances to accord with the interests of Aborigines. The assurances of the Majority Leader in the Legislative Assembly and the fact that the Commonwealth Government has the power to withhold consent to Northern Territory ordinances will ensure that Northern Territory legislation will have the same effect as if the legislation were introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament. For these reasons the amendment is not acceptable to the Government.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Keeffe’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 30

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2858

QUESTION

BROADCAST OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! During the Committee discussion on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, Senator Keeffe referred to problems of which he had been made aware relating to radio reception in central Australia of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He requested an urgent inquiry into the matter. I have had inquiries made, and the following is a letter from the Australian Capital Territory Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission:

The ABC’s Manager for South Australia- who is reponsible for ABC affairs in Central Australia and the Northern Territory- has investigated the statement made by Senator Keeffe and has been unable to establish the basis of the Honourable Senator’s complaint ABC staff in Alice Springs are unaware of a radio blackout and have confirmed that both ABC and commercial stations are operating normally.

We are aware that there are reception problems in some parts of central and northern Australia, and have been discussing them with Telecom Australia, the authority which operates the transmitters which carry ABC programs. We see a need for two domestic short-wave transmitters to be built and our recent discussions with Telecom have mainly been concerned with their possible location.

It seems unlikely that Senator Keeffe could have been referring to stations carrying parliamentary broadcasts. As you know, the stations which must broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament have been designated by the Joint Committee on the broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. There is one medium-wave station in each capital city, also VLR a medium-powered short-wave transmitter located at Lyndhurst, Victoria. It is improbable that any of these stations could be heard in central or northern Australia. In any case, no change has been made in the broadcasting of Parliament, nor could one be made without the Joint Committee ‘s prior approval.

If the matter to which Senator Keene has referred concerns ABC stations, we would welcome additional information so that further inquiries can be made.

Yours sincerely, E. T. Colhoun Manager for the ACT

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I seek leave to make a short statement on this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

– I express my appreciation for the competent way in which Telecom Australia and you, Mr President, have dealt with this matter. The report came in from central Australia. I think those concerned were picking up the broadcast on short wave radio. So, obviously, in those circumstances, it was more an atmospheric problem than anything else. I express again my appreciation for the competent manner with which the matter was dealt.

page 2859

ADJOURNMENT

Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1976: Motion for Disallowance- East Timor -Wreath Laying Ceremony at Australian War Memorial

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-by leave-I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move:

That the following parts of the Consumer Affairs (Amendment) Ordinance 1976, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 49 of 1976, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed:

Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the new section 1 SC contained in section II;

Sub-section (3) of the new section 1SE contained in section 1 1; and

the new section 16 contained in section 13.

This notice of motion relates to provisions in the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Ordinance which impinge upon the civil rights and liberties of inhabitants of the Territory. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee has had correspondence with the responsible Minister on the matter, and it was hoped to finalise it today, which is the last day for giving notice in relation to the Ordinance. This has not proved possible, and I have given notice to preserve the Committee ‘s rights until its inquiries have concluded.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I apologise in advance to the Senate for speaking on the motion for the adjournment. It is brought about because I could not raise this matter in question time this morning. The reason that I could not do so is that it concerns an article appearing in the Canberra Times this morning which deals with the Australian War Memorial which, of course, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) who does not read the Canberra Times, or other newspapers. I am forced to detain the Senate at this time so that I can read to him the statement and the article in the Canberra Times. It is headed ‘Memorial Service on Timor Invasion’ and reads:

About 40 people gathered at the Stone of Remembrance at the Australian War Memorial yesterday for a wreathlaying ceremony to mark the first anniversary of the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia.

The Deputy leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Uren, laid the wreath, and the member for Fraser, Mr Fry, and the President of the A.C.T. branch of the Australian-East Timor Association, Mr Brendan 0 ‘Dwyer, also attended.

Mr Uren said the Australian people owed an ‘enormous debt’ to the Timorese people who had helped Australians during World War II.

The article was accompanied by a photograph above the caption ‘the Deputy Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Uren, lays a wreath at the Australian War Memorial yesterday, in memory of those who fell in the Indonesian invasion of East Timor a year ago’. The photograph shows Mr Uren laying the wreath. It shows also Senator Arthur Gietzelt and Senator Justin O’Byrne. I am not able to identify the other people in the photograph.

I raise this matter because it is a very serious matter. The Australian War Memorial Act provides for a board of trustees whose responsibilities are delineated under the Act. The Act establishes the functions of the board of trustees. The functions of the board are, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to manage the Memorial; to control and preserve the war relics of the Commonwealth; and to arrange, so far as the Board considers desirable, for their public display; to carry out and to assist other persons in carrying out research in connection with any war or warlike operation in which Australians have been engaged on active service. That is the reasoning behind the Australian War Memorial Act. This Act provides for the continuation of the Australian War Memorial which was first established under the Australian War Memorial Act of 1 925. The purpose behind that Act was to provide a memorial to those who fell in any war or warlike operation in which Australians have been on active service.

That brings me to the point of the wreath laying ceremony which took place yesterday and was attended by members of the Australian Parliament. The question is raised whether members of the Australian Parliament are using for their own purposes and for their own ends the sacred War Memorial commemorating those who died on service in any war or warlike operation in which Australians have been on active service. I do not wish to reflect in any way on people who wish to commemorate events that occurred a year ago or to remember people who fell a year ago or in any other era. But I do remind the Senate that heretofore the Board of Trustees has been quite meticulous in their interpretation of the provisions of the Australian War Memorial Act and have prevented well meaning people who wanted to commemorate the dead in certain uprisings and wars from doing so.

I refer to a request that was made in October when the Hungarian communities of Canberra and Queanbeyan wanted to lay a wreath at the War Memorial in order to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Hungarian uprising. They contacted the Director of the War Memorial and he refused permission, saying that the War Memorial was for the purpose of commemorating Australians who died in actions in which Australia was involved. The Hungarian community was disappointed at this ruling but they abided by it. They did hold a small commemoration ceremony on 23 October outside the precincts of the War Memorial and, as I understand it, Senator Knight, a Senator for the Australian Capital Territory was present. The War Memorial was closed and they did not wish, nor did they attempt, to lay a wreath on the stone of remembrance- that sacred stone which is preserved as the memorial to our dead.

In the Canberra Times today we see that a wreath was laid by members of this Australian Parliament against the provisions of an Act to which they were party. As far as I can make out from the photograph which is taken from behind a glass- presumably a cameraman from the Press materialised without having been told about this incident- the wreath laying took place inside the Memorial and on the stone of remembrance. Senator 0 ‘Byrne and Senator Gietzelt appear to be taking part in that ceremony.

Senator Gietzelt:

– So what?

Senator HARRADINE:

– I do not deny the right of Senator Gietzelt or Senator O ‘Byrne to conduct their remembrance in any place they like. But they have no right for their own purposes to conduct it in the sacred place reserved for commemorating the Australian dead who fought for Australia.

I believe that the Minister for Administrative Services has a duty tonight to inform the Senate of the circumstances of this wreath laying. Is there a rule for one set of people within the community and another for the pro-Fretilin supporters who happen to be in this Parliament? Did the organisers obtain permission for this ceremony from the Director of the War Memorial.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, they did.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Senator Cavanagh says that they did. I would like to know from the Minister whether in fact they obtained permission to lay a wreath in commemoration of those who were killed in Timor one year ago yesterday, as reported in the Canberra Times today. Did the organisers tell the Director that the event was to mark the first anniversary of the events that occurred in Timor last year? If the Director did give authority, in contradistinction to other people within the community who wished to commemorate those who died fighting for freedom and self-determination but who were denied the opportunity to do so, has the War Memorial changed its policy on commemorator ceremonies involving events in which no Australians were in a warlike operation? Did the organisers relate some story to the Director of the War Memorial who then gave permission to those persons mentioned in the Press report to lay a wreath? If so, what was the request and what were the circumstances surrounding the request?

I believe this is a very important matter for the Senate to consider and in respect of which the Government, through the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), should give some explanation to the Australian Parliament. In fact, we see by the reporting in the Press in the A.C.T. that the ceremony was held to commemorate the first anniversary of the events of Fretilin versus UDT. The real intention of the people who attended the ceremony, in my view, was to get Press publicity for their own particular pro-Fretilin cause. I have said before in this Parliament and I say it again: If those expousing the pro-Fretilin cause continue on this course they will damage irretrievably the genuine cause of persons in East Timor who desire selfdetermination. If they insult those whose relatives have died in the wars defending this country, they will do damage to their particular cause. I ask: Is it their real intention to make a political commemoraton of a recent event in which, hopefully, no Australians were engaged in a war or warlike opeation as defined in the Act? I believe that these matters call for some explanation from the Minister for Administrative Services, who is sitting at the table.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-We have heard a despicable, paranoic attack by a person who, since he came over as a drop-out from the Jesuits in South Australia, has never done a constructive thing in his life except bludge on the Tasmanian workers. He has disrupted the political and industrial life in Tasmania since he has been there. He had the temerity to talk about the right of members of this Parliament to place a wreath in a sacred memorial of this nation to commemorate the loss of 5 journalists who were assassinated by the invaders of East Timor. They were Australian journalists. These people wished to commemorate also the valiant assistance that the East Timorese gave to the Australians who fought against the Japanese, against the fascists who threatened to over-run this country. If ever I heard a fascist speak I heard the quintessence of one tonight.

Senator Withers:

– I rise to take a point of order. It has been ruled time and time again that to accuse an honourable senator of being a fascist is unparliamentary. I ask that Senator O ‘Byrne withdraw that statement.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I will withdraw that. I will repeat what was once said by a senator from the other side of the chamber that if you quack like a duck, if you waddle like a duck and if you look like a duck you must be a duck. I am addressing a duck. As long as I am in the Parliament and there are people on this side of the Parliament, there will be people who will try to uphold the traditions that this country has always stood for.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– He is not concerned about the seriousness of this matter.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– He is not concerned. He is a very mischievious man. He is a destructive man. He is a negative man. He is an insidious man. I have had a lot of experience with this man in Tasmania. I know the influence that he has had on both industrial and political life in that State. But Tasmania is now relieved of him because he is in this Parliament where he is absolutely negative. He is a nothing here. The people he should be with do not want him. He is certainly never recognised on this side of the House.

Senator Chaney:

– I am glad he was with you and not us.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I would not inflict him on you. I would not inflict him on my worst enemy.

Senator Baume:

-He has really hurt you, has he not?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, he has not hurt me. I had the privilege yesterday of being at that memorial. I also had the privilege before Senator Baume ‘s time of doing a job to defend people of his religion. I have seen people of his religion being persecuted by people of a superior race, of similar ilk to Senator Harradine, who tried to tread the people of Senator Baume ‘s religion into the ground. I have also lived to see people of his religion try to inflict the same thing on other people whom they have dominated. So Senator Baume is not in a position to interject too much in this debate.

I want to answer the charge that Senator Harradine has made against those people who attended the ceremony at the War Memorial and to challenge the right of the Board of Trustees of the War Memorial to allow people to go in all sincerity to lay a wreath on the Stone of Remembrance.

Senator Harradine:

– What about the Hungarians?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The Hungarians had nothing to do with us. They did not fight with us. The Hungarians wanted to bring their own racial problems into Australia and to use the War Memorial. That was forbidden by the provisions of legislation governing the operations of the War Memorial. It was within the rights of members of the Parliament and people in the Canberra community to attend the laying of a wreath on the Stone of Remembrance for the simple reason that it commemorated the participation of Australians in the war against the Japanese in East Timor. That was mentioned by Mr Uren, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, during the course of his few remarks.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Where was Uren during the war?

Senator O’BYRNE:

-He was a prisoner of war of the Japanese. He appreciated the assistance given to the Australians by the East Timorese to liberate him. Mr Uren was captured in Timor and he has a great sympathy for the Timorese. Senator Harradine ‘s remarks are indicative of his mentality. This man wants to support a militarist regime which is in power in Indonesia at present. Indonesia has exercised its militarist power to overcome an ethnic group of people who should have been given the right of selfdetermination. Those people were let down by Australia. We should have been there to aid them. We have shirked our responsibilities in Timor. Those people were with us through thick and thin during that great war of defence against the Japanese. As one of those people -

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Where was Harradine?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– We could bet where he would be. He would be in B company; he would be there when others went away and he would be there when they came back. I defend the right- a right which has been attacked tonight by Senator Harradine- of my colleagues to attend a cermony in all sincerity to commemorate the sacrifice of Australian journalists. I defend the right of people to commemorate the anniversary of the death of Australian journalists in East Timor, to pay our homage and our tribute to the work and assistance that the East Timorese people gave to the Australian forces, and also as a mark of our disapproval of a power which Australia assisted in getting independence. We assisted the Indonesian people to get their independence from the Dutch, to free themselves from the domination and colonial policy of the Dutch. We assisted them towards their independence. They have betrayed that trust that was reposed in them by themselves acting as colonialists over these people in East Timor.

Senator Harradine raised this matter tonight and it was a cheap and miserable political gimmick on his part to try to get some publicity in the Hobart Mercury. That is his only means of existence. That one miserable Hobart newspaper builds him up. That is what he was talking to tonight in the Senate. He has not impressed anyone. He has degraded himself and degraded the National Civic Council of which he has been an undercover member for so long. For years and years this man has been a hypocrite -

Senator Walters:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is using words that I find objectionable, and I ask him to withdraw them.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator O ‘Byrne, the use of the word ‘hypocrite’ is unparliamentary. Will you please withdraw it?

Senator O’BYRNE:

-Well, in deference to you, Mr President, I will withdraw that word if you so request it. I would like to say a few words about the New Guard if I had the time. I could talk about the honourable senator’s father in the New Guard. That was another Fascist organisation. But he has gone and I will keep that for another day.

Senator Chaney:

– I have some awful cousins.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The honourable senator looks as though they could be swinging in the trees. A charge has been made against the trustees of the Australian War Memorial and against people who went there to a wreath laying ceremony in good faith. For them to be attacked like this is beneath contempt. However, I suppose that when we are dealing with contemptible people we have to expect contemptible conduct. It is in that way that I answer his contemptible charge.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

- Mr President, the matters raised by Senator Harradine tonight, whilst they could be the subject of inflammatory speeches at this late hour, really revolve around matters of fact. When the honourable senator advised me earlier in the evening that he intended to raise this matter I attempted to get the facts, but have not been able to get all the facts. Tomorrow morning I hope to have the opportunity in the Senate to table the correspondence relating to this matter. We can then discuss whether the charges made by Senator Harradine are true or false. I do not think any purpose would be served by my relying tonight on my memory of what happened and what was in the correspondence. It would be a far more sensible operation to table the correspondence so that everybody can see it.

Senator Harradine said that the War Memorial was subject to my authority. It comes within my administrative jurisdiction only in the sense that in the Parliament I represent that independent group. It is a statutory authority set up by Act of Parliament and the day to day administration of it is totally within the jurisdiction of the Trustees of the War Memorial who are appointed by the Governor-General in Council. It is not a Government department. It never has been. The trustees exercise a great deal of independence.

Senator Harradine:

– You report to the Parliament.

Senator WITHERS:

-I report to the Parliament. I accept that responsibility. I am responsible for getting the estimates of the War Memorial through the Parliament and presenting its annual report, which I hope to do tomorrow morning, and various matters like that. However, I would not like it to be felt that the independent trustees, as established by Act of Parliament, are subject in any way to ministerial or Government direction.

There were a number of other matters raised tonight but they were all matters of fact. I gathered from Senator 0 “Byrne’s speech at one stage that he was saying that yesterday there was a ceremony in commemoration of the anniversary of the death of journalists. As I recall it, they were killed on 16 October 1975, not 7 December. We need to get our facts straight on this. We will get the correspondence tomorrow. I think it is important to table the letter which was received from a Mr Brendan O ‘Dwyer, and I imagine there is a letter which the Director wrote back to him setting out the terms and conditions. It is a matter of both people looking at it and judging whether or not the conditions laid down by the trustees were adhered to. I trunk that is the best way of handling the matter this evening.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I rise on this subject this evening because two or three weeks ago I received an invitation to attend a wreath laying ceremony to honour Australian war dead. I was honoured to attend the very moving ceremony yesterday at which a wreath was laid by a man who had been captured by the Japanese in East Timor. I attended primarily to commemorate the deaths of Australian servicemen. At the ceremony mention was made by Mr Uren of the gallant East Timorese who had assisted servicemen in their country during the war against the Japanese. Mention was made also of the 5 journalists who gave their lives last year and of the East Timorese who are suffering hardship in their own country following the invasion by the Indonesians. I did not feel ashamed to take part in that ceremony. I felt proud to be there and felt that more people should have been there.

If Senator Harradine would like a complete list of people who attended I would be only too happy to provide him with it. I am a little sorry that the newspapers did not see fit to include us all in their report. I was there and I felt that I was reasonably prominent. I was willing to have my photograph taken. If Senator Harradine would like it, I could arrange a repeat of that ceremony for this time next year and he can then get up on the adjournment debate with his vilifications and accusations against the Board of Trustees of the War Memorial, and against people who went there yesterday with a genuine desire to express their appreciation in a number of ways. They were showing their appreciation to the families of the men who died in the Second World War, to the families of the journalists who died 14 months ago and to the families of the East Timorese who are suffering now after the invasion by Indonesia.

As I said, I did not feel any sense of shame. I feel no sense of shame now in standing here and admitting that I was in attendance at that ceremony. My colleagues who were also there feel no sense of shame. The only one who has any cause at all to feel ashamed of his actions is Senator Harradine for getting up and speaking as he did in the adjournment debate tonight. I am ashamed to say that he is a member of this Senate of which I am also a member.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I think it is a matter of great regret that Senator Harradine should raise this matter in the manner in which he did when he could have obtained the facts in respect of the wreath laying ceremony yesterday. Of course, Senator Harradine is known as CMR- the chief muck raker. We have come to expect this sort of behaviour from him. I do not think the record will show that there was any endeavour to mislead the trustees of the Australian War Memorial, as Senator Harradine has endeavoured to mislead the Senate into thinking this evening. I am thankful for the approach to this matter that was taken by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers), which could be summed up in the expression that groups of Australians who want to honour war dead should have the opportunity to do so. Of course there is no more fitting person in this Parliament to honour Australian war dead than the Honourable Thomas Uren, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party who, as has been pointed out, was captured in Timor and as a prisoner of the Japanese subsequently was on the Burma Road and was then taken to Japan.

The brief hundred or so words that he uttered paid tribute to the Austraiian war dead who were killed in East Timor during World War II. The official record shows that 50 000 East Timorese people died during World War II. The people of East Timor received the gratitude of the Australian Government for nurturing and looking after Australian troops who were left behind in East Timor and were thought to be lost during the many years of the war. Therefore it is proper that some public recognition should be made of the sacrifices that the Timorese people made to assist Australian troops who managed to escape and with their help remained free from the clutches of the Japanese during World War II. According to reputable information Roger East, an Australian journalist who was representing an Austraiian news agency in Dili, was killed on the day that the Indonesians invaded Dili. This is the day on which we sought to commemorate his loss, the loss of the Australian journalists in East Timor and the loss of those Australians who died in East Timor in the war against Japan.

I take the view that the Australian War Memorial is owned by the Austraiian people. It is true that the legislation under which the Memorial is administered provides that the trustees shall operate the Memorial on behalf of the Australian people. I specifically asked the question when I agreed to go to the ceremony whether official approval for it had been given. I was informed that it has been. I do not know what were the precise terms of the application, but I am told that the ceremony was designed to pay tribute to those who had fallen in World War II and to those who had fallen subsequently in Timor.

Senator Harradine:

– And not to mark the first anniversary of the invasion by Indonesia of East Timor?

Senator GIETZELT:

– Muck-raker, shut up. This man has maligned members of the Australian trade union movement -

Senator Walters:

– I rise to order, Mr President. Again, I object to Senator Gietzelt ‘s words. I find them very objectionable.

The PRESIDENT:

-To which words do you refer?

Senator Walters:

– ‘Muck-raker, shut up’.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Which shower did you come down in, senator?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The phrase ‘shut up’ is not a parliamentary term. The expression is not the type which one should hear in a Parliament.

Senator GIETZELT:

– In the 5 years that I have been in this Senate I have not engaged myself in personalities, but in the very brief time that Senator Harradine has been here he has engaged in personalities and has made slanderous statements against many members of the Australian Labor Party and trade unionists throughout this country.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Under standing order 418, an honourable senator cannot make imputations against another honourable senator.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I withdraw, Mr President, but I assure you that since the Australian Labor Party has removed this man from its membership in Tasmania the Labor Party in that State has been healthier than it had been for more than a decade. What will happen in the Tasmanian elections on Saturday will show how much more healthy the Party is since it has removed him from its ranks.

Senator Harradine:

– You had 5 members in the other House when I was a member of the Party in Tasmania. You have not got any in it now.

Senator GIETZELT:

– The elections on Saturday will show the value of the decision that was taken by the Labor Party in the matter. I am proud to have participated in the wreath-laying ceremony and to have been with eleven of my colleagues to do just that. I do not want to enter judgment on the decision of the Trustees so far as the Hungarian question is concerned, but Senator Harradine showed the contradictory position in which he placed himself because he drew attention to the fact that the trustees are obliged to have regard to fallen Australian dead. Senator Harradine was not present at the ceremony, and if journalists like to present half a dozen words from what Mr Uren said and leave out the other ninety or so words that he uttered, Senator Harradine is entitled to interpret what was said. I can assure this Senate that Mr Uren paid tribute to Australian troops who fell during World War II and to the loss on the day of the invasion of East Timor, as well as on 16 October, when Australian journalists died doing one thing, that is, carrying out an obligation to report to the world what was happening in East Timor.

I think it is proper that members of this Parliament as well as members of the Australian community should commemorate such a sad occasion when men lost their lives trying to bring to the world the story of what was happening at that time in East Timor. Senator Harradine showed a lamentable lack of knowledge of the events of World War II. In point of fact, most of Indonesia, or the Dutch East Indies, as it was known in those days, collaborated, with the Japanese, as did sections of Timor. The incredible facts are that the section of Timor which is now known as being part of Indonesia was that section which collaborated with the Japanese against the interests of the defence of Australia. It was the area known as Portuguese East Timor, which was the subject of the invasion, which rendered great assistance to the Australian troops. The consequence was a conflict of opinion between the role of those people in East Timor and those who formed part of Indonesia.

Senator Harradine sought to compare the events in East Timor with an event that took place in 1956, to which he is entitled to make some reference- the invasion of Hungary. The Trustees could not possibly give approval for a wreath laying ceremony for that event because it would not be commemorating Australian dead. In consequence, the Trustees acted correctly then as they did on this occasion when negotiations took place between the Trustees and those who organised the event to commemorate the Australian dead.

In all the circumstances, one must doubt the motive of Senator Harradine in attempting to raise this matter in the adjournment debate. It was designed not only to besmirch those who were involved in this incident but also to intimidate the Trustees so that on a future occasion the Memorial will not be available to Australians who want to exercise a democratic right to commemorate some aspect of a war in which Australian troops have died. I think that is a matter to be regretted.

I have taken a consistent position on the matter of Timor. As honourable senators know, I condemned my Party for its lack of activity when we should have carried out our responsibilities to the people of Timor. I enjoyed some of the responses by members of the Government Parties on the matter of East Timor. We shared a common concern about the events there. I think it ill becomes any member of the Senate to suggest that what is done in respect of East Timor has some sinister connotation, represents a subversive approach or in any way ought to be condemned. In fact, the attitude of any members of this Parliament which supports the independence movement in Timor ought to have the endorsement of every member of this chamber. I make no apology on behalf of all members of the Labor Party who attended that wreath laying ceremony. I hope the Government will not be misled into taking any steps which would remove from the Trustees the right to make a decision in respect of any application by a bona fide group of Australians who want to pay a tribute to war dead.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-During the debate Senator O’Byrne offered to me a comment which I could not help hearing. I could not get the exact words. I will certainly wait until tomorrow to read in Hansard exactly what the honourable senator said. I thank him for what he said and promise him I will examine what is in Hansard. I will give it the widest currency in the community. I am sure Mr Berinson would like to read it. I am sure Mr Barry Cohen would like to read it. I am sure Mr Hawke would like to read it. I am sure Mr Einfeld would like to read it. I am sure many people in the community would like to know what Senator O’Byrne, the Australian Labor Party senator for Tasmania, said tonight.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wish to respond to Senator Baume. I remind him of a rather irrational reaction on his part to some remarks made by Senator Grimes. He misunderstood Senator Grimes the other day.

Senator Baume:

– I did not.

Senator GEORGES:

-You misunderstood him.

Senator Baume:

– I read Hansard later

Senator GEORGES:

-The honourable senator may have read the Hansard and he may have continued to misconstrue. Nevertheless his reaction was an over-reaction and in this case, too, it is an over-reaction. He is getting himself into trouble. Senator Baume might take the best out of what Senator O’Byrne said. He said nothing that was in any way disparaging to Senator Baume or to anyone associated with him.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-Just to throw a little truth into this debate I seek permission to have the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tom Uren, incorporated in Hansard. This speech was made at the wreath laying ceremony and it will prove that Senator Gietzelt was not telling the truth when he said that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had said that it was in commemoration of the Australians who had fallen in the Second World War.

Senator Gietzelt:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Mr Uren did have a prepared speech but he did not refer to it. He made an offthecuff speech. If there is a copy of a speech circulating it is that which was prepared by his staff. I referred to the actual speech that he made in which he did not use notes or did not-

Senator Maunsell:

– Oh!

Senator Gietzelt:

– Who would know? Would you know? Are you suggesting that I am telling a lie?

Senator Maunsell:

– No. I am asking why he circulated it to the Press.

Senator Gietzelt:

– I do not know why he did it. I am saying that what I said to the Senate was exactly what Mr Uren said. I am not in the habit of lying to the Senate.

Senator WALTERS:

-I am not accusing Senator Gietzelt of anything. He seems to be very sensitive about this and I am beginning to wonder why he is so sensitive. All I asked was that the speech that is certainly in the name of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tom Uren, be incorporated in Hansard, as I said, just to throw a little truth on the matter.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Opposition senators- No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator WALTERS:

-Then I shall read the speech, if that is all right.

Senator Steele Hall:

– It was not given. It is a quite useless exercise.

Senator WALTERS:

-This is a speech by Mr Tom Uren, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at a wreath laying ceremony.

Senator Coleman:

-I rise on a point of order, Mr President. That is an untruth that has been stated by Senator Walters. It is not the speech that Mr Uren-

Senator Chaney:

– How do you know?

Senator Coleman:

– Because I was there, and he did not read a speech.

Senator Chaney:

-You have not heard anything yet.

Senator Coleman:

– He spoke off the cuff.

Senator Martin:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. There has been a document circulated to honourable senators which reads:

Speech by Tom Uren, M.P., Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at a wreath laying ceremony . . .

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You may read that document, Senator Walters.

Senator WALTERS:

– I do not know for sure but I should imagine that Mr Tom Uren was the one who must have circulated his own speech. It reads:

Speech by Tom Uren, M.P., Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at a wreath laying ceremony to mark the first anniversary of the Indonesian invasion of the Democratic Republic of East Timor- Tuesday 7 December, 1976.

Today we are expressing our sorrow for the suffering of the Timorese people.

This is the anniversary of the unprovoked attack on their nation- the Democratic Republic of East Timor.

The past year has been one of bitter struggle for the people of East Timor.

They have had to contend with an unprovoked attack upon their country by a bullying neighbour. The invaders in their attempts at destroying the freedom of this small nation have committed horrifying atrocities against the Timorese people. Over 60 000 people have died in the struggle against the foreign invader. This wreath is an expression of respect for those people.

For the people of Australia this situation presents a fundamental challenge to our view of the world.

The Australian Government wants us to forget the Timor situation. They want the Australian people passively to accept that Indonesia’s generals have the right to decide on whether their neighbours can be free or not. They want us to believe that for Australia to have ‘good relations’ with the Indonesian Government we should not criticise their unprovoked and brutal assault on the people of East Timor.

That is why Telecom Darwin will be prevented from passing on news from East Timor.

That is why Ministers of the Fretilin Government have been refused permission to visit Australia.

That is why Australia abstained from the UN resolution condemning the Indonesian invasion.

That is why the Australian Government has abandoned its publicly stated policy and sends our humanitarian aid through the Indonesian Red Cross.

That is why military aid to Indonesia continues.

That is why Timorese refugees from Indonesian aggression have been refused special consideration for migration to Australia.

These actions are all further evidence of our sell out of East Timor. These actions go beyond recognising so-called realities’ to encouraging these ‘realities’.

As Australians what is our role in this situation?

As Australians one of our roles is to remind the Australian people of the debt we owe the Timorese for their assistance in aiding the preservation of our freedom in the Second World War. This is an appropriate time and place to draw attention to that.

We have to tell the Australian Government that we reject the continued sell-out of the East Timorese people.

But most importantly we have to let the Timorese know that in their struggle they have the support of the Australian people.

That is the end of the speech and there is no mention of its being a commemoration for the Australian soldiers killed in the Second World War.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I had not intended to speak on this matter because, after all, I do not think that this is some form of confessional chamber. What I did in attending that ceremony I did with dignity and pride. I can assure honourable senators I enjoyed Senator Walters’ speech very much indeed. It was a wonderful contribution to the Parliament.

Senator Gietzelt:

– It is the best speech she has ever made in the Senate.

Senator McINTOSH:

– As I was going to say, it is one of the best speeches she has ever made. But I can assure honourable senators that it was not the speech that was delivered yesterday at the War Memorial. The honourable senator can nod her head; I could not care less.

Senator Walters:

– I am not nodding it; I am shaking it.

Senator McINTOSH:

-Well, shake it. As far as I am concerned, it was not the speech that was delivered by Tom Uren. It is a very good speech. I am glad that it has been incorporated in Hansard. As for Senator Harradine, he could quite easily have found out the conditions that were laid down by the Board, or whatever it is called. That was up to him. To me he is a sick joke; so I do not intend to answer anything he said.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

Mr President, I seek leave to table a copy of an invitation which I and all members of this Parliament received from the AustralianEast Timor Association, which read:

You are invited to be present at a wreath-laying ceremony at the the Australian War Memorial in memory of Australian and Timorese fallen.

Then it mentions the name of Mr Tom Uren. I think every member of the Parliament received that invitation. If what happened at the War Memorial was not in accordance with that invitation, that is a matter that can be taken up by the Leader of the Government Senate (Senator Withers). But believe that the invitation was as shown and the ceremony was in accordance with that invitation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– I have listened intently to a debate which at times has been confusing, sometimes interesting, and always revolving around the very serious background of the reasons for raising the issue. I do appreciate, as I am sure those who have been involved in the argument appreciate, the statement by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) that he will bring forward tomorrow the matters of fact. Perhaps that information will permit this matter to be considered in a calmer manner. I am confounded beyond measure to find that a speech has been read tonight on behalf of another person whom it is claimed has never made it. I must say that I rind that a most peculiar thing. I believe that it ought to be settled by further inquiry.

I am not in a position to judge, but I must say that, from the claims that have been made tonight- I believe that they were very earnestly and quite properly made- I believe that the speech that was read was not made. But I would like to see some further proof produced to settle the argument on this issue. If that belief is correct, I find it preposterous that I should sit here and hear an honourable senator read a speech which was prepared in another man’s name and which was never made. I find that quite preposterous. I believe that those who make the claim that the speech was not made should bring up the matter and that it should be taken from there. It seems to me to be quite a misuse of the Senate’s time for a speech like that to be read if in fact it was not his speech.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.01 a.m. (Thursday)

page 2868

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Pension Entitlements: British Veterans (Question No. 827)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice:

What pension entitlements and additional benefits are currently provided for British ex-servicemen and women residents in Australia who are aged 60 years and over.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

British veterans are eligible for the full range of Social Security benefits on the same basis as other Australian residents, provided they meet the residential qualifications.

British veterans who are aged 60 years and over qualify for Service pension and associated allowances under similar conditions of eligibility as Australian veterans, provided they have a minimum of 10 years residence in Australia. No additional benefits are provided on the basis of receipt of these Service Pensions.

Pension entitlement in respect of incapacity or death arising from service in the British Forces is the responsibility of the British Government. British veterans resident in Australia and in receipt of disablement pensions from the British Government are paid by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs as the agent of the British Department of Health and Social Security.

Fossil Fuels (Question No. 901)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

What is the annual output and value of production of the following resources in Australia: (a) natural gas, (b) crude oil, (c) liquid petroleum gas, (d) black coal, (e) brown coal, (f) uranium, and (g) other fossil fuels.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Data for 1974 and earlier years appear in Table 8 on page 17 of the Australian Mineral Industry 1974 Review, published for the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics by the Australian Government Publishing Service.

Preliminary data for1975 are shown below:

Natural gas

Production: 482 1 million cubic metres.

Value (ex-mine): $48. 3m (estimated).

Crude oil

Production: 23.8 million cubic metres.

Value (ex-mine): $3 13.9m (estimated).

Liquefied petroleum gas

Propane

Production: 1.1 million cubic metres.

Value: Not available.

Butane

Production: 1.2 million cubic metres.

Value: Not available.

Black Coal

Production: 74.7 million tonnes.

Value (ex-mine): $974.0m.

Brown coal

Production: 28.2 million tonnes.

Value (ex-mine):$49.3m.

  1. Uranium

No production in 1975.

  1. Other fossil fuels
  2. Ethane

Production: 68.1 million cubic metres.

Value: Not available.

  1. Natural gas condensate

Production figure not available.

Sales totalled 6991 cubic metres.

Value: Not available.

Department of Defence: Civilian Employees (Question No. 997)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) What has been the total civilian employment in the Department of Defence in each year since 1 970.
  2. Is it correct that the Department is to suffer a cut of nearly 4 per cent in its civilian employment as reported in the Canberra Times on 2 1 August 1976. If so, (a) how many persons will be affected; (b) in which areas of the Department will civilian starring cuts be made; (c) have the cuts resulted from a comprehensive review of the Department’s civilian staffing requirements and, if so, what are the details; (d) what effect will the civilian staffing cut-back have on the operations and effectiveness of (i) the Department of Defence and (ii) the Armed Services; and (e) will service personnel be required to perform duties currently undertaken by civilian employees as a result of these new arrangements and, if so, what are the details.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Total civilian employment in the Department of Defence is set out in the table below:
  1. (a)-(e) The staff ceilings set for the Defence Department for 1976-77 will result in an actual reduction of 225 employees (or0.7 percent) from the June 1976 levels.

With regard to the effects of these reductions, I refer you to the explanation in the White Paper on Australian Defence (chapter 5, paragraph 26).

Tariff Quotas -Textile Industry (Question No. 1006)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is irreparable damage being done to the Australian textile industry by the Government’s delay in announcing quota levels to individual quota holders within the garment manufacturing industry.
  2. Is the Minister aware that both manufacturers and importers within the industry will not create employment opportunities until a decision has been made by the Government, which will permit forward planning for at least twelve months. If so, will the Minister indicate when a decision on quotas will be made.
Senator Cotton:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 announced on 25 August 1 976 that, after considering all pertinent factors disclosed by a review of the market prospects for certain items of apparel, there did not appear to be a sufficiently compelling reason to vary the tariff quota arrangements announced on 9 June. Consequently allocations were made in accordance with that announcement. I am unware of any irreparable damage to the Australian textile industry attributable to the action I took at that time.
  2. In the statement issued on 9 June 1976, reference was made to arrangements within the tariff quota system to assist importers with forward planning. I will ensure that the honourable senator receives a copy of that statement.

National Rural Bank (Question No. 1015)

Senator Colston:

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

With reference to the Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 447 relating to the establishment of a National Rural Bank:

Has the working group been set up to investigate the proposal. If so, when was the working group set up, what is its charter, what is its composition and when is it likely to report back to the Minister.

What other action, if any, has the Minister taken to investigate and draft a definite program for the establishment of a National Rural Bank in line with the Government’s 1975 election promise.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Working groups of departmental officers have been actively investigating the proposal for some months.

The Bureau of Agricultural Economics is updating its 1 972 assessment of the rural finance situation. Consultation has taken place with a number of interested persons and groups towards formulating a proposal for consideration in 1 977.

The honourable senator may also find it helpful to refer to my answer on this matter in the House of Representatives Hansard, 3 November 1976, pages 2262-63.

Former Prime Ministers and Members of Parliament: Privileges and Facilities (Question No. 1021)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the existing privileges and facilities, benefits and payments, made available to the Rt Hon. Sir Robert Menzies, the Rt Hon. Sir John McEwen, the Rt Hon. J. G. Gorton and the Rt Hon. W. McMahon, because of their former office in the Australian Parliament.
  2. Do these privileges and facilities differ in any way from those enjoyed by the persons mentioned as at 1 October 1975 (see Senate) Hansard, page 895, of 1 October 1975.
  3. What privileges and facilities, previously made available to former members of the Australian Parliament, were withdrawn in December 1975.
  4. What action is being taken to provide former members of Parliament with privileges and facilities recently determined by the Remuneration Tribunal for existing members of Parliament when they subsequently leave the Parliament.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. See my answer to House of Representatives Question No. 854.
  2. Yes. As a former Prime Minister no longer in the Parliament Mr Gorton now receives similar privileges to those available to Sir John McEwen. In addition, Sir Robert Menzies is now provided part-time medical orderly assistance to enable him to make use of the official car that is provided.
  3. See the Press release which I issued as Special Minister of State on 19 December 1975, a copy of which is available from the Parliamentary Library.
  4. This matter is currently under study.

Trichlorophenol Production (Question No. 1063)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Mininster for Health, upon notice:

  1. Do any chemical plants in Australia produce trichlorophenol and are any of these in areas under direct Commonwealth control.
  2. In view of the recent disaster associated with trichlorophenol production in a chemical factory in the north Italian town of Seveso on 10 July 1976 and the subsequent delay in the taking of proper remedial action, what procedures exist for the immediate assessment of dangers of explosions in chemical factories and the early warning and evacuation of vulnerable civilian populations.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The former manufacturer has ceased production.
  2. I understand that Australian chemical plants have well-defined procedures for the prevention and control of explosions and that simulated emergencies are conducted to test the effectiveness of these procedures. In these tests, liaison is maintained by the chemical plants with the relevant State emergency and environmental health agencies.

Retrenchment of Aborigines: Point McLeay Housing Society (Question No. 1120)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs send a telegram during last week to the Point McLeay Housing Society assuring them that no Aborigines would be retrenched until an assessment had been carried out on on-going programs.
  2. Were nine Aborigines retrenched on 17 September 1 976 because of lack of funds.
  3. Will the Minister take action so as to ensure that funding for the Association is resumed immediately so that those workers who have lost their jobs may be reinstated.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes, a telegram to that effect was sent on 16 September.
  2. Yes, notwithstanding my telegram.
  3. Action was taken immediately to provide adequate funds and the men were re-employed.

Aborigines Employed in Public Service (Question No. 1124)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs been drawn to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 September 1976, in which his spokesman was reported as stating that the small proportion of Aborigines employed in Public Service Third Division clerical positions was not the result of educational barriers, and that the Public Service Board waived educational requirements for Aborigines. If so, is a lack of formal educational qualifications not a barrier preventing the promotion of suitably experienced Aborigines within the Public Service.
  2. Have any in-service training courses been conducted since I January 1976 to ensure that Aborigines without matriculation are promoted to Public Service Third Division positions.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, what are the courses, what has been the duration of these courses, and how many Aborigines have attended.
  4. How many positions have been established to train and develop Aborigines within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and, of these positions: ( a) how many are filled on a permanent basis; (b) how many on a temporary basis; (c) how many are vacant; (d) have any of the occupants of these positions been transferred to duties not connected with the training and development of Aboriginal staff; (e) if any of the positions are unfilled, or if any officers have been seconded, what is the reason for this situation.
  5. How many of the training officers responsible for the training of Aboriginal staff within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are themselves Aborigines.
  6. What priority does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs give to the training and development program for Aboriginal staff who may lack formal educational qualifications but who, nevertheless, possess qualities that allow them to deal effectively with other Aborigines.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes, I have seen the article. The report, however, is misleading because it suggests that the Public Service Board, as a matter of course, waives the educational requirements prescribed by the Public Service Act for entry for Aborigines to the Third Division. This is not so. There is provision under Section 38 of the Act for the Board to appoint persons not possessing the prescribed qualifications for entry to the Third Division in special circumstances. Where the Department is able to satisfy the Public Service Board that a position should be filled by an Aboriginal possessing special skills and attributes, the Board may waive the qualifications prescribed by the Act.
  2. and (3) No in-service training courses are conducted to ensure that Aborigines or other staff without matriculation are promoted to Public Service Third Division positions. Inservice training courses are conducted to contribute to the personnel development of staff generally and to enable staff to acquire skills, equipping them to contribute more effectively to the Service. However, the Public Service Board approved in February this year attendance at the South Australian Institute of Technology Certificate Course in Community Development under a departmental’ training scheme of four Aboriginal staff in the Fourth Division from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. These staff had not matriculated and lacked the normal entrance qualifications for tertiary study. The course runs for two years and departmental officers receive full pay and a living allowance where appropriate during this period. The Department sponsored twelve Aboriginal staff under the same program in 1975.

The Certificate in Community Development is recognised by the Public Service Board as meeting the prescribed entry requirements to the Third Division.

  1. No positions are provided exclusively for the purpose of training and developing Aborigines in the Department. Seven positions have been established for training and developing all staff throughout the Department. However, the Department is mindful of the special needs of some Aboriginal staff and endeavours to meet those needs through specially designed programs.
  2. None.
  3. 1 regard the training and development of Aboriginal staff as an important area of concern.

Queensland Aboriginal Act 1971 and Torres Strait Islanders Act 1971 (Question No. 1161)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister inform the Parliament if the Queensland Government has any plans to revoke the Queensland Aboriginal Act of 1971 and the Torres Strait Islanders Act of 1971 when the Acts come up for review.
  2. Is it the intention of the Queensland Government to dispose of all Aboriginal and Island reserves by public auction if the Acts are revoked.
  3. Will the Minister, in view of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Referendum having been agreed to in 1967, take appropriate action to protect the rights and property, including the reserves of Aborigines and Islanders in Queensland if the Queensland Government proceeds in this matter.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement has advised me that ‘Consistent with the time factor provision … the two Acts will be reviewed during 1977 in consultation, of course, with the various Advisory Councils and based on their advice a decision can then betaken’.
  2. and (3) The Queensland Minister has indicated that he is not aware of any suggestion that Aboriginal and Island reserves would be disposed of by public auction.

Proserpine River: Flood Mitigation Works (Question No. 1180)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

What is the estimated cost and completion date for each of the following proposed works:

a ) river improvement works;

constructions, reconstruction and re-alignment of levee banks;

construction of spillways and other works to divert overbank flooding; and

road works to accommodate diversion structures for flood mitigation works on the Proserpine River in north Queensland.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Government provided a grant of $120,000 in 1974 for the restoration of flood-damaged levees along the Proserpine River and authorised a further non-repayable grant in 1976 of up to $374,400 payable to the end of 1978-79 towards specified works to alleviate flooding along the Proserpine River.

The restoration of levees has been completed, apart from some further damage resulting from the last wet season, and work on re-alignment and reconstruction of levees, spillways and other structures is continuing. Completion of the scheme is expected by December 1978.

National Service Act: Records relating to Breaches (Question No. 1182)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Government give a public assurance several years ago that all records of breaches relating to conscription into the Army during Australia’s in the Vietnam war would be destroyed.
  2. ) Has the decision been implemented or are the records still in existence in State offices of the Attorney-General’s Department.

Sentor Durack- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer

  1. 1 ) No such assurance was given by this Government.
  2. I am informed that records relating to breaches of the National Service Act during the Vietnam war have been dealt with according to normally applicable archival procedures.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 1245)

Senator Button:

asked the Mininster for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice:

What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs as at 30 June 1977.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 1246, on 9th November 1976 (Senate Hansard,Page 1774).

World’s Uranium Reserves (Question No. 1286)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

What is the life of the world’s uranium reserves if used at the projected consumption rates, assuming that no new deposits are found and that the fast breeders do not work.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

On the basis of information published in the annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for 1975-76, western world resources in the reasonably assured category recoverable at up to$US30 per lbU3Og are estimated at 1.84 million tonnes of uranium. Cumulative uranium requirements in the Western world were estimated in that report at 1.8 million tonnes of uranium up to the year 1995 on the basis of a low growth scenario. With no new resources established, nor higher cost resources exploited, this would give a life of about 20 years for world resources.

However, the extent of uranium resources is constantly being revised as new discoveries are made.

Electricity: Energy Lost in Conversion of Fuels (Question No. 1287)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of Australia’s total primary energy input is lost in the conversion of primary and secondary fuels to electricity at power stations.
  2. 2 ) What has this figure been for each of the past 1 5 years.
  3. What steps are being taken by the Federal Government, State Governments and research organisations to reduce this percentage loss.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Calculations by the Department of National Resources covering the IS years to the year ended 30 June 1 975, the latest for which data is available, appear in the following table:
  1. I am advised that, with a view to maximising the thermal efficiency of electricity generation, the State electricity generating authorities undertake a continuing program of research and development, co-operate with the CSIRO and tertiary institutions on suitable projects, and monitor overseas developments.

Electricity Generation: Utilisation of Waste Heat (Question No. 1288)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What steps are being taken to utilise the waste heat of electrical generation as an energy source.
  2. What are the organisations and the level and scope of research undertaken by them.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The waste heat of electricity generated using internal combustion engines is utilised for space heating in several installations in Australia. The waste neat from large thermal power stations has not been utilised since they are, for the most part, remote from large population centres and the generally favourable climate and low population density in Australia militates against district heating systems as used in the colder areas of North America and Northern Europe.
  2. Much of the information sought is not readily available and I would not be prepared to authorise the diversion of effort in the Department of National Resources that preparation of a comprehensive answer to the question would require. I am advised, however, that it is the standard practice of the State electricity generating authorities to seek uses for the waste heat produced during electricity generation.

Uranium Mining: Protective Clothing (Question No. 1291)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Do many proponents of nuclear power claim that the level of fatalities and the level of diseases associated with uranium mining will be reduced if mine workers wear heavy protective clothing.
  2. 2 ) Are a vast majority of unanium mines found in hot and arid parts of the world where the wearing of heavy protective clothing is uncomfortable.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The protection of miners is primarily ensured by controlling mine atmosphere. The Australian Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1975 states that ‘the design, development and operation of a mine shall be such that the wearing of respirators or protective clothing by employees is necessary only in special circumstances ‘.
  2. Some uranium mines are in hot arid parts of the world such as Africa, some are located in cool temperate and cold regions such as Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and others are in mountainous regions, for example in the United States of America. Under properly controlled atmospheric conditions or in open-cut mines the wearing of heavy protective clothing is radiologically unnecessary.

Huskisson: Ownership of Town (Question No. 1296)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs investigated the claims made by the Campbell family in September 1976 that it owns Huskisson, a town south of Nowra in New South Wales, because they are the direct descendants of the Duke of Argyll -who originally owned the land. If so, what conclusions have been drawn by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and what action is to be taken as a result of this investigation.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

No such claim has been referred to me or to my Department and no investigation has been undertaken.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Funds Provided in Kempsey Area (Question No. 1309)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With relation to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 1000 relating to funds provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the Kempsey area of New South Wales, what action did the Department take to correct the false impression provided by the letter from Reverend A. J. Beard published in the Sun Herald o( 29 August 1 976.
  2. In particular, did the Department write for publication to the Editor of the Sun Herald with a view to providing the reading public with comprehensive answers to the allegations contained in Reverend Beard ‘s letter.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) I received some letters from members of the public about the matters raised in the letter from the Reverend A. J. Beard of Kempsey and I replied, giving details of funds provided in the area. My Department did not write to the newspaper in relation to the letter.

Life Insurance: Protection of Policy Owners’ Investments (Question No. 1349)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are certain safeguards written into the law to protect investments paid by way of premiums on the lives of persons who insure with insurance companies registered in Australia.
  2. Is the Treasurer aware that this policy is not apparently adhered to by a company known as the Invincible Life and General Insurance Company Limited which is incorporated in New South Wales.
  3. Are agents of this company allowed to solicit new business by advising prospective clients that premiums are repaid in toto on a whole of life policy after a qualifying period of 2 years.
  4. If the client decides to opt out after the qualifying period and the insurance company refuses to fully reimburse the client, what action can the Government take.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Life Insurance Act 1945 contains provisions to protect the financial condition of life insurance companies in the interests of policy owners. In addition the Act contains a number of provisions relating to policies, including a provision that a policy owner is entitled to a surrender value in cash calculated on a basis not less than that prescribed, provided that his policy has been in force for at least six years.
  2. The Treasurer is not aware of any information which would suggest that Invincible Life & General Insurance Co. Ltd is not complying with any of the provisions of the Life Insurance Act.
  3. Agents of Invincible Life & General Insurance Co. Ltd are not authorised to solicit new business by advising prospective policy owners that premiums will be repaid in toto after a policy has been in force 2 years. Because of initial expenses incurred and the cost of death cover provided from commencement, the surrender value of a life insurance policy is not normally equivalent to the amount of premiums paid until the policy has been in force for a much longer period. If the honourable senator has any information in regard to actions of life insurance agents which may be a cause for concern, it is suggested that he provide details for investigation by the Life Insurance Commissioner.
  4. If a policy owner wishes to surrender a life insurance policy after 2 years’ duration, the amount of surrender value available, in the absence of any specific conditions in the policy document, rests at the discretion of the company.

Aboriginal Rehousing Program, Queensland (Question No. 1356)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What funds were provided in the 1976-77 Budget for the Queensland Government’s Aboriginal rehousing program.
  2. What form does the Queensland Government’s Aboriginal rehousing program take.
  3. Is the 1976-77 allocation of funds to Queensland for the Aboriginal rehousing program insufficient to allow completion of the homes presently under construction. If so, what are the details.
  4. What direct steps is the Australian Government taking to provide housing for Aboriginals in Queensland outside the State Government ‘s program.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The allocation to the Queensland Government for Aboriginal housing from the 1976-77 Budget was $954,000. A further $1,246,000 was allocated following the provision of an additional $25m for Aboriginal advancement programs making a total of $2.2m.
  2. The Queensland Government, through its Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement provides housing at various locations throughout Queensland for rental to Aborigines, the capital cost of which is funded by the Commonwealth Government. As well, funding is provided for hostel accommodation.
  3. No. Ongoing contractual commitments for Aboriginal housing required an amount of $1,028,000 and there was a carry-over balance of funds from 1 975-76 of $9 1 ,000.
  4. (i) the allocation of funds to Aboriginal Housing

Associations through the Grants-in-Aid program is $3,163,000 for 1976-77

  1. the allocation through Aboriginal Hostels Limited is $623,000 for 1976-77
  2. the Aboriginal Loans Commission makes loans available to individual Aborigines for housing in Queensland and during the period July to September 1976, 18 loans amounting to $494,47] were approved. The Aboriginal Loans Commission was allocated $ 10m in the 1976-77 Budget for its Australia-wide Program.

Aboriginal Advancement, Queensland: Commonwealth Assistance (Question No. 1357)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

With relation to the statement by the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in the Estimates debate in the Queensland Parliament on 26 October 1 976, in which Mr Wharton claimed that ‘radical changes in policy implemented by the Commonwealth Government in recent years seem likely to extinguish completely or, at least, drastically reduce the levels of Commonwealth financial aid to Queensland for matters associated with Aboriginal welfare ‘, is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs engaged in implementing a continuing policy of ‘isolating, bypassing and ignoring’ the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement, as has been claimed by Mr Wharton. If so, (a) what are the details, and (b) why has the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs been unable to establish a climate of liaison and co-operation with the Queensland Department in order to develop programs for Aboriginal advancement and to take maximum advantage of available funding.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

No. My Department is co-ordinating the development of programs for Aboriginal advancement which are funded by the Commonwealth Government through State grants and is developing effective liaison and co-operation with the several Queensland Government departments involved. My Department is also funding Aboriginal organisations in keeping with the Government’s policy of self-management and self-sufficiency and as a means of making them less reliant on Commonwealth and State Governments.

Far West Aboriginal Progress Association (Question No. 1358)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs refused to fund the Far West Aboriginal Progress Association in Ceduna, South Australia unless this organisation removes 2 persons from its Committee. If so, will the Minister inform the Parliament of the reasons for this unusual state of affairs.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

No. My Department has suspended the funding of the Far West Aboriginal Progress Association at Ceduna until debts owed to the Association by one member of the Association’s Committee are settled or the member in question resigns from the Committee. The Association’s auditor reported gross mismanagement of the Association’s funds in 1975-76 and my Department has also indicated that issues arising from the auditor’s report should be resolved. Only one member of the Committee is involved.

Australian Law Enforcement (Question No. 1368)

Senator Colston:

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

Is the Attorney-General aware of a statement by the Queensland Police Commissioner, Mr Whitrod, reported in the Courier-Mail of 5 November 1976, that Australian law enforcement is not succeeding in its prime task, despite increased effectiveness by individual segments. If so, will the Attorney-General investigate the advisability of the suggested options indicated by Mr Whitrod, viz: (a) the adoption of ‘reliable techniques’ for assessing the degree of effectiveness in Australian law enforcement with sufficient certainty; (b) the establishment of a national forum of senior police officers; (c) expansion of the Australian Crime Prevention Council to provide for civilian participation; and (d) the establishment of a national council on crime and delinquency, with a view to recommending their adoption to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

Senator Durack:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The administration of the criminal law is a matter that falls primarily within the responsibility of the States. However, the Commonwealth has, in co-operation with the States, established the Australian Institute of Criminology to engage in research and the training of law enforcement personnel. The Commonwealth has also established, as a joint venture with the States, the Criminology Research Council to sponsor research in relation to crime. A number of projects designed to assess the effectiveness of agencies within the Australian criminal justice systems are at present being undertaken and sponsored by these bodies.

In pursuance of its functions as host for the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, which is to be held in Australia in 1980, the Commonwealth has also established a Consultative Committee consisting of representatives of the Commonwealth and the States. This Committee is, in conjunction with its work in preparation for the Congress, examining what improvements might be made to Australian criminal justice processes and what contribution might be made by Australia at the international level in this field.

Senior officers of a number of agencies within the Australian criminal justice systems, including Police Commissioners of the States and the Commonwealth, already meet at regular intervals.

The Australian Crime Prevention Council is a nongovernmental organisation representative of agencies and voluntary organisations concerned with crime prevention and control. The Commonwealth is providing a subsidy of $28,000 per annum to the Council to assist it in the establishment of a national secretariat The expansion of the Council to provide further for civilian participation is a matter for the Council, rather than the Government.

The present arrangements for co-ordination on the national level of work in relation to crime prevention and control will be kept under review and consideration will be given, as appropriate, to the need for the establishment of a national council on crime to further the developoment of this work.

Telecom of Australia: Medibank Deductions (Question No. 1383)

Senator Colston:

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

Has Telecom of Australia, in Brisbane, been approached by Medibank to have Medibank contributions deducted regularly from staff salaries. If not, what is the reason for Medibank ‘s failure in this regard.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Medibank Private insurance has a group payroll deduction system operating in respect of Telecom of Australia in Brisbane.

Giant Clam: Danger of Extinction (Question No. 1395)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

Has the Minister investigated claims made in an article entitled Killing a Million Clams a Year by Dr Robert Endean, Reader in Zoology at Queensland University, in the

Australian of 9 November 1976, that the giant clam is in danger of extinction. If so:

what conclusion has the Minister reached from those investigations, and

what further action does the Minister intend taking.

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

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Yes, I have read these claims.

I am advised that these clams are common throughout the tropical reef areas of the Indo-Pacific region, including the whole of the northern Australian coast.

It is therefor most unlikely that they will be fished out to the point of extinction. However, their probable slow growth and relatively low fecundity may make them susceptible to excessive exploitation. Severe local depletion by operations such as those of the Taiwanese may well be possible. Insufficient is known in detail of their life history for the development of sound management plans on a scientific basis but, in the absence of detailed information, management should be conservative. This is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry in association with the Queensland authorities. I understand that extensive efforts are made to control the taking of clams by foreign vessels.

Furthermore, I understand that, since 1969 some 22 vessels engaged in this practice have been arrested, including 6 this year. No reliable information is available as to the number of clams actually taken by the Taiwanese. However, I understand that the average number of clams on the boats arrested has been 20000 as compared with the 300 000 per boat suggested by Dr Endean.

The CSIRO has no plans at present for research on these clams. Unless an Australian fishery seems likely to develop, it seems desirable to give priority to species where management is required and, as far as clams are concerned, to concentrate on keeping the foreign ‘take’ under control. If an Australian fishery seems likely to develop, the possibility of undertaking research to provide a scientific basis for its management will be examined by the CSIRO.

Public Library System (Question No. 1402)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister assure the Senate that the inadequacies of Australia’s public library system, as outlined in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries tabled in Parliament in April 1976, have received due consideration by the Government.
  2. Is the Minister aware that the Library Association of Australia has recently expressed concern at the delay by the Government in providing $20m in order to upgrade the current inadequate library system of Australia.
  3. Will the Minister outline what measures are being taken expeditiously to alleviate current inadequacies in the Australian library system.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) An interdepartmental working group is presently examining the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries. When this examination is complete consideration will be given to the future action that should be taken with regard to the recommendations of the report.

Duty Free Gift Shop Concession: Sydney International Air Terminal (Question No. 1412)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the name of the operator of the duty free gift shop concession at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Air Terminal.
  2. What are the term and conditions under which the concessionaire operates, including the date of expiry of the current contract.
  3. Assuming current investigations of massive underaward payments are confirmed, would the Minister review the existing contract.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The operator of the duty free concession in the Sydney International Air Terminal is James Richardson Pty Ltd, 35-45 Lithgow Street, Abbotsford, Victoria.
  2. The contract was let by public tender for a period of four years dating from 5 May 1973, during which time the concessionaire has contracted to pay appropriate concession fees and rentals.The concessionaire was also required to reestablish and equip new premises within the secured area.
  3. The Department has discussed the honourable senator’s question with the company which states that, following similar statements previously, an independent accountant was engaged to support the fact that, rather than underaward payments being made to employees, the reverse applied. I understand that the company has sent evidence of this direct to the honourable senator.

Registered Medical Benefits and Hospital Benefits Organisations (Question No. 1420)

Senator Colston:

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

When is it expected that the Sixth Annual Report on the Operations of the Registered Medical Benefits and Hospital Benefits Organisations, for the year ended 30 June 1976, will be tabled in the Parliament.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Sixth Annual Report on the Operations of the Registered Medical and Hospital Benefits Organisations, for the year ended 30 June 1976, is not expected to be tabled before May 1977.

Pharmaceutical Benefit Items: Price Increases (Question No. 1508)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. In preparing estimates for the 1976-77 Budget, what allowances were made for price increases already agreed to for pharmaceutical benefit items.
  2. What increases in the costs of pharmaceutical benefit items have been agreed to during 1976.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) An allowance of $ 1 ,970,000 was made in the estimates for 1976-77 to cover price increases already agreed to, but not affecting expenditure prior to the commencement of that financial year.
  2. For the period 1 January 1976 to 30 November 1976, price increases have been agreed to for a total of 534 pharmaceutical benefit items. The estimated annual cost of these increases to the Government is approximately $4,592,000.

Government Purchasing Arrangements

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

-On 16 November 1976 (Hansard, page 1 929) Senator Devitt asked me a question without notice as to whether it is the policy of this Government to give preference in its purchasing arrangements to goods of similar specification- that is, quality, type, suitability and so on- manufactured within a State. He also asked what is the basis of this policy and why it was not followed in respect of equipment and installations in the Commonwealth Government Centre at Glenorchy in Tasmania, despite the adherence to this policy in respect of the Hobart Centre and the Burnie Centre. Senator Devitt asked whether, in view of the Government’s stated policy of supporting local industry and the serious employment position in Tasmania, I will cause an inquiry to be made to ascertain the full facts concerning an apparent repudiation of this policy.

I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Construction for an accurate answer to the question and to refer to him also the matter of an inquiry. The Minister for Construction has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government purchasing policy announced by the Prime Minister on 1 October 1976 concerns the application of a discretionary preference in certain purchasing situations to goods of Australian manufacture in competition with goods of overseas manufacture or with goods having lower levels of Australian content.

It is not the policy of the Government to give preference to goods of similar manufacture within a State in its purchasing arrangements.

The practice of the Department of Construction is to specify its requirements in terms of quality and performance, thereby permitting tenderers to price competitively on the most economic combination of plant, equipment and materials that are available. The exception to this practice occurs in instances where, for technical reasons and/or aesthetic compatability, it is necessary to specify particular types of equipment or materials.

It could be reasonably expected that where suitable local products are available in close proximity to the site of the work to be performed, local manufacturers may have some advantage in terms of price because of transport cost advantages.

The Department of Construction complied with approved procedures in the purchase of equipment and materials for the Government Centre at Glenorchy. In fact, Tasmania was the supply source for the majority of equipment and materials for the project.

Mineral Leases: Aboriginal Reserves (Question No. 733)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. Are any Aboriginal reserves in Australia located within prospective mineral areas. If so, have any mineral leases and/or authorities to prospect and/or temporary reserves been granted for areas within these Aboriginal reserves. If so, how many have been granted in the past five years.
  2. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, where are (a) these mineral leases and /or authorities to prospect and /or temporary reserves; (b) how large is each of them; (c) when were they granted; (d) for how long were they granted; and (e ) to whom were they granted.
  3. What minerals are being explored for in these areas.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

The following information pertains only to the Northern Territory. For information on mining tenements granted on Aboriginal reserves in the States the honourable senator should approach the appropriate Ministers of State Governments. (1), (2) and (3) There has been only limited intensive exploration of Aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory and it is not possible to delineate prospective regions. However, some areas of some reserves are known to have significant potential.

Details of exploration licences, mineral leases and special mineral leases granted on reserves over the last five years are as follows:

Exploration Licences (E.L.’s)- (An Exploration Licence authorises the holder to explore for all minerals with the exception of petroleum. No specific mineral is mentioned in the Licence.)

E.L. 731 was granted to Mr David Namilmil, over 20 square miles on 17.7.74.

Of the 19 Exploration Licences referred to above only 4 are now in existence as follows:

As matters now stand, E.L.’ s 13,130 and 243 are due to expire early in 1977. E.L. 731 will expire in July 1979 if all renewals are granted.

The following 15 no longer exist for the following reasons: 30 Expired 12.9.73 when no renewal applied for. 42 Expired 1 9.4.74 when no renewal applied for. 47 Expired 9.8.73 when no renewal applied for. 144 Expired 12.9.73 when no renewal applied for. 195 Expired 12.6.73 when no renewal applied for. 244 Renewal refused 17.1 2.74. 245 Renewal refused 17.12.74. 260 Renewal efused 17.12.74. 261 Renewal application withdrawn 29. 1 1.74. 262 Renewal application withdrawn 29. 1 1 . 74. 263 Renewal application withdrawn 29. 1 1 . 74. 264 Renewal application withdrawn 29.1 1.74. 396 Expired 23.8.75. 397 Expired 23.8.75. 4 1 7 Renewal application withdrawn 10. 1 2.74.

  1. Aboriginal Reserves Other Than Arnhem Land
  2. Woolwonga

As matters now stand, both of these will expire in 1977.

The remaining 8 no longer exist for the following reasons: 35 Renewal application withdrawn 29.9.75. 36 Renewal application withdrawn 29.9.75. 37 Renewal application withdrawn 29.9.75. 38 Renewal application withdrawn 29.9.75. 1 73 Renewal application withdrawn 1 4.3.74. 67 Renewal application withdrawn 1 8. 1 . 74. 71 Surrendered 23.4.76. 106 Expired 29.5.73 when no renewal applied for.

  1. Mineral Leases (M.L.’s) and Special Mineral Leases (S.M.L.’s)

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 December 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761208_senate_30_s70/>.