Senate
25 May 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

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

page 1331

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator Withers:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Western Australia · LP

- Mr President, I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Andrew Peacock, leaves Australia today to attend the Conference for International Economic Co-operation, a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Law of the Sea Conference. He will also accompany the Prime Minister to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to be held in London. He is expected to return on 3 July. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry the Right Honourable Ian Sinclair, Will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1331

PETITIONS

Metric System

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 22 citizens of Australia:

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

Objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Compulsory Retirement of Australian Government Employees

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 2,343 citizens of Australia:

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

That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill first introduced in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1976. The basis for opposition includes the following reasons:

1 ) The grounds constituting ‘due cause’ for termination of services of tenured staff are expanded beyond those already available in existing legislation thereby introducing subjective discretionary powers which are inconsistent with career service expectations and entitlements.

The Bill relegates to subordinate legislation or administration direction matters affecting substantive rights of employees including the scale of compensation, the composition and powers of the appellate tribunal and the criteria upon which services may be terminated.

Existing rights of reinstatement in tenured employment are abrogated by the Bill.

Agreement has not been reached on a number of matters which should have been finalised before any attempt to introduce legislation. These include: an arbitral determination on redundancy arrangements; benefits; procedures.

As currently drafted the Bill overrides entitlements under Arbitration awards.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject passage of any legislation to extend powers of compulsory retirement of Australian Government employees unless and until any variation has been agreed with staff representatives.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 24 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledge that a pension is a ‘Right and not a charity’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Child Care Services

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-On behalf of my colleague, Senator Ryan, I present the following petition from 56 citizens of Australia:

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

That the 1976-77 Budget allocation of $73.3m for child care amounts to less than $23 per child per year which is totally inadequate.

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

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

That present government childcare programs are heavily biassed in favour of pre-school programs, 70 per cent of the funds being destined for pre-schools which only provide part-time services for children and do not cater for the needs of working parents.

That existing government childcare facilities, schools and other government buildings which could be used for childcare programs are underutilised.

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

an increase in funds for childcare services throughout Australia;

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

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

d ) the wider utilisation of government buildings or parts thereof, e.g. schools, hospitals and government offices for appropriate childcare facilities.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Civil Liberties

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

That the Government of Austria has breached article 7 of the State Treaty of May 1 955 re-establishing an independent and democratic Austria by its denial of civil liberties to its Slovene and Croatian minorities.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, have the Australian representative at the UN identify himself with any resolution aimed at restoring civil liberties to Slovene and Croatian minorities.

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

Petition received.

Rhodesia

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

That the Charter of the United Nations clearly precludes it from interference in the domestic affairs of a country or from obstructing the free transmission of news and information between individuals and between nations.

That the United Nations, in apparent illegality, has imposed many restrictions and sanctions upon Rhodesia which has been remarkably free from the bloodshed and turmoil of northern and central African lands, even to the extent now of actively encouraging armed conflict against the legally elected Government of Rhodesia.

Lord Graham as Minister of External Affairs and Defence has said: ‘International communism is our enemy, all this talk of political advancement and majority rule is no more than a smokescreen in the early skirmishes of an assault upon the whole of Africa . . . It is even difficult to see this enemy because it is not merely attacking us, but on a broad front is attacking the whole world order, its standards, its law and order, its moralities, its churches, its patriotisms, its philosophies and even much of its learning . . . ‘

That Communist Chinese infiltration in much of Africa over many years, and Cuban Communist troops reported to number 25 000 are dominating nearby Angola, and possess modern missiles etc.

It is urgent that Mozambique, now under communist domination and which has a common border with Rhodesia, does not receive any further aid from the Commonwealth Government of Australia, which has benefited mainly, the terrorist guerilla movements that are responsible for the deaths of many Rhodesian people.

It is urgent for the Australian people to determine for themselves, the actual facts of the Rhodesian struggles.

It is urgent that the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, will observe common justice and proper humanity by inviting only authorised representatives of the present Government of Rhodesia to

Australia, to do what they have been deprived to do previously, present their case fully and publicly so that this can be examined and tested, without interference, and so that the eventual impact on Australia’s own security and defence alliances can be gauged with better accuracy.

Your petitioners request urgent action to be taken immediately.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 1332

REPATRIATION LEGISLATION

Notices of Motion

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

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to repatriation and related matters.

page 1332

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Notice of Motion

  1. 1 ) That for the remainder of the present period of sittings, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and its sub-committees be granted leave to meet during sittings of either House of the Parliament.
  2. That a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting its concurrence in this resolution.

page 1332

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1332

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Now that the so-called wage-price pause is no longer considered operative, what mechanism does the Government propose to use to ensure a balanced system of wage and price increases? Is it not now obvious and all the more necessary to ensure that wage indexation is made to work as it was originally intended by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– The honourable senator asks me which mechanisms the Government intends to use. I think that that can be replied to shortly- the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Government’s view will be put in argument before those two independent commissions.

page 1333

QUESTION

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce for an assurance that in the implementation of the policy on manufacturing industry with regard to temporary protection, market sharing and other protective devices, full regard will be paid to foreign policy considerations and a recognition that Australia’s role in South East Asia and among other developing countries will be strongly influenced by economic, trading and investment policies. I further ask the Minister that full weight be given to the possible social, political and economic effect of unilateral protectionist policies by Australia on developing nations and the possibility of retaliatory action harming Australia’s interests.

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

-I suggest that the honourable senator should read the White Paper. It would be useful if he did that. Does he know that imports of clothing, textiles and footwear from those countries he mentioned have multiplied 1 8 times in 5 years? Would he not think therefore that the Australian Government has been trying to help, has been conscious of the problem and is trying to do what it can? It will always try to do so. Unqualified guarantees for the future are not available to anybody.

page 1333

QUESTION

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Industry and Commerce following the question asked by Senator Sim. In view of the substance of the question asked by Senator Sim, which is a grey area of doubt as a result of the presentation of the White Paper yesterday, will he in conjunction with whoever is the appropriate Minister- I presume it is the Minister for Foreign Affairs- issue a clear statement of intent by this Government in respect of the matters raised by Senator Sim?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I suggest again that the White Paper should be read. It is as clear a statement of Government policy as is available at the present time.

PURCHASE OF McARTHUR RIVER STATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Did Mount Isa Mines Ltd pay a ‘higher than value ‘ price for the McArthur River Station in the Northern Territory? Was this ‘higher than value ‘ price paid to ensure that Aborigines in the area could not purchase the property and thus have legal claim to their traditional lands? Did the Treasurer and the Government then exempt Mount Isa Mines, which is a foreign owned company, from Treasury regulations which are supposed to stop foreign owned companies purchasing Australian land? Were all of these actions taken to ensure that the Aborigines in the area do not lay claim to their legal rights and thus a royalty from the rich McArthur River mine owned by Mount Isa Mines? If so, how does the Government reconcile its condoning of these actions in the light of its stated policy on Aboriginal land rights?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

-I suggest that the several questions asked by the honourable senator should be placed on notice and I shall see that an answer is provided by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

page 1333

QUESTION

NORTH WEST SHELF GAS FIELD

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. Is the Government currently engaged in negotiations with the Western Australian Government and /or the Joint Venturers on the North West Shelf gas field relating to the proposed development of that field? If it is, in what areas of Commonwealth responsibility is agreement still to be reached? When does the Government expect the Joint Venturers to commence the detailed feasibility study which is the next stage of the project?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Government is currently engaged in negotiations with both the Western Australian Government and the Joint Venturers on the North West Shelf. The honourable senator asked in what areas of Commonwealth responsibility is agreement still to be reached. The principal areas in which agreement has still to be finally reached by the Commonwealth include issues related to finance, taxation, customs, foreign investment and exports. It will be appreciated that at this stage it would not be appropriate for me to go into more detail than that. Could I just say that in respect of exports the Commonwealth is awaiting formal conclusion of negotiations on domestic requirements and pricing between the Joint Venturers and the Government of Western Australia? As to the third question-when the Government expects a feasibility study to be undertaken- the Government hopes that the Joint Venturers will move to this stage as soon as the outstanding issues are resolved. We hope that that will occur at an early date. But I might say that a number of these issues are for the Joint Venturers themselves to decide.

page 1334

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, is related to the question just answered by the Minister. Has the Indonesian Government or the United States oil company Oceanic Exploration made any approach to the Australian Government regarding the right to explore 15 million acres off the south coast of Timor extending to the mid-point of the sea between Timor and Australia? Further, is it not a fact that the Federal Government and the Western Australian Government in the 1960s granted franchises to explore that region to other oil companies, including one Australian consortium? In view of the clear conflict existing on these leases, what action does the Australian Government contemplate taking to resolve the dispute?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no direct knowledge of the matter outlined in the first part of the honourable senator’s question. I shall seek information on it. As to the second part of the question, yes, from memory, 1 think some leases were granted in the 1960s, as the honourable senator said. But again calling on memory- I should need to check this- I think that occurred prior to some demarcation line being settled between Australia and Indonesia.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Australia and Portugal.

Senator WITHERS:

-It was between Australia and Portugal and, I think, also between Australia and Indonesia. I shall have to check that with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. But I have some recollection of that. The honourable senator raised a number of very interesting propositions. I shall ask both my colleagues, the Minister for National Resources and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether they can supply information on those matters.

page 1334

QUESTION

FLUOROCARBON PROPELLANTS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health indicate the progress being made by the federal health committee, which was reported in The Australian of 3 March 1977 to be considering action to be taken to phase out the use of fluorocarbon propellants in spray cans to protect the earth ‘s ozone layer and hence the world ‘s health? In particular, can the Minister inform the Senate when the committee is likely to report recommendations for the elimination of fluorocarbon propellants?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that the topic of potential health hazards from fluorocarbons remains under close scrutiny by the Public Health Advisory Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Public Health Advisory Committee at its meeting in March 1977 considered the possibility of a relationship between ozone depletion and the satiology of skin cancer. Current overseas opinion and the fact that some overseas countries propose to reduce or phase out the use of certain fluorocarbons were noted also. The Committee recommended the formation of a working party to inquire into and report on the incidence of skin cancer in Australia as related to the effects of variation in the ozone levels of the earth’s stratosphere and resultant change in ultra-violet radiation. This recommendation was approved by the Council at its meeting in April 1 977, but the working party has not yet met. At this stage I am unable to anticipate when it will report on what it will recommend. But I shall draw the interest of the honourable senator in this matter to the attention of the Minister for Health and see if any further information is available.

page 1334

QUESTION

UNITED STATES FACILITY AT PINE GAP

Senator SIBRAA:

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by saying that naturally I do not expect the Minister to reveal treaty details. I ask: Is the Minister completely satisfied that the Australian Government has been fully informed about the role and functions of the United States facility at Pine Gap? If so, can the Minister confirm a report in the New York Times of 28 April 1977 to the effect that Pine Gap collects photographs of the U.S.S.R. and other countries taken by reconnaissance satellites and receives information from satellites used to detect Soviet missile launchers?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I understand that the Government is quite satisfied about the activities at Pine Gap. When Senator Sibraa ‘s colleagues were in government, I imagine that not only the Prime Minister but also the Minister for Defence- I forget whether there was more than one of those- would have been fully briefed on the matter. During the 3 years of the Whitlam Labor Government there were no activities at Pine Gap of which I am aware, or which were made public, with which that Government was dissatisfied. I have nothing to add to that.

page 1335

QUESTION

INTERCHANGE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Science. Do countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development contribute to a study of the relationship between multinational companies and the governments of their host countries in regard to the interchange of research and development information? Is it a fact that Australia does not participate in this program? How many other OECD countries do not participate?

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

-Australia contributes to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development biennial survey of resources devoted to research and experimental development in OECD member countries. To provide the information during past years Australia has relied very heavily on a project which is managed out of the Department of Science. I refer to project SCORE. The initials stand for Survey and Comparisons of Research and Expenditures. It is a very important survey in the Australian context. This survey measures the financial and manpower resources directed to Australian research and experimental development. Respondents include multinational as well as national corporations and enterprises. The data collected include the research and development expenditure and manpower classified by extent of foreign control in the enterprises concerned. The relevant report relating to 1973-74 included foreign control data. That is due to be published by the end of this financial year. Project SCORE will be repeated every 2 years. The present intention is to collect the data relating to foreign control every 4 years. A survey covering the 1 976-77 financial year will commence in July 1977. The fact is that Australia does participate with the OECD in its surveys relating to multinational enterprises. I would encourage a continuation of that, at least to demonstrate the great use that it is for a country such as Australia to have here international organisations with large research activities which undoubtedly assist the Australian economy.

page 1335

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, relates to the administration of the Public Service. Is it a fact that the Federal Government was critical of the Queensland Government in recent times over expenditure by the Queensland Government on advertising during the recent referendum campaign? Can the Minister say who authorised publication in newspapers throughout Australia by the Commonwealth Public Service Board of the case for the Public Service Board in the recent industrial dispute between the Board and the air traffic controllers? What was the total cost of the advertisements inserted in various newspapers throughout Australia? In view of the Government’s policy of restraint of expenditure in the public sector, how does the Government justify expenditure of this nature so far as advertising is concerned?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-In the week before 2 1 May the Prime Minister and others were critical of some State governments which were using taxpayers’ money to advertise a government view. I was one of those people who were critical because I felt that if those governments were to be evenhanded they should have given the Leaders of the Opposition in those States the same amount of money to enable them to advertise their views. As to the second question, I put it to the honourable senator that that is a different matter. Firstly, may I say that the Public Service Board is an independent statutory body. This Government does not attempt to give it directions. I am quite certain that if it did do so, those directions would be rejected. I would also remind the honourable senator that two of those distinguished members of the Board are appointees of the previous Labor Government, and as did the Whitlam Government, the Fraser Government has complete and total confidence in their ability and their integrity. All I know is that I did see the advertisements. I assume- but I will seek the information for the honourable senator- that they were placed on the initiative of the Board and I imagine, subject to correction as to the law, that it was totally within the Board’s statutory competence to so insert those advertisements. As to the cost, I will inquire about that from the Board. I think the last question was how the Government justified this expenditure. I have already answered that by saying that the Board is an independent statutory corporation, that it does not take directions from this Government and that the Government does not seek to give it directions.

page 1336

QUESTION

PHOTOGRAPHS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-I preface my question to the Minister for Administrative Services by saying that no doubt the Minister, as well as others, has noticed in the Press quite old photographs of members of Parliament. I ask: Is the Minister aware of any practice that may have developed among members of Parliament of asking the Press to retain and print photographs of themselves that are many years old- photographs, I might add, that are usually reserved for campaign brochures? Could the publishing of old photographs when associated with advertising be regarded as misleading advertising? Because Ministers other than Senator Guilfoyle seem to age more rapidly than back benchers, will the Minister examine the possibility of issuing periodically up-to-date photographs of members of Parliament, say every 12 months for back benchers and every 6 months for Ministers, except Senator Guilfoyle?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

- Mr President, if Ministers have to suffer questions of that sort it is no wonder they age so quickly. As the honourable senator ought to know, I am not an avid reader of newspapers, but occasionally I look at the Parliamentary Handbook. There are some photographs in that which obviously were taken before members ever became members of Parliament. One often wonders whether they were taken before they reached puberty, let alone Parliament. It is none of the Government’s business and certainly none of my business what photographs are supplied by honourable senators. I have no intention of using taxpayers’ money to supply photographs of honourable senators to the media. As I understand it, the media either asks senators and members to supply photographs or the media takes steps to obtain their own. I do not think the electorate is at all deceived by the appearance of politicians. What the constituents are more interested in is their ideas and attitudes.

page 1336

QUESTION

CRICKET TOUR: SOUTH AFRICAN PLAYERS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the proposed cricket circus which is being organised by Mr Kerry Packer. No doubt the Minister is aware that Mr Packer has signed on 5 South African cricketers for the proposed series. May I therefore refer the Minister to the United Nations General Assembly resolution which was adopted in 1976 and for which Australia voted. The resolution urges all States to implement the recommendation contained in the report of the Special Committee Against Apartheid concerning apartheid in sports; namely, to refuse visas to South African sports bodies or teams or sportsmen except for non-racial sports bodies endorsed by the Special Committee. Will the Government take action to stop South African sportsmen engaging in the international cricket circus while in Australia this summer?

Senator Young:

– We should not have played England in the Centenary Test on the basis of your argument. It is a lot of tripe.

Senator Baume:

– You have not beaten New South Wales this year, senator.

Senator GEORGES:

-The reaction to my question from Senator Young and Senator Baume is to be expected. Nevertheless, I think their reaction is in contradiction to the Government’s attitude in this matter. Will the Government take action to stop South African sportsmen engaging in the international cricket circus while in Australia this summer? Will the Government make it clear to Mr Packer that the Government will not tolerate participation by South Africans in this series?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have heard of Mr Kerry Packer’s cricket team. I suppose that Senator George’s problem is one of” definition concerning what he means by a South African cricketer. As I understand it, Tony Greig, who was the England captain until recently has played in Australia. I do not think anybody would suggest that he ought not to have been allowed to play in Australia. I think that one of the other players selected was Barry Richards, who played at one stage for South Australia. I remember that he came to Perth once and belted the ears off our bowlers.

Senator Sim:

– He played for Western Australia last year.

Senator WITHERS:

- Senator Sim informs me that he played for Western Australia last year. I do not know whether merely because a man is born in a country he has to be tagged with that country for the rest of his life, irrespective of where his true place of residence might be.

Senator Georges:

– He is still a South African.

Senator WITHERS:

-It depends on one’s definition of South Africa. As I recall the names of those 5 cricketers who have been signed up, I think that a number of them are professional cricketers who spend quite a deal of their time playing either in the United Kingdom or in Australia. I am not coming down on one side or the other. I think it is a matter of definition as to who is a South African cricketer. The Prime Minister has, on a number of occasions, laid down quite clearly the Government’s attitude on this matter and I do not see the Government’s attitude changing.

page 1337

QUESTION

DUNG BEETLE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-I direct my question to the Minister for Science. Can the Minister advise what progress is being made in the development of efficient colder climate dung beetles? What trials are being carried out and is Tasmania included in the current experiments, as I know of several farmers who are keen to participate in such trials?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Division of Entomolgy of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has been making a major effort over the past year to obtain dung beetles specifically for the colder climates of southern Australia.

Senator Devitt:

– Is that what is called the scarab beetle?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not know. My understanding is that the species is established in West Australia and South Australia at the present time and that part of the effort which CSIRO is undertaking has been to attempt to collect suitable species in places such as Morocco, Spain, France, Turkey and Iran and, subsequently, to release them. Some have been released in New South Wales. It is not possible to assess the success of the introductions because in the colder climates they apparently are unable to manifest themselves as quickly as in some of the warmer climates. My understanding is that Tasmania is included in the overall area in which dung beetles are being released. I believe that they were released in January of this year in the rural town of Kettering. It is regrettable that CSIRO is unable to meet all the requests that are made to the organisation for this beetle. It receives requests from many farmers throughout Australia. The insects are proving a major achievement for farmers. Once established I believe their distribution into the colder climates will become a reality, but that is some little time away.

page 1337

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS: AMENDMENT OF RULES

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, relates to the problems confronting those unions which followed the advice of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and his predecessor the Honourable C. R. Cameron, which advice, in the opinion of the Australian Industrial Court given in B No. 55 of 1976 was, incorrect. I asked this question on 23 February, 23 March and 20 April. It is now 25 May and I ask the Minister the same question. When can I expect a reply to the questions that I have raised on this important matter on those occasions? As the Minister himself gave me an assurance on 12 November that certain matters which were not picked up by the then legislation would be considered, is it possible for such a conference to take place prior to the conciliation and arbitration amendment Bill coming forward this session?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-As to the latter part of the question, I regret that I do not recall the actual undertaking I gave, presumably in relation to the collegiate voting provision in the legislation.

Senator Harradine:

– Casual vacancies.

Senator DURACK:

-I shall have to look at that matter before I can answer the latter part of Senator Harradine ‘s question. I refer now to the first part of the question. It is a fact, as Senator Harradine said, that he has been asking me this question during the session. It relates to a difficult problem on which I have reported to the Senate in answer to questions on a number of occasions. I have discussed the matter with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations who himself is well apprised of the matter and of the problem involved. I think that Senator Harradine would appreciate that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has been engaged in some important and fruitful discussions with the trade union movement in the last two or three weeks. Perhaps that explains why I have not been able to provide the honourable senator with the answer that he is seeking on this matter. I shall certainly endeavour to expedite the answer.

page 1337

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN OPERA COMPANY

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, relates to the arts. I am prompted to ask the question in my capacity as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. Is the Minister aware of the controversy surrounding the annual meeting of the Australian Opera Company held in Sydney earlier this week? Has the Minister any information relating to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement that the Australian Opera Company has lost substantial funds in its recent productions? Can the Minister indicate whether the Government will make inquiries concerning these claims so as to ensure that public funds spent by the Opera Company are effectively used in the best interests of the patrons of the arts?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Prime Minister is aware of the controversy surrounding the annual meeting of the Australian Opera Company. He is having certain matters looked at. I think that when the inquiries are concluded 1 shall be in a position to give a fuller and better answer than I can give to the honourable senator at the moment.

page 1338

QUESTION

AGE PENSION FOR WOMEN

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Social Security give an assurance that the entitlement of women to the age pension which now commences at 60 years will not be changed to 65 years in the near future?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is a fact that the present entitlement of women to the age pension commences at 60 years. The Hancock superannuation inquiry report which has been tabled recommended that women should no longer be paid this pension at the age of 60 years. I assure the honourable senator that the Government has not in mind any proposal to change the age of eligibility to 65 years in the case of women. Under the Act, it is 60 years, and the Government has not under consideration any proposal which would vary that.

page 1338

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES PAUSE

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Construction. In view of the breakdown in the prices and wages pause, firstly by the Premier of South Australia withdrawing from the Heads of Government agreement and, later, by the effects of the wage decision on 24 May by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, is it now the intention of the Government to discontinue its announced decision to vary the terms of Government contracts by negating the rise and fall provisions and freezing the effects of the national wage increase?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– It is the wish of the Government, of course, that as much stability as possible be brought into contracting and into a wages and prices freeze. My recollection is that a special committee was set up to handle the freeze proposition. At the moment I do not know the direct answer to the question asked by the honourable senator. I recognise his interest in this matter, and I will attempt to obtain a prompt answer for him.

page 1338

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS INQUIRY

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: Has Dr Myers been asked to include in his review of unemployment benefits the position of people not presently eligible for benefits, such as school leavers under 16 years of age and unemployed spouses?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– When announcing the Myers inquiry, I did outline the terms of reference of the inquiry. They are somewhat lengthy. At that time the terms of reference were incorporated in Hansard. I would have no objection to reading them out in detail now, but I can assure the honourable senator that the matters that she raised have not been placed in the terms of reference in any specific way. We have asked Dr Myers to carry out his inquiry in a very general way. We have asked him to examine the underlying concept and philosophy of the present system and to assess how appropriate these continue to be. We have asked him to consider matters such as the level of benefits, the extent to which an applicant’s previous income should be taken into account, whether arrangements should be made to adjust benefits, the effect of income support measures, what limits, if any, should be set to levels and durations of payments and the conditions which should be met by individuals before they become eligible for income support. So far as anything more specific than that is concerned, we have given Dr Myers wide terms of reference. We are hoping that he will address himself to all matters which relate to the administration and the policy as it affects unemployment benefits in the future.

Senator MELZER:

- Mr President, I desire to ask the Minister for Social Security a supplementary question. Is there anything in the terms of reference which would prevent Dr Myers from looking into those 2 areas?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– There is no limitation on the way in which Dr Myers may address himself to the matter of the inquiry into unemployment benefits. The fundamental examination, which is the form that the inquiry will take, will allow him to canvass any areas of policy or administration. Whilst there is no specific term of reference which would ask him to address himself to those matters, equally there is no limitation on the inquiry which would prevent him from doing so.

page 1338

QUESTION

SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has he noticed that Mr Gough Whitlam, the referendum comrade of Mr Fraser and Mr Anthony, has stated that the Government should bring the House of Representatives to an election next May with the Senate, making it a simultaneous election? Does this not prove the truth of the No’ case that simultaneous elections for both Houses of the Parliament can be held at the decision of the Prime Minister?

Senator Missen:

– What a silly old man you are!

Senator WOOD:

– You are a silly young galoot! Do not talk to me like that, you galoot! You are looking for a ministerial portfolio. You are playing up to Malcolm for a portfolio. He has promised one to about twenty of you. Does this not clearly indicate that Mr Fraser, Mr Anthony and the Government are guilty of wasting approximately $10m of the Australian people’s money by holding a referendum which was not necessary?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have not heard the suggestion. I take it that the honourable senator would have no objection to the House of Representatives and the Senate going to the electorate simultaneously next year. This interests me because I thought the whole burden of the No’ case was that if they did that, the power of the Senate would be destroyed.

page 1339

QUESTION

CRICKET TOUR

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am encouraged to ask it by his statement in answer to an earlier question that he was familiar with Mr Kerry Packer’s cricket team. A report in the Melbourne Age of 10 May stated:

Mr Packer approached the ACB;

That is the Australian Cricket Board- with an offer to buy and promote the Australian team in similar television matches earlier this year.

It went on to say that this was rejected by the Board. It then stated:

Mr Packer also is believed to have spoken to the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. Mr Fraser earlier this year asked the ACB Tor permission to field a Prime Minister’s XI against an Australian XI . . .

Did Mr Kerry Packer approach the Prime Minister asking him to act as an intermediary in negotiations with the Australian Cricket Board? What action did the Prime Minister take following that request, if it was made?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no information on either matter but I will seek it for the honourable senator.

page 1339

QUESTION

IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen reports of an increase in imports from New Zealand of dairy products, especially cheese varieties, of Sl.Sm and of paper and paper boards of nearly $22m over a 5-year period? In fact, the volume of New Zealand exports to Australia has increased by 160 per cent in that 5-year period. As many of these exports are heavily subsidised, can the Minister say whether this is in the spirit of the free trade agreement?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think the honourable senator is aware of the New Zealand Australia Free Trade Agreement under which both countries work together to try to improve their trade with each other. It began about 1 1 years ago. Since then the total trade has multiplied 4 times. The Agreement has also improved the bilateral balance quite clearly in New Zealand’s favour. Certain articles come under a schedule which allows them to come into Australia under regulated arrangements of free access. I think this applies to paper and paper board. The situation with cheese has recently given rise to some concern and is under examination by officials of both governments. Some people in Australia believe that some of the imports of cheese are not strictly within the guidelines that are laid down. That is being examined. The honourable senator may like to know that the whole question of the import-export balance in the paper and paper pulp area is also under examination. She probably realises that there is a commercial arrangement between the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. and the Australian Newsprint Co. in her own State for an interchange of directors, an interchange of capital, and access to and share of the market. Some of the problems about which the honourable senator is quite rightly and very sensibly concerned are matters in the first place for the boards of the commercial interests which are jointly involved.

page 1339

QUESTION

PENSION OVERPAYMENTS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Social Security give an estimate of the cost to the Government of overpayment of pensions and benefits resulting from staff shortages and inadequate training provisions? Will she take steps to ensure that persons who have been overpaid through no fault of their own but because of staff shortages deliberately created by the Minister are not caused any financial embarrassment by being called upon to repay the overpayments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am unable to give any estimate of the cost of over payments of pensions due to staff shortages. However, I want to state in a general way that over payments by any officer within his own knowledge is something that is not acceptable in terms of his employment or in terms of the Act under which he is working. If the question refers to some earlier assertions by staff members that they would not raise over payment statements, I would point out to the honourable senator that, as I understand it, that proposal was withdrawn by staff members. To my knowledge no one is knowingly making an over payment to any pensioner or beneficiary. The honourable senator asks for an undertaking that the Commonwealth will not recover over payments. I am unable to give that undertaking because the Act under which we make those payments requires the Commonwealth to recover any over payments which are made, unless it can be shown that those over payments were made through an error made by the Department itself. I will examine the question raised by Senator McLaren. If his question refers to claims that were made earlier that over payment statements would not be raised by officers of the Department, I point out to him that to my knowledge that is not occurring. I do not see that there will be any general application of the problem which the honourable senator has raised.

page 1340

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY IN KAMPUCHEA

Senator KNIGHT:

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicate what progress has been made towards reopening the Australian Embassy in Cambodia, which is now known as Kampuchea? Is the Minister able to give any indication of the accuracy or otherwise of allegations of atrocities and mass killings by the Government of Cambodia? Have any representations been made to the Cambodian Government by Australia on these matters?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The previous Australian Government formally recognised the new Government of Kampuchea on 17 April 1975. This Government has continued that policy. Formal diplomatic relations have not been established, but in 1976 the Kampuchean Government approached the Australian Government proposing the establishment of relations. The Government has not taken a decision on that matter but the question is being kept under review.

As to the balance of the honourable senator’s question, I am advised that the world media has carried reports of the deaths of large numbers of Kampucheans over the past 2 years. Because of the lack of reliable first-hand information about the situation, there are widespread discrepancies in the numbers who are alleged to have died since April 1975. As the honourable senator will know these figures range from 300 000 people to 1.2m people. The principle sources of these reports were refugees who had fled that country. But we have no really accurate information in that regard. I shall read to the Senate what the Foreign Minister said in Parliament on 24 March of this year. He said:

If the reports of atrocities were true- in certain instances we believe them to be true- no government, no matter what its political complexion, could condone them.

page 1340

QUESTION

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, is based on future environmental assessment procedures. My question concerns the recent action of the Australian Government in reaching agreement with the governments of Tasmania and Western Australia. I interpret the situation to be that their environment protection Acts will apparently be superior to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-75. 1 would like to have some confirmation of that, because it is alleged that some of the State legislation is not as demanding on mining companies as is the Commonwealth Act. Whether or not that is true, I further ask the Minister: Are there any residual powers that the Australian Government will retain? I have in mind the creation of another Fraser Island episode in which a State government is a bit easy on a mining company. Would the Government have the power to ban the exports of an offending company in such circumstances?

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

– Because Senator Mulvihill ‘s question asks for some specifics relating to agreements with 2 States, I think that the best plan is for me to bring his question to the attention of the Minister concerned and seek his comments on it.

page 1340

QUESTION

SOLAR ENERGY

Senator BONNER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that President Carter of the United States of America intends to grant substantial tax relief to families and businesses that install solar energy equipment? Will the Minister recommend to the Treasurer that a similar proposal be considered as an incentive to Australian families and businesses to help to conserve our energy resouces?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It is quite clear when one looks at the projections concerning the price of potential crude oil imports and its effect on Australia ‘s balance of payments that unless some new discoveries of crude oil are made in this country or unless there are some solid plans for energy replacement we will find ourselves in economic difficulty. That situation ought to be considered now. Solar energy has often been discussed here. There has been a very useful Senate examination of it. The whole matter is under study in various government departments. I shall certainly commend the honourable senator’s suggestion to the Treasurer.

page 1341

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

Senator DEVITT:

-Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the hardship experienced in homes where a husband or wife is ill, as a result of either a stroke or some other such crippling condition, but because they have not reached the age for qualification for the age pension the $14 a week special allowance is not available to them? I instance the case of a man aged 58 years who has had a stroke. His wife is very severely taxed because she has to look after him full time and there is the additional burden of the cost of special food, clothing and things of that kind. I understand that this is not an isolated situation. So I ask whether the Minister will give consideration to providing in such cases that the special financial allowance be paid where a medical officer gives his certificate that the circumstances warrant it?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The benefit that has been mentioned was introduced to give assistance to those people who care for aged people in their own homes. At this stage it has not been widened to include other people who have invalidity. In terms of the question I can certainly consider providing a benefit for domiciliary assistance within the home, and I could have this suggestion incorporated in the review of pensions and benefits that is being undertaken at this time by the Incomes Security Review Group. I believe that many difficulties would be involved in introducing a benefit that related to invalidity rather than to the age of a person. It would be a fairly wide benefit and I can see that there are difficulties in the present economic circumstances in giving concrete consideration to the suggestion. But it certainly could be subjected to examination by the Incomes Security Review Group to see whether any relaxation could be introduced to cover a case such as that mentioned.

page 1341

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Construction. I refer to the recent statement of the Minister for Construction to the effect that commercial building was enjoying a growing revival, as was housing, with overall housing approvals for 1976 being 20 000 higher than the 117 200 houses authorised in 1 975. The Minister went on to say that the ability of people to buy homes lies in keeping down actual building costs. Can the Minister comment on the effect on the building industry of the reported direct demand on employers by builders labourers for an additional $30 a week, completely outside the indexation guidelines and supported by strike action?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have noted a reply that the Minister for Construction gave in another place and other honourable senators will have noted it. Undoubtedly a demand for an extra $30 a week would have a troubling effect on the industry generally. If the demand were met it would have the effect of further increasing the price of homes which has escalated a great deal in the last couple of years mainly due to the rising cost of labour. That cannot be denied by any person of any intelligence. As all honourable senators would know, higher costs in the building industry would have the effect, firstly, of decreasing the number of homes that would be sold. Honourable senators, of course, will be aware that the higher interest rates which Labor brought in when in power had the definite effect of making it very difficult for younger people to afford the cost burden of providing homes for themselves as they develop into families. A demand such as that outlined by the honourable senator certainly would be opposed by the Government at the present time. An increase of the order of $30 a week in any wage could be harmful, particularly in the building industry. It would result in higher costs for homes, fewer homes would be built and obviously, in that context, more people would be out of work.

page 1341

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask the following question of the Minister for Science in view of the answer he has just given. Is he aware that in the Sydney and Melbourne areas at the present time the normal charge for labour is around $14 an hour? Is he aware that the going rate for a carpenter in Melbourne and Sydney is around $4.30 an hour? Can he explain why firms are charging 3 times the rate they are paying their employees?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am not aware that the going charge ‘-whatever that may be and whatever it is based upon- is $14 an hour or that the rate for a carpenter is $4 an hour. It takes little perception for anyone who knows anything about employment or who has considered the matter at all to see how fallacious it is to suggest that when a rate of pay is $4 an hour the charge for labour should not be greater than that amount. Over the past years changes have occurred in conditions of employment, such as the extension of annual leave to 4 weeks, the extension of public holidays -

Senator Wriedt:

– We are not talking about that; we are talking about wages. You were blaming it all on wages. Answer the question.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The honourable senator asked a foolish question; he is getting a sensible answer. The fact is that the honourable senator tried to equate $4 an hour with $ 14 an hour. His is a foolish question because he must recognise the additional costs involved in employing an individual. I started to express one or two of them. I mentioned extensive annual leave which is required today. Extremely high insurance rates for the protection of employees have to be paid also. The honourable senator waves his arms. He does not want to consider these facts. Indeed, during the reign of the Labor Government we saw the introduction of a ridiculous 1 7V6 per cent loading on the wage of an employee when he goes on annual holidays. Whether it happens to be the plumber, the television man, or any other service personnel these are the things which lead to charges such as the honourable senator quoted -in the vicinity of $14, $15, $16 or $20 an hour. It is regrettable that this occurs. Indeed, it places an enormous burden on the people on low incomes. But it has been brought about, to a large extent, by the Party which the Leader of the Opposition represents.

page 1342

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE BOUNTY

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Science: In replying to a questionnaire concerning superphosphate bounty which the Farmers’ Union of Western Australia (Inc.) sent out, did he state, as reported in the Farmers Weekly of 12 May, that the bounty should be at least at the present level? Does he know that three of his ministerial colleagues- Senator Carrick, Mr Killen and Mr Street- all stated that under the Westminster system collective responsibility precluded them from giving undertakings which could pre-empt Government decisions? Does he reject the principle of collective responsibility as enunciated by his colleagues?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I receive questionnaires from many areas in the community. I responded in this instance by saying that I believed that there should be support for the superphosphate bounty, at least at the present level. That is the attitude of this Government. I have no argument with anybody in the Government who speaks of collective responsibility. I share that collective responsibility. I stated the policy of this Government, and I was very pleased to do so.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, I have a supplementary question. If, as Senator Webster stated, it was the policy of the Government to pay a superphosphate bounty at the present level when he wrote that letter, which presumably would have been some time in April, why was no announcement to that effect made by the responsible Minister or the Prime Minister?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Walsh asks many questions that have very little foundation. At that date the policy of this Government was to support the superphosphate bounty at that level. The Government was paying it at that time. So I cannot imagine any argument with that policy. The honourable senator obviously must recognise that.

page 1342

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL WELFARE OFFICERS

Senator RYAN:
ACT

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it a fact that there is currently only one Aboriginal welfare officer in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs carrying out the job of assisting young Aborigines employed by the Department to settle into work and accommodation in Canberra? Does the Minister agree that such counselling and welfare facilities are essential if young Aborigines from isolated parts of Australia and from the Torres Strait Island are to succeed in the new work environment of Canberra? Will the Minister investigate this matter with a view to providing an adequate number of welfare officers in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for this important work?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I agree with the honourable senator on the importance of having an adequate number of welfare officers for Aboriginals, in particular to assist young Aboriginals. 1 am unable to say whether there is only one Aboriginal welfare officer in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs who can do this work at present. I will refer the matters raised to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and seek information for the honourable senator.

page 1343

QUESTION

MILITARY AID TO INDONESIA

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of a report in the Canberra Times of 21 May that United States military aid to Indonesia will be terminated at the end of the current financial year and that this decision was conveyed by the United States Ambassador on 18 May? Is the Government aware of the reasons for ending military aid to Indonesia? In view of continued breaches of United Nations resolutions on East Timor, is the Government prepared to take an attitude similar to that of the United States?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am not aware of that report in the Canberra Times. As to the latter parts of the question, when the Government has a policy decision to announce it will be announced by the appropriate Minister, not by me at question time.

page 1343

QUESTION

EAST TIMORESE REFUGEES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It refers to the application for permanent residence by the East Timorese leader, Mr Chris Santos, and his family. Is the Minister aware that Mr Santos ‘s visa expired on 30 April? What stage has consideration of Mr Santos’s application reached? When will a decision be made? Is it the Government’s intention to allow Mr Santos to reside in Australia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– This is a matter on which I have no information at this stage. I will refer the matters raised to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and seek information for the honourable senator.

page 1343

QUESTION

EAST TIMORESE REFUGEES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator KNIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is in some way related to the question just asked. I refer to reports in a news sheet issued by the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra and reporting that Indonesia has agreed to an Australian immigration team visiting East Timor to contact East Timorese who may wish to be reunited with members of their family now living in Australia. Can the Minister say whether the report is accurate? In particular, what action currently is being taken along these lines? Has the Minister seen in that report reference to Australian agreement on an Indonesian team being sent to Australia to meet with Timorese refugees and to assess whether they wish to return to East Timor to be reunited with their families? Can the Minister indicate whether that report is correct? What action has been taken on it?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I have some information on this matter. I am aware of a report in the Indonesian newspaper of 26 April 1977 concerning an agreement between Australia and Indonesia on visits by teams of immigration officials. The report accords with the parliamentary statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which was made on 30 March this year that the Indonesian Government had agreed in principle to a visit to East Timor by a team of Australian officials to interview Timorese who are eligible for entry and who have been nominated by relatives in Australia. The statement also reported that the Australian Government had agreed in principle to a visit to Australia by an Indonesian team to consider applications by any Timorese who wished to be reunited in East Timor with their families. As I understand it, discussions with officials of the 2 governments regarding these visits are proceeding. I have no more conclusive information at this stage that I can offer on that question.

page 1343

BROADCASTING LICENCE: BRISBANE FINE MUSIC GROUP

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Georges asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, about the possibility of the issue to the Fine Music Group in Brisbane of a broadcasting licence similar to that which has been approved in principle for the University of Melbourne. The application from the Brisbane Fine Music Group is being considered by officers of the Post and Telecommunications Department. A discussion with representatives of the group was scheduled recently but it had to be cancelled due to the recent airline dispute. It is now expected that the officers of the Department will meet them early in June. It should be emphasised that such a licence, if issued, would be experimental and for a limited period. Further, it would be issued on the understanding that the group will be required to apply for a licence under the proposed public broadcasting provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act and be subject to a public hearing by the Broadcasting Tribunal.

page 1344

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 25 May 1977 from Senator Grimes:

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, 1 give notice that today I shall move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency.

The Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case’.

Is the motion supported?

More than the number of Senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I move:

The Opposition believes this is an important subject. We believe that the Government should by now have reconsidered the position of those school leavers who were deprived of the unemployment benefit at the end of last year in view of the fact that it is now more than a month since the High Court ruled that the decision of the Government and the actions of the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Social Services in the Green case were in fact illegal. It is an important matter and it has been debated and mentioned many times in this Parliament. There are 3 aspects of the Government’s failure to act and its handling of the unemployment benefit situation, particularly in respect of school leavers, which we believe should cause this Senate concern and should cause this Parliament concern. Added to these aspects is the further concern that the Government is reluctant to act as a result of the court’s decision. The Government seems not willing to accept the court’s decision, although the Government failed to appeal against that decision.

The first serious aspect of this matter involves the Government’s action in refusing to grant the unemployment benefit to school leavers at a time when unemployment in this country was high and rising and at a time when unemployment particularly amongst the youth of this country was very high. The question concerns the social justice and, in fact, the fairness of the Government in singling out this group of people, these school leavers, and depriving them of unemployment benefits when others in the community were not so deprived. The second question, of course, concerns the very legality of the Government ‘s decision in proceeding in this way by direction or by decree rather than by legislation and having no regard to the provisions of the Social Services Act. To these questions the Opposition believes must be added a third important matter; that is, the question of government and ministerial responsibility which has been introduced by the attempt by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to hide behind the Director-General of the Department of Social Security and to avoid responsibility for the shambles in which the Government now finds itself. Having been exposed in the court- and by the Government accepting publicly the court’s decision and by not appealing- the Government now is reluctant to do the right thing and to right the wrong that it has done.

The history of this case is, of course, well known to all honourable senators but I believe it bears some brief recapitulation. In March 1976 the Government, through the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), announced that it would not pay unemployment benefits to school leavers for the duration of the school holidays at the end of 1976. It was said that this was being done because some students- the number is always very uncertain- were receiving benefits and then returning to school. No figure was ever given in reply to questions here or in another place as to how many students might be involved. No figures were giving as to the possible savings by the Government as a result of these actions. It has been said repeatedly that the Government took this action to cover the miscreants who allegedly received benefits when they were not entitled to do so. To the Opposition this sounds very much like an outburst of moral indignation- never a good basis, I would suggest, for planning and administering social security in this country or in any other country.

The Opposition, of course, questioned the natural justice of such an action in taking all benefits from all unemployed school leavers to catch a few who might be cheating on the system. When it became obvious to the Opposition that the action was not going to be backed by legislative action in this Parliament and that the Parliament would, in fact, be bypassed, the Opposition asked repeatedly in this place and in another place for legal opinions or legal advisings which would back the Government’s action in operating in this way. We received none, nor are we likely to receive any. The only response to such Government action by decree was, in fact, recourse to the courts. Social workers, lawyers, the councils of social services and 3 distinguished commissioners of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in this country had all expressed disapproval of the Government’s actions on both moral and legal grounds. It was to no avail. They pointed out repeatedly the unfairness of such actions. They backed the Opposition repeatedly in its call that the Government should, firstly, not indulge in such government by decree and, secondly, if it wished to alter the criteria in the Social Services Act, it should do so publicly and by legislation in this Parliament and put such changes in the Act.

I believe at this stage that we must be perfectly clear that the decision to refuse unemployment benefits to the school leavers was a Government decision. It was a Government decision directing the Director-General of Social Security to act in this way to refuse benefits. The DirectorGeneral, under section 7 of the Social Services Act, is, in fact, subject to any direction of the Minister in administering the Act. This is written into the Act. It is perfectly clear. The Minister directed the Director-General to refuse benefits on the basis that people were school leavers. In fact there was a blanket refusal to pay benefits to people because they were school leavers, and for no other reason. As was suggested at the time, and as has been backed by Mr Justice Stephen now, this was contrary to section 107 (c) of the Social Services Act. But we cannot, in the manner in which the Minister has attempted to do, blame the Director-General of the Department of Social Security.

The Director-General in fact may well have pointed out to the Government and to the Minister that this directive and this decision was contrary to the Act. We do not know. He cannot speak for himself in this place. In fact he must obey his Minister. The Minister is here and the Minister can answer. The buck stops with the Minister and with the Government, not with the Director-General of the Department of Social Security. Any attempt by the Minister to pass responsibility to the Director-General, as was done yesterday at question time, is a charade and will be seen to be a charade by everyone in this place. This is a government and a ministerial responsibility and must be accepted as such.

Eventually the Social Welfare Action Group, Miss Karen Green and others who assisted her took the Government’s action to the High Court of Australia. The Court gave its judgment. The judgment received wide publicity in this place and in the Press of this country. There have been attempts to obscure the judgment. Efforts have been made to put over this judgment a veil of mystery by claiming that it is complicated and difficult and that it needs careful study. There is no argument. I believe that the gist of Mr Justice Stephen’s judgment is this: Miss Green- the Judge pointed out that hers was not an exceptional case and that in fact there were thousands like it in the community- was subject to an inflexible rule which prevented her from being considered for unemployment benefits until the end of the school vacation, the school vacation which started last November or early December. Despite the provisions of the Act and despite criteria laid down in the Act on how people were to be judged as to their eligibility for unemployment benefits, the mere fact that Miss Green was a school leaver prevented her from getting unemployment benefits. This was by direction of the Director-General of the Department of Social Security; that direction having in fact come from the Government.

The judgment of the court also said that the Department and the Director-General in fact should have considered all the circumstances of Miss Green’s claim under the Act and the fact that she was a school leaver should not in itself have been treated as a decisive factor as to whether or not she should receive uinemployment benefits. In other words the Judge was saying that the blanket decree excluding all school leavers was not in accordance with the Act and was in fact illegal. The judgment has been given. The associated declarations of the judgment have been formalised. The time for appeal has passed. All we have from the Government is that it is considering the judgment. One would have thought that the Government would have carefully considered the judgment when deciding whether to appeal against it. In the 2 1 days that were available for appeal I am convinced that there was careful studying and careful consideration of this judgment before the Government decided not to appeal.

Thousands of unemployed school leavers were refused unemployment benefits by decree from this Government. To these we must add those students who left school a month before the school holidays started to try to crack a job in a difficult job market. This is a very common and frequent practice at the end of every school year. These students were also deprived of unemployment benefits because of the arbitrary cut off date. They were students who, for more than 3 months- no matter how many jobs they tried to get, no matter how many miles they walked and no matter how many applications they made- in fact were deprived of benefits. Other school leavers were actively discouraged from registering for unemployment benefits because of the Government’s actions. In the knowledge that there was an appeal- there were several appeals to several courts over this case- members of the Opposition, members of various social welfare groups, members of all sorts of self-help groups including unemployed self-help groups in the community encouraged people to register for unemployment benefits, but many still did not apply because they thought it was a waste of time to do so. Many others in fact attempted to apply but were discouraged by the actions of those in the offices where they applied.

No legal opinion was ever produced in this Parliament to support the Government’s actions. We suggest that no consideration was given to the family hardship and the levels of family income of the people who were deprived of these benefits. A poor family- a very poor family with perhaps one wage earner who was on unemployment benefits himself- was expected to support a school leaver, despite the fact that that school leaver was desperately trying to find work, was available for work and was fulfilling every criterion under the Act but was knocked out, firstly, by the restrictive definitions of ‘eligibility’ which were introduced by the Government and, secondly, by the ludicrously hard hardship conditions, the absurd hardship conditions which were applied to unemployed school leavers before they could receive special benefits. In fact, very few received special benefits. I believe it is worth remembering that in November 1976, when the ban on unemployment benefits was applied to school leavers, there were 87 600 unemployed people in this country between the ages of 15 years and 19 years. At that time the total number of registered job vacancies in Australia was 25 499. In February 1977 more than onethird of our unemployed males were between 15 and 19 years of age and more than two in five unemployed females were aged between 15 and 19 years.

The problems of unemployed youth in this community were, are and will continue to be enormous. They should be frightening to us all. Up to 45 per cent- even more in some areas- of the unemployed are in fact under 2 1 years. In rural areas the figures are highest- often much higher than this. In the Hunter statistical region, which includes Newcastle- one of our biggest industrial areas- 165 males under 21 years of age are unemployed for each job vacancy. The figure for females is almost as bad, with 135 unemployed for every job vacancy.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Wollongong is nearly as bad.

Senator GRIMES:

-As Senator Douglas McClelland points out, the figures are nearly as bad in Wollongong. In some areas of North Queensland and other rural areas the situation is in fact worse. It is so bad that no job vacancies are available for any of the unemployed.

The result of this severe unemployment is the social problems which we know so well and which have been documented so well in other countries. It is inevitable that in the near and distant future we will run into problems as a result of the prolongation of this situation of chronic unemployment and chronic youth unemployment which shows no sign of letting up. Inevitably, there is an increased incidence of crime, drug offences and vandalism associated with a high level of unemployed youth. But just as bad, and in many ways worse, is the sense of disillusionment, the sense of not belonging and the consequent lack of motivation of young people for whom society can find no useful role. People who have been told all though their education life of the rewards they will get for effort and for being keen are left unemployed when they leave school. They are not only left unemployed but also they are treated differently from the other unemployed in the community. This increases their sense of not belonging and their sense of dependence and hopelessness.

Of course, the Opposition is aware that restoring unemployment benefit to these people retrospectively will not solve the problem. We are aware that measures such as job preference for young people, incentives to employers to employ young people, meaningful job creation schemes and meaningful retraining schemes are much more important and that basically economic recovery is the only thing which eventually will get rid of the high unemployment rate. We believe that an admission by the Government that it has acted wrongly, unjustly and illegally in this matter would do something to break down the divisiveness in our society which is created by such discriminatory action and the fact that there is a large group of unemployed who find no place for themselves in society.

Speeches by Government members within and without this chamber condemning the unemployed, making derogatory remarks about the unemployed, in fact saying that unemployment is a myth or that the unemployed do not want to work are taken up very quickly by members of our conservative Press and played up highly in editorials and spectacular articles. They do not help the situation. Fortunately there are people who are aware of the dangers of divisiveness. They are aware that actions like the Government’s action create problems. An advertisement was inserted in today’s Age by such concerned people. It is not the first time that most of these people have expressed their concern on this issue. I commend the advertisement to anybody who wishes to see it. It appears on page 2 of today’s Age. It calls on the Minister for Social Security to take action in this matter. It states:

The High Court of Australia declared on 16 April that the Director-General of Social Security acted invalidly in not paying Unemployment Benefits to eligible youth who had just left school.

We the undersigned respectfully request that the Minister of Social Security, Margaret Guilfoyle, instruct the DirectorGeneral to properly consider the applications of ex-students who registered for Unemployment Benefits at the end of the last school year.

Further, the Minister should instruct her Director-General to write immediately to all school leavers who have registered for Unemployment Benefits since the end of the last school year and did not receive Benefits because of the illegal blanket policy.

The Director-General should inform them of the situation and ask them to return to the Department to have their cases considered.

The people who signed it are not irresponsible people but in fact respected people. They are listed as follows:

Reverend Peter Hollingworth.

David Scott, Executive Director, Brotherhood of St Laurence.

Barbara Spalding, Executive Director, Victorian Council of Social Services.

Reverend David Griffiths, President, Baptist Union of Victoria.

Doctor Spiro Moraitis, President, Australian Greek Welfare Society.

Rev. Dr A. Kenworthy, Director, Baptist Counselling Service.

Francis Donovan, Head, Social Work, Preston Institute of Technology.

Professor Verl Lewis, Social Work, University of Melbourne.

Collingwood City Council.

Professor Ronald Henderson,

Professor Henderson is a very distinguished commissioner of the inquiry into poverty. The list continues:

Rt Rev. FarquharGunn, Moderator, Presbyterian Church of Victoria.

Professor Colin Howard, Law Department, University of Melbourne.

Ian Yates, Secretary-General, Australian Council of Social Services.

Reverend David Hodges, A/g Director, Presbyterian Social Services.

Professor Herbert Bisno, Social Work, Latrobe University.

Reverend Arthur Preston, Superintendent, Wesley Central Mission.

Gareth Evans, Harold Carter, Denis Gibson, Peter Hase, John Howie, Lawyers.

These people inserted the advertisement because they are obviously concerned that the Minister should take note of the High Court’s findings and act promptly through her Director-General to right the wrong that has been done. The Opposition believes there has been ample time for the Government to do this. It has had fair warning- in fact since the middle of last yearthat many people in the community believed its actions were illegal. The Government certainly had a long warning that there would be legal challenges to its actions. We believe it received advice that those challenges would be successful. We believe that it should now reconsider not only the case of Karen Green but also the cases of people who were refused unemployment benefit as a result of the Director-General’s decree. We realise of course that it is difficult if not impossible to consider the cases of people who were deliberately discouraged from applying. There may be no records of their attempts to register for unemployment benefit. We believe that at least for the present those who registered and who were refused should have their cases reconsidered in the light of the criteria for eligibility which existed in the Social Services Act in November and December last year and not on the basis of any criteria which the Government may intend to write into the Act this year. We believe that retrospective legislation in cases like this is wrong and we would oppose the writing of any such restrictions into the Act for next year.

Justice must be done and justice must be seen to be done. In this case it has not been seen to be done. We appreciate the Government’s difficulty, but the difficulty is of its own making. We appreciate that the Government is made uncomfortable by the increasing levels of unemployment, but cutting down the number of people on the rolls by restrictive action is not the way to get the unemployment level down. The Government must accept the fact that there are people unemployed and it should not discriminate against any group in the great mass of unemployed people. It should not discriminate on grounds of age, sex, religion, race or anything else. The Government has been caught out in an illegal act. It should admit this and make recompense to those whom it deprived of benefits and in the future consider carefully whether it should act as it has, ignoring the Parliament and trying to govern by decree. This is not a suitable method of government in a democracy like ours.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-The Opposition has brought before the Senate as a matter of urgency what it terms ‘the Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case’. Many matters were canvassed by Senator Grimes as he addressed himself to his motion. At the beginning of his speech he said that he would refer to 3 aspects: Firstly, the matter of refusing unemployment benefits to school leavers; the legality and the provisions of the Social Services Act; and thirdly, the matter of Government and ministerial responsibility. In those 3 aspects he has failed to sustain his case. The first matter of refusing unemployment benefit automatically to school leavers was a matter of policy that was announced by the Government last year following the release of a working committee’s report on the matter of unemployment benefit. The working party was set up by the Opposition when it was the Government because it had concern with regard to many matters of eligibility for unemployment benefit. Many Ministers of the former Government publicly stressed their concern with the meeting of the eligiblity requirements by those who were at that time being paid unemployment benefit.

We saw during the period of the former Government a rapid increase in the number of unemployment benefit recipients from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands because of the rapidly deteriorating economic circumstances arising from the former Government’s policies. It was on the release of that report when the Government took office that it did address itself early in 1976 to several aspects of the unemployment benefit. It addressed itself to the need to postpone the payment of the unemployment benefit in cases where a person voluntarily left his job. It also addressed itself to the matter of whether the unemployment benefit should be automatically payable to a person immediately on leaving school or whether, in terms of the Act, reasonable steps should be taken by that person to obtain employment before he became eligible for the unemployment benefit.

The policy of the Government with regard to school leavers was announced early last year- on 23 March. It was stated at that time that the situation with regard to school leavers was quite simply that in the past many school leaver claimants who said that they were not going back to school had been paid the unemployment benefit and, for one reason or another, had returned to school. Some, of course, claimed the benefit without any intention of being dishonest and had later gone back to school. It is apparent, however, that there are others who have merely sought the benefit for the holiday period, knowing that they would be returning to their studies. This meant that they were receiving a benefit to which they would not otherwise have been entitled. It was said then in relation to school leavers that if the applicant demonstrates hardship as a result of non-payment of the unemployment benefit during the periods mentioned, sympathetic consideration would be given to the case and the payment of a special benefit would be made in appropriate cases. Under section 124 of the Social Services Act the Director-General has a discretion to make this special benefit payment where, because of age, physical or mental disability or domestic circumstances or for any other reason, a person is unable to earn sufficient livelihood for himself or his dependants, if any. The rate of the special benefit is equivalent to the rate of the unemployment benefit.

So we can remove the charge of social injustice that arises from the non-payment of the unemployment benefit automatically to school leavers, because there is provision for the payment of a special benefit by the Director-General at his discretion. If I may make a personal observation with regard to the case in question which went before the High Court, that particular applicant was considered for the payment of a special benefit. But as a children’s benefit was being paid to her parent for her, she was considered not to be eligible for a special benefit in those circumstances.

The second matter I raise concerns legality. The word ‘illegality’ keeps being used in this House. Senator Grimes said that this matter has been canvassed on many occasions. I point out that it has never been canvassed accurately; it has never been canvassed completely. It was for that reason that on the last occasion when this matter arose 1 had incorporated in Hansard the complete text of the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen. Justice was not done to his judgment by members of the Opposition and by other interested parties, some of whom have been mentioned by the honourable senator today. At the time that I tabled the judgment in the Senate and had it incorporated in Hansard so that it would become a public document, I stressed the point that it was a very complex judgment, that it was several pages in length, and that the judge was required at that time to make some final declarations.

However, I make the point that in recent weeks there has been a great deal of loose talk to the effect that the Director-General of the Department of Social Security illegally deprived school leavers of the unemployment benefit. Although I have already tabled the actual judgment and although it has been printed in Hansard it might be instructive if I were to refer in some detail more specifically to what has occurred up to date. The action was taken out in the name of Karen Green against the DirectorGeneral and the State Director of the Department of Social Security. The persons who represented Karen Green sought an order from the High Court in December 1976 to the effect that Karen Green was entitled to the unemployment benefit throughout the period from 27 December 1976 to 22 February 1977, that the benefit had been wrongfully denied her, and that she was entitled to an order from the court accordingly.

I want to state carefully some of the matters that were raised in the judgment. It is not my intention to quote selectively from the judgment because I have already incorporated the total text of the judgment in Hansard. In his judgment Mr Justice Stephen restated the provisions of section 107 of the Social Services Act. That section of the Act provides that a person who-

  1. has attained the age of sixteen years but, being a male, has not attained the age of sixty-five years or, being a female, has not attained the age of sixty years;

  2. is residing in Australia on the date on which he lodges his claim for a benefit and-

    1. has been continuously so resident for a period of not less than twelve months immediately preceding that date; or
    2. satisfies the Director-General that he is likely to remain permanently in Australia; and

  3. satisfies the Director-General that he-

    1. is unemployed and that his unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike;
    2. is capable of undertaking, and is willing to undertake, work which, in the opinion of the Director-General is suitable to be undertaken by that person; and
    3. has taken reasonable steps to obtain such work, shall be qualified to receive an unemployment benefit.

In his judgment Mr Justice Stephen makes the comment that paragraph (c)- that one which talks of the satisfaction of the DirectorGeneral is not directly concerned with factual circumstances but rather with the state of mind of the Director-General. The criteria it prescribes are matters to which the Director-General must turn his mind. It is his satisfaction as to an applicant’s compliance with them that determines whether or not an applicant becomes qualified to receive an unemployment benefit. It was conceded that in the case of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c)- that is the sub-paragraph which talks of being capable and willing to undertake work- he had been satisfied on or about 20 December of the plaintiff’s compliance with it. There is no doubt that it was not until 22 February 1977 that the Director-General became satisfied, in terms of sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) of paragraph (c). The date, 22 February, is different from the date that is mentioned by those people who have been talking of an eligibility to receive the unemployment benefit in a date in December. On page 5 of his printed judgment Mr Justice Stephen said that there is no doubt that it was not until 22 February 1977 that the Director-General became satisfied in terms of the Act. These are the facts that are continuously misstated with regard to the judgment that was written by the learned judge, and those responsible for that continue to misrepresent his judgment in this instance. It is important to read further from the judgment. Again I stress that I am not doing so selectively because the sections I quote can be checked with the total statement which was earlier incorporated in Hansard. On page 24 of his judgment Mr Justice Stephen said:

To make a declaration in the form proposed will not involve any element of futility, nor of retrospectivity. The fact that the plaintiff has now been recognised as qualified to receive unemployment benefits as from 22 February 1977 does not affect her complaint that prior to that date she was denied qualification for a reason which lacked statutory justification. There remains in question her eligibility before that date; should the Director-General, in conformity with my declaration, undertake a re-examination of the plaintiff’s position and conclude that, on the facts then existing, she was in fact qualified as from some earlier date she will, no doubt, receive payment accordingly, but this will not involve, in any true sense, the making of a retrospective determination.

He then went on to quote from section 1 32 of the Act. He states further in the last paragraph on page 25 of his judgment:

It is for the foregoing reasons that I conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to declarations of the general nature already indicated. She is not, however, entitled to a declaration that she was, in respect of any period before 22 February 1977, qualified to receive unemployment benefits; any such qualification remains for determination by the Director-General or his delegates in the light of s. 107 (c) and of the particular circumstances of the plaintiff at the time. It follows from this that there can be no present order or declaration as to entitlement to, or payment of, any unemployment benefits to the plaintiff in respect of the period before 22 February 1977.

He then goes on to say:

It remains only to dispose of the plaintiffs second claim, which is said to sound in damages for negligence on the part of the defendants -

That is there and able to be read also. He then made the 2 draft declarations. On the day on which he was making the draft declarations final he said in the court:

It is not for me in the declaration … to tell the Director-General what he might have regard to. The Director-General should have responded to the claim by making all such investigations, if any, as he then might have thought necessary’. Whether he should have inquired of her more than she disclosed is a matter for the Director-General. It is up to the Director-General (to investigate) as he thinks fit and (I will) not (define) what he thinks fit. I cannot go any further. He should be entirely at large and I regard the Act as conferring jurisdiction upon him to make such investigations (as he thinks fit). It seems to be if there is one vital factor such as making of efforts to obtain employment by the plaintiff as to which the plaintiff may notify to the DirectorGeneral as that might be regarded by the Director-General as vital, the Director-General would regard that as something appropriate for investigations to the extent of (asking the) claimant ‘have you made any employment applications?’ I am inclined to the view that that is something he might think fit.

These are the matters which are not canvassed by the honourable senator or by members of the Opposition when they continually refer to this matter. I think it does them less than credit continually to talk of illegality in the way in which they do, and continually to misrepresent the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen.

Also I think it is important for me to refer to the responsibilities of the Director-General of Social Services under the Social Services Act because that is another matter that has been referred to in this matter of urgency today. It is not a case of the Minister for Social Security hiding behind the Director-General of Social Services in response to what was said by the honourable senator. It is rather a case of understanding the Social Services Act. The Social Services Act confers upon the Director-General the responsibility of satisfying himself in the determinations which he makes with regard to eligibility. One may argue that that is not how the Act should be written, but the fact remains that that is how the Act is written. I have taken care to go back to the period when the Social Services Act was first introduced in the 1 940s. The honourable senator would do well to go back and read it. I may amuse him when I say that because at that time the Director-General was referred to by many members of my Party as a dictator-general and not as a Director-General, because the absolute discretion conferred upon him is something that has been misrepresented in the honourable senator’s statements today.

I will continue with what I want to say about this matter because I think that it ought to be clarified. In the judgment which I have read in part, Mr Justice Stephen restated the provisions of section 107 of the Social Services Act in relation to which the plaintiff’s claim was lodged. The judge pointed out that the section provides that a person’s qualification to receive unemployment benefit depends upon his satisfying the Director-General in relation to a number of matters, particularly such matters as being willing to accept work, being willing to undertake work and being willing to take reasonable steps to obtain work. After canvassing the argument that had been put to him in this case, Mr Justice Stephen said in his judgment:

For the plaintiff, it was urgent that I should form my own conclusions as to the plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements of section 107, that these should be in the plaintiff’s favour, that I should then impute to the DirectorGeneral my own state of satisfaction under section 107 (c) and should accordingly declare the plaintiff to have been qualified to receive an unemployment benefit as from 27 December 1976 . . . Even were I minded to find the necessary facts in her favour, as to which I say nothing, the course suggested is not, I think, one which is open to me. It is to the Director-General or his delegates that the legislation assigns the task of attaining satisfaction and the Court should not seek to usurp that function.

Everytime Senator Grimes states that the judge directed the Director-General he misrepresents completely the judge ‘s own words when he says that it is not for the court to usurp the function or to seek to usurp the function of the DirectorGeneral. So it should be appreciated that the people representing Karen Green in this instance did not secure from the court the order which they sought, and it does not matter how many times Senator Grimes or other people representing the interests which they do, state that Karen Green had a direction from the Director-General for a payment of unemployment benefit; she did not. She did not secure from the court the order which was sought. What the court did was to issue 2 declarations on 22 April, the substance of which was that the Director-General should in his consideration of the claim have considered all the circumstances of the claim, making such investigations as he determined, and in the light of this decided whether the plaintiff satisfied him on all the matters set out in section 107 of the Act. The court further declared that the DirectorGeneral might have regard to the fact that the claim was made during the period of school holidays shortly after the plaintiff had left school but should not treat that fact of itself as decisive in determining the claim. It should be asked: Was any opportunity given to the Director-General in this instance to satisfy himself on these matters? Did the person who was seeking unemployment benefit from the Department give the opportunity for such matters to be determined by the Director-General? If Senator Grimes -

Senator Grimes:

– I hope that you will quote the judge here.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I will quote something quite different from that, Senator Grimes. I say to the honourable senator that in the case of the applicant Karen Green, 4 days after lodging a claim for unemployment benefit she sought litigation with regard to the matter. Even Senator Grimes would recognise that unemployment benefit is never payable in less than 7 days after the application for the claim. So in this instance one wonders whether it was a person who was attempting to claim eligibility in any terms or whether it was a person seeking litigation with regard to a particular point of view.

Senator Grimes:

– That was a lovely comment. It will read well.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It will read well because it is a fact that 4 days after the application for unemployment benefit was made by Karen Green an application was made for a hearing in the court with regard to this matter. That is a statement of fact and it does not matter how Senator Grimes may think it will read. It will read as a fact of a person who had entered into litigation before in any way giving an opportunity for a determination of her own circumstances to be investigated in a way that would enable an unemployment benefit to be paid to her. However, that matter is stated in the judgment. When I bring those facts forward I am bringing them forward as part of the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen because it was he who referred to the fact that she had not achieved eligibility in those terms prior to seeking litigation. Honourable senators will recall that in the judgment he also made the point that it would be doubtful whether she was unaware of these circumstances as she had the advantage of counsel at that time. I think that Senator Grimes would accept that what I am saying is in his judgment and it can read only as part of his judgment and not as part of a statement being made by me.

In these instances the Director-General has subsequently advised me that he is making a review of the claim for benefits made by Karen Green on 20 December having regard to the declarations made by the High Court on 22 April. The Director-General states that because the matter is an important one which has already had consideration in the High Court, he is of the view that as a matter of prudence he should have legal advice on certain a spects of the interpretation of section 107 as affected by the declarations made by the court before he finalises his review. The Director-General sought the legal advice that he requires from the Government’s legal advisers within a few days of the expiration of the 2 1 days allowed by the High Court for the making of an appeal. The matter is still receiving the attention of the Government’s legal advisers and as soon as a decision is taken the DirectorGeneral will communicate his decision to the legal advisers of Karen Green who have asked him for a decision.

As I stated yesterday at question time, the Director-General has assured me that if the reexamination that is being made of Karen Green’s case necessitates a review of other cases where unemployment benefit was not paid, that review will be made by him. But, as I stated, he is awaiting a legal interpretation of the judgment from the High Court from our legal advisers in the Attorney-General’s Department. These matters are of concern to me as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Department of Social Security. But I do not think that what has been stated in the judgment has been fairly presented, nor does it assist in a complex matter continuously to misstate and misrepresent the facts as we know them now.

Senator Grimes, objectively I believe, did make reference to many of the problems that are confronting young people and other people with regard to employment opportunities. I share with him the view that it is of serious consequence to enlarge job opportunities and to ensure that our education systems are such that people are trained and ready to accept employment opportunities as they develop in a somewhat changing society. I am delighted that the program administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, which we know as CRAFT’, related to apprenticeship opportunities, and the Commonwealth youth support service scheme, both have been successful beyond our expectations. I accept that many young people face difficulties in employment. I believe there is an urgency to recognise the difficulties of young people who have left school without training in skills which equip them for employment opportunities. There are difficulties faced by those people who have had very limited education and need some sort of basic training before they are able to embark on any sort of work responsibility. I believe that the Government is giving attention to all of these matters. I hope we receive co-operation in apprenticeship schemes from the trade union movement, employer bodies and State governments to ensure that as many programs as possible to help the situation are developed and maintained. In all of these things a genuine and sound economic recovery is required.

I said at the outset that we saw great growth in unemployment figures during the period of the former Government. In 3 years we went from a long period of stable and almost full employment to a situation in which we saw a frightening growth in unemployment. This pattern has been hard to remove and the difficulties have been hard to overcome.

Senator McLaren:

– The situation has become much worse in the past 18 months. You must admit that.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I believe there has been improvement and there is now a steadiness in the economy. If it is sustained, with many of us accepting the responsibilities which perhaps had not been accepted in the past, we shall see that job opportunities do match the number of people who are seeking employment. If this is to be the case we would want to think that in future unemployment benefits will become once again a temporary benefit to assist people during the periods between jobs in which they are seeking work. I do not think we would want to see sustained a pattern of unemployment benefits becoming a permanent support. We should prefer to see unemployment benefits are as they used to be- a benefit which the majority of people who received it received for less than 1 or 2 months. The statistics for 197 1-72 show this to be the pattern then, whereas we now have a pattern in which the number of people who receive the benefit for over 3 or 6 months is very large indeed.

It is for all these reasons that the Government has set up an inquiry under Dr Myers to undertake a fundamental examination of unemployment benefit policy and its administration. We believe that because the unemployment benefits system has not been reviewed or changed since it was instigated over 30 years ago it is timely that we should examine all aspects of the present system; that we should assess to what extent Government policy and administrative arrangements need to be changed to meet present day requirements; and that we should examine the underlying concept and philosophy of the present system and assess how appropriate these continue to be. Whenever we talk of benefits, or pensions, or any social security matters administered by my Department it is important that we should look not only at the need to provide income security for people, but also at the cost that this imposes upon the rest of the economy. With the growing incidence of unemploymentthe under employment of human resourceslimitations have needed to be placed on what we are able to do in other areas. The cost of unemployment benefits reaching over $500m a year has led us to look at many issues as a matter of urgency.

In looking at the unemployment benefit system we have given Dr Myers and his committee very wide ranging terms of reference. We do want him to make recommendations that will assist us in our basic policy making in directing assistance to those people most in need of government assistance and to examine and recommend a system of income support for unemployed persons, bearing in mind that he will need to look at the level of benefits and the extent to which a person’s previous income may need to be taken into account. Maybe he will draw on experience in other countries where, in many instances, they have quite different schemes of income security from those which operate in Australia. In conducting this inquiry we hope it will be necessary for him also to give us some of his thinking on the effect of income support measures, what limits should be placed upon them, whether a term for the payment of benefits should be applied, the conditions that should determine eligibility and the whole range of matters that we have presented to him in the terms of reference. The Government hopes that he will be able to report to us within 2 or 3 months and that arising from that report we will be able to have a sound look at the unemployment benefit system.

If this report is, as I hope it will be, a constructive document, we may well need to have constructive debates on unemployment benefits. If we are to have debates on this matter in the future I hope that the facts will not be misstated and misrepresented as they have been in this debate and others concerning the payment of unemployment benefits to school leavers. The Government confirms its policy that an unemployment benefit should not be paid automatically to a school leaver immediately upon his leaving school, but rather that an attempt should be made by the person concerned to take reasonable steps to obtain employment and, in general, to have a transition from school to work which is wholly desirable if the person concerned is to obtain work which will give satisfaction and fulfilment in the future. The Government rejects completely the terms of the motion moved by Senator Grimes. The Government deplores the fact that the motion continually misstates the facts of the judgment of the High Court and rejects completely the underlying assertions that are made within the motion.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I support the motion moved by Senator Grimes. For the benefit of those people who are listening to this debate and those who will read the record of it, I shall read the motion moved by Senator Grimes. It reads as follows:

That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

The Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case.

Shortly after I first entered this chamber I made my views in relation to unemployment benefits known quite clearly. I stated at that time that I believe that unemployment benefits- indeed, all social security benefits- were the right of any person who had a need of those benefits. I indicated that I personally had faced periods of unemployment and therefore understood the frustrations and disappointments which daily face people who are in such circumstances. But a person does not need to have been unemployed and needed sickness benefits or any of the other types of benefits that are available- to understand that people in certain circumstances do have a need and should have a right to receive those benefits at such a time. If people had sufficient compassion for their fellow members of society they would know that benefits are needed at some stage. I believe that all of us would much prefer that people did not require benefits, that people were employed, that people did not fall ill and that people did not find themselves in the position in which single parents find themselves. But, in our society those things occur, and when they occur it is up to individuals in society to provide for their fellows. We have found in our society that the best way of providing is through a system of social security benefits.

Shortly after I was elected, but before I took my place in this chamber, I started to become disillusioned with some of the actions of the present Government in relation to social security benefits. My disillusionment has grown even greater since then. I shall cite the first instance. Before I took my place here, this Government invoked section 120 of the Social Services Act to make it even more difficult for certain people to obtain unemployment benefit. Unfortunately, whether by design or otherwise, many of those who are in genuine need in our society are not receiving the benefits that they deserve or require to keep themselves at a reasonable standard of living. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), during her speech, mentioned the rapid increases in the number of unemployed and the number of people receiving unemployment benefit. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table headed ‘Unemployment Statistics April 1975, 1976, 1977’. I have shown a copy of this table to the Minister.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-If one refers to this table one sees that there has been a rapid increase in the number of unemployed since the present Government came to power. I have taken the figures for April simply because they are the latest figures available. I could have taken figures for earlier months. They would have shown an even worse picture, but I have taken the latest figures available. If we look at the number of unemployed in April 1975 and in April 1976- this Government was in power in 1976- we see an increase. From 1976 to 1977 there was an increase also. If we look at the number of recipients of unemployment benefit we see increases since this Government came to power as well.

I have included in the table unemployment statistics for Queensland as well, because that is the State which I represent. I invite honourable senators to study this table in relation to Queensland. In April 1975 there were 28 672 recipients of unemployment benefit in

Queensland. In April 1976 the number dropped slightly to 27 315. In April of this year 34 274 people were receiving unemployment benefit. That is far greater than the number in 1975. There may have been increases prior to 1975, but it is ludicrous to hide the fact that since 1975 there have been increases in the number of unemployed and in the number of people receiving unemployment benefit. These figures outline quite clearly the great need for unemployment benefit in Australia at present.

The recent High Court decision illustrates how this Government has attempted to dodge its responsibilities in relation to the unemployed. Let us look carefully at section 107 of the Social Services Act. Earlier I asked the Minister whether I could incorporate this section in Hansard. I now ask for leave to have it incorporated.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The section read as follows-

DIVISION 2-

QUALIFICATIONS FOR BENEFITS

  1. Subject to this Part, a person (not being a person in receipt of a pension or allowance under Part III. or IV. of this Act or a service pension under the Repatriation Act 1 920- 1954) who-

has attained the age of sixteen years but, being a male, has not attained the age of sixty-five years or, being a female, has not attained the age of sixty years;

is residing in Australia on the date on which he lodges his claim for a benefit and-

has been continuously so resident for a period of not less than twelve months immediately preceding that date; or

satisfies the Director-General that he is likely to remain permanently in Australia; and

satisfies the Director-General that he-

is unemployed and that his unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike;

is capable of undertaking, and is willing to undertake, work which, in the opinion of the Director-General, is suitable to be undertaken by that person; and

has taken reasonable steps to obtain such work, shall be qualified to receive an unemployment benefit.

Senator COLSTON:

– Let us study this section in detail. Let us look at section 107 paragraph (a). It is quite easy to determine whether a person has attained the age of 16 years and all the other circumstances mentioned in that paragraph. It is quite easy to determine all the circumstances set out in paragraph (b). That relates to whether a person is residing in Australia and so on. It is in regard to paragraph (c) that the ambiguity or the argument in this case seems to prevail. Paragraph (c) states: satisfies the Director-General that he-

  1. is unemployed . . .

What do we mean by ‘unemployed’? It would seem to me that, after a person leaves school and declares to the Department of Social Security that he or she has left school and is looking for work but cannot find work, that person is unemployed. Sub-paragaph (iii) states: has taken reasonable steps to obtain such work.

What are ‘reasonable steps’? If a person has looked for work and cannot obtain it, it would seem to me that that person has taken reasonable steps. What has the Minister said about section 107 of the Social Services Act? She said that it was stated last year that payment of unemployment benefit to school leavers would not be made, as a matter of policy. She said this yesterday. Senator Wriedt, in a question to the Minister yesterday, asked in part:

Is it not true that it was a decision of the Government to deny unemployment benefit to school leavers?

Senator Guilfoyle replied in part:

In regard to the first question, it was the announced policy of the Government early last year that there would not be automatic unemployment benefit for school leavers immediately on the cessation of a school year.

What then has happened? There was a policy decision of the present Government that school leavers would not be eligible for unemployment benefit after leaving school. It is a policy decision that the Government made irrespective of section 107 of the Social Services Act. I fail to see how anybody who looked carefully at section 107 could think that the Government could get away with refusing to pay unemployment benefit to school leavers who were unemployed. Yet it has done so. It has done so because of a policy decision. The Minister said so this afternoon in her speech. She said so yesterday in answer to a question. Section 107 is there for everybody to study carefully. This is the section which has been glossed over with regard to school leavers.

Senator Grimes this afternoon pointed out the number of persons who had been deprived of unemployment benefit, although they claimed it when they left school last year and subsequently came into the work force. He also pointed out the number of youngsters who would not have claimed unemployment benefit because of the Government’s stated policy. There was a great amount of confusion among young people in December 1976 and January 1977. Young people came to me, as I am sure they came to a number of other elected representatives. They told me that they had been refused permission to register for unemployment benefit. When these people came to me, as they came to other people, I soon rectified the position and made sure that they were allowed to register. Incredibly some were not even given the relevant forms at one stage.

What will happen now, after the High Court decision? Does the Government intend, as seems to be the case, to thumb its nose at the High Court decision? If it disregards a decision of the High Court-the highest court in this land- it is going to lose all the credibility that it had. Will people ever be able to take the word of a government that does this?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Have you read the judgment, senator?

Senator COLSTON:

-In great detail and with excellent comprehension. Let us have a look at certain aspects outlined in this judgment. After talking about possible abuse by school leavers or people who purport to be school leavers who apply for the unemployment benefit but then may go back to school, it says:

Whether or not this be so, the quite understandable desire to prevent what is seen as an abuse of the Act by dishonest school leavers cannot be made the occasion for disregarding the statutory criteria of eligibility in favour of a requirement which finds no place in the legislation and the effect of which is to deny, for almost three months, to the great body of honest school leavers an opportunity to qualify for unemployment benefits.

It seems to me that this Government has no wish at all to take any notice of the High Court decision because the Government has stated quite clearly through the Minister that it is a matter of policy that school leavers should not be eligible for the unemployment benefit.

I could say many things in this debate about the problems of people who are unemployed, the problems of people who are looking for benefits from this Government and the problems that are associated with this judgment, among other things, but because of the time limit that is placed on urgency debates I am not able to do so. May I just reiterate that it is a matter of urgency that this Government made a policy decision last year, and reiterated it yesterday and today, that the unemployment benefit should not be payable to school leavers. I stress that the Government has dodged its responsibility to school leavers. To retain any credibility with the Australian people it must take the necessary steps to implement what was set out in the judgment by the High Court. It must pay unemployment benefits to those people who did register for it last year but who were not able to obtain it because of Government decisions of highly doubtful legality.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-The Fraser Government administers the legislation relating to the unemployment benefit reasonably and generously. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has already answered the arguments which have been put by Opposition supporters. She has exposed the shabbiness and emptiness of the points they have made. She has answered quite adequately the charges- quite improper and inaccurate charges- that the Government is in any way acting illegally. Senator Tehan, my colleague, will discuss the judgment itself when it is his turn to speak because members of the Opposition have carefully refrained from addressing themselves in any depth to the judgment. I would like to quote briefly from page 25 of the judgment, a section to which the Minister did refer briefly, to emphasise one of the central points of the argument. His Honour, referring to Karen Green, said:

She is not, however, entitled to a declaration that she was, in respect of any period before 22 February 1977, qualified to receive unemployment benefits; any such qualification remains for determination by the Director-General or his delegates in the light of s. 107 (c) and of the particular circumstances of the plaintiff at the time.

That is a critical point of the judgment. It is interesting that no one on the Opposition side thought it worthwhile mentioning that part of the judgment- because it did not happen to suit the Opposition’s argument. Mr Justice Stephen said quite accurately, in the final paragraph:

The declarations to be made fall considerably short of those sought by the plaintiff . . .

One would imagine also that they fall considerably short of those declarations that Opposition supporters would have liked to see in order to advance their own arguments in relation to what they think should be done about the payment of the unemployment benefit.

The Minister set down in this Senate more than a year ago some of the concerns we have about the administration of the unemployment benefit policy. The Government has indicated its view on when a school child or school leaver becomes a genuine member of the work force entitled to draw the unemployment benefit. The Minister outlined at page 671 of the Senate Hansard of 23 March 1976 some of the abuses that have been occurring in the administration of the unemployment benefit and I am constantly reminded by colleagues and friends of examples which they know in which there is quite systematic abuse of our system of the unemployment benefit. It is interesting to note that in talking about genuine need there has been a disinclination to mention what the other side of the coin is in Australia. There is systematic abuse of our system of unemployment benefit. I will come back to that.

The purpose of the unemployment benefit is to provide income security for those who genuinely require it and there is not a person on this side who would shrink from the concept of providing income security to those who need it and those who are properly qualified to receive it. The argument is simply an argument about who is qualified to receive it. Let me point out to the Senate that to the week ending 22 April this Government had paid the unemployment benefit to over 38 000 school leavers from 1976. Over 38 000 had received the unemployment benefit. They had qualified properly. The argument seems to be whether they should have received it during the period of the final school vacation. Mr Justice Stephen was not prepared to give any declaration that the benefit was payable during that period and indeed the matter is still being determined. The Government has had some 62 000 applications by school leavers. Many of them have found jobs. Let me emphasise though that some two-thirds of them have received the unemployment benefit from this Government in the period up to 22 April- a fact we do not seem to have heard during this rather shabby debate from this rather discredited Opposition.

Unemployment is one of the sadder legacies of the Whitlam years. It is one of the legacies of socialist government over a period of 3 years. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the newspapers of September 1974- during the period of the Labor Government. The banner headline for the Australian newspaper of 20 September 1974 reads: 1000 workers lose their jobs each day

These are the realities of the period of the Whitlam Government: Unemployment, which was generated and structurally developed because of the disastrous policies of Labor, accelerated and we are reaping the whirlwind of the wind Labor sowed. Another newspaper headline in October 1974 reads: 10 000 Jobs On The Line

That referred to another business failure due to Labor Party policies. If we look at a publication put out by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd for April 1977 called Business

Indicators we will see some graphical representations of employment statistics in Australia. Under the heading Domestic Activity, graph No. 1 shows the level of the number of persons registered for employment. It shows that the number of persons registered for employment was at a low level until about 1974 when the effects of the Labor Government’s financial management began to bite. It then increased very rapidly to a plateau, where it has remained. The plateau will now start to diminish as the effects of” the Fraser Government’s economic management come into force. If we look at the total job advertisements from the same publication, Business Indicators, we find that the number of jobs available in Australia fell dramatically at about the mid point of the term of office of the Labor Government. This is the reason unemployment has increased. This was due to the Labor Government’s disastrous tariff policy and absolutely ruinous monetary and fiscal policy.

The Labor Government destroyed the structure on which Australian businesses depended. What is more, there is no real indication that even today Labor supporters remember this. After the Budget speech last year the Labor leader in another place responded. It was interesting to see the comments in the Financial Review of 25 August following Mr Whitlam ‘s reply. The editorial was headed ‘Labor’s Backward Grand Vision’. This editorial referred to Labor’s whole response to the Government’s economic management. It stated:

He would greatly have strengthened his attack if his speech had shown evidence of his recognition of past folly.

It is the past folly of the Labor Party which has placed Australia in a situation where 5 per cent ofthe work force is registered for employment. It will be seen from the ANZ Bank quarterly survey of business activity for April 1977 that young people are over-represented in the number registered for employment. We know that 14.6 per cent of males between the ages of 15 years and 19 years and 16.7 per cent of females between the ages of 15 years and 19 years are registered for employment. These are excessive rates which are reflected among the youth because fewer employers have been willing to take on untrained people and also because the education system in this country is sending too many young Australians out from school without literacy, without numeracy, without skills and without the capacity to win jobs.

I turn now to unemployment benefits which are paid to people genuinely out of work. I remind the Senate that when the Australian Bureau of Statistics carried out a survey on 2 days, 21 March and 25 March this year, and investigated some 3800 addresses given by recipients of unemployment benefits, it found that on a percentage basis only 49.8 per cent were genuinely unemployed and genuinely seeking work. It found that 15.6 per cent actually were employed in the week the survey was carried out. It found that 5.6 per cent were not looking for work at all and that for 29 per cent it could not obtain answers for some very interesting reasons. Of the 29 per cent for whom the Bureau could not get answers, it was found that 2.6 per cent refused to talk to the surveyor and wanted to have nothing to do with giving information about the benefits they were receiving. There was a number whose addresses were inadequate. There were some who were away on holidays and I have no argument with this. However, 2 per cent of people had given as their address uninhabited dwellings. In addition 15.5 per cent of those receiving unemployment benefits had given false addresses; that is to say, fraudulent addresses. A further 1.2 per cent had given non-existent addresses.

Senator Ryan:

– How many?

Senator BAUME:

– A further 1.2 per cent had given non-existent addresses.

Senator Ryan:

– That is a lot.

Senator BAUME:

– Let us face it. There is a problem in the administration of unemployment benefits. The Government’s responsibility is to ensure that this income security is available to those who genuinely are seeking work and who cannot find it. It is not the Government’s function to give that benefit to those who are attempting to defraud the Government and it is up to the Government to determine the policy which will apply to the administration of these benefits.

The Fraser Government is actively intervening to try to improve the employment opportunities for young Australians. It is intervening effectively -

Senator Colston:

– Where?

Senator BAUME:

-I refer firstly to the CRAFT apprenticeship program- the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprenticeship FullTime Training scheme- which was introduced this year. Already it has attracted sufficient support to increase by 10 per cent the number of apprentices in training in Australia.

Senator Keeffe:

– How many is that?

Senator BAUME:

– The Government anticipates that, including the next month of the financial year, there will be 40 000 new apprenticeship positions created as a result of this program.

The figure is already well over 30 000. This program, of course, provides a subsidy to employers for the first 3 years during which they take apprentices. The restructured National Employment and Training Scheme has increased the number of young people under training in the past 12 months.

Senator Keeffe:

– By how many?

Senator BAUME:

-The number has gone from 7300 to 1 7 500 in the year to mid-April. Probably about half of the 13 000 of that number who are in-plant trainees are young people. The Government is intervening actively to do what it can to improve the job opportunities for young Australians. Of course, the Government cares about this problem and is sensitive to it. In addition, the numbers registered for employment are dropping. Between February and March the number dropped by 20 000. The latest figures show that although there are still 323 000 people registered, the number has dropped by a further 3500 in the month to the end of April. The Government has granted unemployment benefits to over 38 000 school leavers who have entered the work force since the end of the last school year. With the help of Dr Myers, the Government is examining the whole Commonwealth Employment Service. Once again I remind the Senate that in his judgment Mr Justice Stephen said that Karen Green was not entitled to a declaration that she was entitled, in respect of any period before 22 February, to receive unemployment benefits. The motion proposed by the Opposition is typical of its ineffective approach in this chamber generally. It deserves only condemnation and I have much pleasure in supporting the Minister for Social Security in opposing the motion.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to participate in this debate, the subject of which is probably a source of mystery to those who may be listening to the debate. We have just heard from the previous speaker, Senator Baume, a diatribe against those who make a career out of abusing the social security provisions. We heard very little from Senator Baume about the subject of the present debate; that is, the situation of unemployed school leavers who were illegally denied their right to unemployment benefits by the Fraser Government. In order to remind honourable senators and those people who may be listening to the debate exactly what the Senate is debating at this stage, I will repeat the urgency motion moved by my colleague, Senator Grimes, the Opposition spokesman on social security matters. He has moved that the following is a matter of urgency:

The Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case.

I remind honourable senators that the High Court handed down a judgment on 1 5 April. The effect of the judgment, despite the various circumlocutions of Senator Baume and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), was that Karen Green and all other people who fit into the same category as Karen Green were entitled to a consideration for unemployment benefits from December 1 976. There is no ambivalence, no ambiguity in the judgment handed down by the High Court. The Government has procrastinated since 15 April when the judgment was handed down. The Government has not paid one cent, as I understand it, of the money that was illegally denied to school leavers in that period. It is now almost the end of May and no retrospective payments have been made.

The Minister for Social Security, in following Senator Grimes in this debate, seemed to suggest in the case of Karen Green, the person who was the subject of the High Court challenge and who was successful, that there had been some failure to properly inform herself of the terms and conditions of the Act as they related to her special condition. I point out to the Senate that Karen Green was told by officers of the Minister’s Department not to go to the the office to register as being unemployed and not to register for unemployment benefit until 1 February. This instruction to Karen Green was not just a verbal instruction; it was written on her application form. In order for Karen Green to try to get a judgment of legality regarding her claim she would have had to move before the Bench closed down for the Christmas recess. Yet she was instructed, presumably ultimately as a result of a ministerial instruction, not to attempt to register before February. It is this period of time in respect of which members of the Government are being so slippery and are attempting to misrepresent the facts that we are concerned with in this debate. We are concerned that from December until the time of the High Court judgment in April many school leavers were entitled- not all persons leaving school were entitled- to unemployment benefit. Let me make myself perfectly clear: They would have been entitled to unemployment benefit had their cases been examined. Their cases were not examined as a result of ministerial instruction.

Senator Baume has made much of parts of the judgment which seem to detract from the overall effect of the judgment. I point out that the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Social Security was specifically told in the judgment that he should have considered all matters relating to eligibility, the eligibility of Karen Green’s case and similar cases, in December and not in February. In this matter it would appear from all the information that has come forward during the challenge and at other times that the DirectorGeneral was not allowed to exercise his discretion. The Minister, in her remarks, made a great deal of the fact that the Director-General of the Department of Social Security has a great deal of discretion under the Act. We are of course aware of that. But he can operate that discretion only within very clear instructions under the Act. He can exercise that discretion only insofar as the Minister wishes him to exercise it.

Senator Guilfoyle:

- Senator, you had better be careful with your words and with what you are saying at the moment. I think you should choose your words very carefully when you are making assertions of that kind.

Senator RYAN:

– The assertions that the Opposition is making with regard to this case are that although there are areas of discretion we believe that they were not exercised at the time when school leavers were entitled to have them exercised, and that was in December and not in February. Even today in the course of this debate the Minister has stated again clearly that it is her policy that school leavers do not have any automatic right to unemployment benefit.

I would like to put to the Minister some questions about retrospective payments of which I believe there has been not one to this point. I would particularly like to ask her to make some comments about the role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Has the Tribunal been considering retrospective payments? I would like to know how many appeals have been lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by school leavers who registered in December and did not receive unemployment benefit until February. I would like to know whether the Minister has issued any instructions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in regard to its handling of such appeals. Has the Department taken any steps at all to notify school leavers who registered in November or December 1976 of their rights under the Act, particularly section 107, as confirmed by the result of the High Court challenge.

The Opposition believes that all school leavers who registered at the time of leaving school have a right to retrospective payments. They have a right to have their case considered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The effect of what has been said by Government supporters in this debate is that eligibility for unemployment benefit for school leavers as opposed to other people should perhaps be a matter for special benefit. I understood the Minister to have suggested that Karen Green should have applied for a special benefit rather than for unemployment benefit.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– I said that she had been considered for special benefit.

Senator RYAN:

-The Minister said that Ms Karen Green had been considered for special benefit. If we look at the direction issued last year by the Director-General with regard to special benefit we find that he says that the benefit ordinarily relates to hardship experienced by a person in receipt of income who suffers a sudden and unforeseen loss of that income. Clearly that set of criteria is irrelevant to school leavers, most of whom of course have no independent income and most of whom would not experience a loss of income on leaving school. However, the DirectorGeneral went on to say that hardship would be accepted where a school leaver could produce evidence that he was not living with his parents and was not being supported by his parents for a reasonable period prior to leaving school. However if his parents have maintained him at school the person cannot claim hardship and will not receive special benefit. That criterion may have enabled people in the category of mature age students who had returned to school to get special benefit on leaving school. But we are not concerned specifically with a small group of school leavers, school leavers who are in fact adults living independently but attending school. We are concerned here with the bulk of school leavers, with that group of people who, simply by a policy directive of the present Minister, were ruled to be ineligible regardless of any circumstance for regular unemployment benefit until February of this year. That is the crux of what we are debating today.

I think that what we have witnessed with regard to the Government’s action over this unemployment benefit for school leavers and its subsequent action- or should I say inactionfollowing the High Court judgment in April shows that it is an arrogant and dishonest Government which is prepared to put its own penny pinching policies ahead of the law. It appears that it is continuing to regard policy decisions and determinations as superior to the legal situation. If this Government or any other government does not want to implement a law which exists it has the option of changing that law through the processes of Parliament. When this Government decided that it did not want to pay unemployment benefit to a certain group of people- that was an arbitrary decision- instead of coming to the Parliament with an amendment to the Social Security Act to that effect it simply issued a policy directive. It is this decision, this procedure, which not only the Opposition but also the High Court considers to be illegal.

The Minister has said that the Government is still waiting on advice from its legal advisers as to whether it should act in respect of retrospective payments. We would like to know- as would perhaps hundreds or thousands of school leavers throughout the country- what the Government is actually waiting for. The terms of the Act as restated today clearly by my colleague Senator Colston make it very clear that many people leaving school in fact fill the criteria for unemployment benefit. Some may not. We are not concerned with those. Very many do. To exclude this group from a benefit to which they are entitled is illegal. It seems that despite the result of the High Court challenge the Government will persist in excluding this group from receiving the benefit and it will take no steps to enable these people who have been wrongfully denied the benefit to gain retrospective payments. I should like to add that when we are talking about the Australians who have been the victims of this illegal action of the Government we are not talking about dole bludgers. In most cases we are talking about a large group of disadvantaged people- people who are disadvantaged in that they are unable to gain employment.

The problem of unemployed school leavers is not a problem that is peculiar to Australia. It is not a problem that has arisen only in the last few years. It certainly is not a problem that has arisen specifically as a result of the actions of the Whitlam Government, as has been suggested. Studies and figures of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that over the last 10 years there has been a constant and rapid increase in unemployment amongst school leavers in most countries and, in particular, in countries which have comparable economic systems to ours. Another point that bears mentioning when discussing this group of people is that the particular group of school leavers mostly consists of early school leavers- those who leave at the earliest opportunity, often because of economic necessity, and those school children in whom the least amount of the educational dollar has been invested.

In order to support that claim I should like to point out that a study carried out in September 1975 by the Department of Labor and Immigration of unemployed juniors registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service showed that of juniors registered with the CES nearly half- 47 per cent- had not gone beyond third form secondary; two-thirds had not gone beyond fourth form; and in country areas 72.4 per cent of junior unemployed males had not gone beyond fourth form. It is very clear that the majority of unemployed school leavers, the people who are the subject of this debate, are people who left school early. In terms of our current attitudes towards education, children who leave school early often leave through economic necessity. In support of that contention, I refer to the figures of the Schools Commission on school retention rates. The most recent figures show that government schools retain only 27 per cent of their students to the final year of high school; Catholic schools retain 39 per cent of their students to the final year of high school; and other nongovernment schools, that is the independent schools, retain more than 90 per cent of their students to the end of high school.

If we put those school retention figures together with the study conducted by the Department of Labor and Immigration of unemployed juniors we can see that the unemployed school leavers with whom we are concerned are in general the products of the poorest state schools, they are the children who had the least opportunity at school and they are now the members of the work force with the least opportunity to secure employment. Added to those 2 very significant areas of disadvantage is the fact that they are the people whom this Government singled out to exclude from what is, as I said earlier and as I say again in conclusion, their right under the existing Social Services Act- that is, the right of all genuinely unemployed persons to unemployment benefit. We raised the subject as a matter of urgency -

Mr DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-The Senate is debating an urgency motion which charges the Government with ‘failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case’. In dealing with an urgency motion it is, of course, always worth while to examine its precise terms. Initially, I should like to join issue with the Opposition on its use of the word ‘illegally’ and the term ‘at the end of the last school year’. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) already has pointed out clearly, concisely and ably the fallacy in the use of the word ‘illegally’ in this motion. That statement in the motion is not true.

Senator Grimes:

– Did the Government win the case?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-It is not a matter of who wins the case. I think that what Senator Grimes should do-it might pay all of us to do this- is to examine the declarations made by Mr Justice Stephen. They are on record. Although we have heard much from the Opposition in recent weeks about this matter, I do not think it yet understands the terms of the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He said that the DirectorGeneral did not act in accordance with the Act.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– He said that, but he did not say that school leavers were being deprived of benefits illegally. Perhaps I can explain to the Senate what he did say. I am not sure whether the declarations made by Mr Justice Stephen are incorporated in Hansard. If not, I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Senator Grimes:

– They were incorporated, but then they were taken out again.

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

The document read as follows-

Declare that upon receipt of the plaintiff’s claim for unemployment benefits dated the 20th day of December 1976, the Director-General should have considered all the circumstances of the plaintiff’s claim, making such investigations as he determined, and in the light thereof, should have decided whether the plaintiff answered the descriptions contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of s. 107 of the Social Services Act 1 947 and whether she had also satisfied him as to the several matters referred to in paragraph (c) thereof and should by that means have determined whether the plaintiff was qualified to receive an unemployment benefit.

Declare further that in his consideration of the plaintiff’s claim, the Director-General might have regard to the fact that it was made during the period of school holidays and at a time shortly after the plaintiff had left school at the end of the year but should not treat that fact as of itself decisive in determining whether the plaintiff had satisfied him of any one of the several matters referred to in paragraph (c) of s.107.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– The declarations are short and to the point. What the judge decided in this case was simply this: He said that it was not open to the Director-General to give a general direction to his delegates to refuse applications for unemployment benefits on a blanket basis. He said that the Director-General should examine each case in terms of section 107 of the Act.

Senator Grimes:

– That is what we said.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-I do not think the Opposition has been saying that, with respect; but let me continue. Senator Colston referred to section 107 of the Act and the judge referred to it several times. It sets out the matters on which the Director-General has to be satisfied before he grants unemployment benefits. I propose to devote some of my time in this debate to dealing with the history of this matter, because it traces back to the handouts which were made by the Labor Government and which we had to correct when we came into office.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Have you not an argument on this matter?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-Obviously I have, if I am provoking Senator Cavanagh into making inane remarks. I should now like to deal with the words at the end of the school year’ which appear in the urgency motion. It could be argued, of course, that the end of the school year is not when the bell rings and school breaks up but at the end of the school vacation. That is a matter of judgment. Perhaps the legislation requires clarification on that point. Before dealing with the judgment in detail, I should like to deal with 2 general arguments in relation to what I understand to be policy matters in considering general eligibility for government benefits. We on this side of the chamber are concerned to see that justice is being done to all applicants for government benefits in terms of the existing legislation. At the same time, the interests of the taxpayers, who in the last resort are called upon to foot the bill for the vast social service expenditure in various areas, have to be taken into account.

One must always be zealous to ensure that frauds against the revenue do not take place and that people who are not entitled to benefits do not by some device or perhaps some defect in legislation receive benefits. In this situation Mr Justice Stephen indicated that there was some difficulty about the word ‘unemployed’. I have indicated that there is some difficulty associated with the words ‘at the end of the school year’. It may well be that clarifying legislation will be necessary before the next school year. As I said earlier, I want to examine the history of this matter. It is clearly set out in a ministerial statement made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to the Senate on 23 March 1976- a short time after this Government came to office, I point out to Senator Grimes.

Senator Grimes:

– I said that. I quoted from that statement.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– All right. Well, I am going to quote it back at Senator Grimes.

Senator Georges:

– It does not make it a good statement.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– It makes a very good story. It points out the inadequacies of the previous Government in this area. The Minister said:

Between May 1975 and January 1976 -

Honourable senators opposite do not like this; some 1 12 000 beneficiaries were selected Tor field officer visits by the Department of Social Security. As a result of these visits 30 per cent of cases were terminated, though there is no suggestion of deception or fraud in every case.

I will not go on with the rest of the quote. The Minister went on to enlarge. The point I make in this context is that 30 per cent of the 112 000 were illegally receiving taxpayers’ money. Surely this is a matter of great concern to all of us. It is certainly a matter of concern to the people who put us into government. While we are in government we will see that money is not wasted.

The Minister went on to outline the work test. It was from this that the direction of the DirectorGeneral came. Abuses were notorious throughout Australia. Before I came to this place I had personal knowledge of secondary students in the area of Victoria in which I live flocking to the Commonwealth Employment Service on the day school broke up.

Senator Melzer:

– How many?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-They all went, and they all got benefits. They applied forthwith and were granted unemployment benefits. This was during the term of the Labor Government. It was a matter of almost public scandal. Some people applying for unemployment benefit had no intention of leaving school permanently. Some who were going on to tertiary education applied for and were granted benefit. It was little wonder that when we came to office we found that 30 per cent of those receiving the benefit were receiving it illegally. Let us look at the position as underlined by the Minister in the statement. Senator Grimes need not take my word for it. The position is set out in the statement. The Minister said:

The situation with regard to school leavers is quite simply that in the past many school leaver claimants have said that they are not going back to school, have been paid unemployment benefit and, for one reason or another, have returned to school. Some, of course, have claimed benefit without any intention of being dishonest, and have later gone back to school. It is apparent, however, that others have merely sought benefit for the holiday period, knowing that they would be returning to their studies. This has meant that they have received benefits to which they would not otherwise have been entitled.

The Minister went on to say that school leavers could get a special benefit. The point I make is that the inefficiency of the system as administered by the Labor Government led to the introduction of new guidelines as to the work test and the discretion of the delegates of the Director-General in applying the test to school leavers. Unless it could be demonstrated to me that a system of granting benefits was efficient I would not support it. I am not saying that we oppose the system. I get back to the High Court judgment. It said that the Director-General has to examine each case on its merits.

Senator Grimes:

– Which he did not do.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-Perhaps he has not done it yet. What I say of the judgment is simply this: The Government issued guidelines, as the Minister stated on 23 March 1976, following a disclosure, almost scandalous, that 30 per cent of people interviewed were abusing the system. This happened during Labor’s term of government not only in this area but also in other areas of benefit. It was publicly known that under the National Employment and Training scheme, which allowed for retraining of people who had no skills, people were doing all sorts of courses at the taxpayers’ expense. This had to be stopped and it did stop when the Director-General gave an instruction. I repeat that the High Court judgment simply said that the Director-General should not have issued a blanket instruction to his officers, but that each applicant’s case should have been examined to see whether he or she fell within the provisions of paragraphs 107 (c) (i) and (iii) of the Act. That was a matter of discretion for the Director-General. The judge was urged with all the eloquence that counsel for the plaintiff could command to substitute his discretion for that of the Director-General. I think the Minister or someone else referred to this. It is worth repeating. The judgment reads:

For the plaintiff, it was urged that I should form my own conclusions as to the plaintiff’s compliance with s. 107, that these should be in the plaintiff’s favour, that I should then impute to the Director-General my own state of satisfaction under s. 107 (c) and should accordingly declare the plaintiff to have been qualified to receive an unemployment benefit as from 27 December 1976, being 7 days after her application was rejected on 20 December 1976. Even were I minded to find the necessary facts in her favour, as to which I say nothing, the course suggested is not, I think, one which is open to me. It is to the Director-General or his delegates that the legislation assigns the task of obtaining satisfaction and the Court should not seek to usurp that function.

That is the clear statement in the judgment as to what section 107 implies. It was demonstrably abused during the 1975 school vacation. We have now had the 1976 vacation. It is a matter for the Government what it does about the 1977 vacation. It may be a question of defining words. There is no substance in the motion. I move:

Senator McLaren:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I draw your attention to standing order 64, which states that 3 hours should be allowed for this debate, and also to the order of business put down in the Senate today. The Government is running away from this issue. It is the very important and emotional issue of unemployment benefit for school leavers. The Government is not facing up to its responsibilities. Senator Tehan has moved the gag. I wanted to speak to the motion, but I am prevented from doing so by the gag. Mr President, I respectfully draw your attention to the business sheet and standing order 64, and I seek leave to make a contribution.

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, may I briefly speak to the point of order. Although obviously it is of no substance, the pantomime that it is ought to be exposed. The speakers list in fact is exhausted. Senator McLaren made no attempt to put his name on it. His point of order is obviously a pantomime.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order that I can sustain.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I want to speak to the point of order. The Government Whip has just said it is a pantomime because the list of speakers has been exhausted. That is not a valid point for him to be making.

Senator Chaney:

– It is true though, is it not?

Senator Georges:

– No. Any senator who wished to rise to his feet within the 3 hours would be acknowledged by the President but for the gag imposed by Senator Tehan. If Senator McLaren wishes to rebut some of the remarks made by Senator Tehan, under Standing Orders he is entitled to do so, but the gag now prevents him from doing so. That is the clear situation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Standing Orders provide for a 3-hour limit for an urgency debate. There is no substance in the point of order.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 35

NOES: 26

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Grimes’) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 34

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1363

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 10A of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Act 1953I present the Veterans’ Residences Trust annual report for 1976.

page 1363

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement made by the Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade on international trade.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1363

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972 I present the Australian Wool Corporation’s report of its operations in the year ended 30 June 1 976. An interim report by the Corporation for 1975-76 was tabled on 5 October 1976.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1364

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 1 present 3 agreements between the Commonwealth and the States of Tasmania and Western Australia made under the provisions of that Act.

page 1364

PATHOLOGY SERVICES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Pathology Services Working Party- March 1977.

page 1364

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930 I present the statement of receipts and expenditure relating to the administration and development of the Australian Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1364

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: LEGAL AID

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Ordinance 1972 I present the annual reports of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Committee for the years ended June 1974 and June 1975, together with financial statements and reports of the Auditor-General on those statements.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Before I move the motion I merely draw the attention of the Government and particularly of the Senate to the fact that an annual report for the year ended 30 June 1 974 is being presented to the Senate on 25 May 1977. As well as that report, a report for the year ended 30 June 1 975 is being presented. In the main all the other reports presented, with the exception of one, are annual reports for the year ended 30 June 1976, which is nearly 12 months ago. I suggest, frankly, that a lot of statutory bodies are making a complete farce of the presentation of annual reports to this Parliament. It is about time they took heed of it, it is about time the Ministers took heed of it and it is about time that Parliament took heed of it. Having made those few comments, I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1364

PROPOSALS FOR VARIATIONS OF THE PLAN OF LAY-OUT OF THE CITY OF CANBERRA AND ITS ENVIRONS

Report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I bring up the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory entitled Proposals for Variations of the Plan of Lay-out of the City of Canberra and its Environs, 63 rd series.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KNIGHT:

– 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:

-The report I have just tabled deals with the 63rd series of proposals to vary the plan of the national capital. The Senate is familiar with the procedure whereby the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory examines from time to time proposals for variations referred to it by the Minister for the Capital Territory pursuant to section 1 (a) of the Committee’s resolution of appointment. The report recommends the implementation of 30 of 31 proposals contained in the 63rd series, one item having been withdrawn by leave. The report also deals with 4 proposals reserved for further consideration by the Committee in its report on the 62nd series and recommends the implementation of three of these items, one of them having been withdrawn in the meantime. This means that once the statutory procedure under section 12a of the Seat of Government Administration Act 1909 has been complied with the National Capital Development Commission will be able to let tenders for $13,823,000 for public works associated with the variations considered in this report.

Three of the items in the 62nd series reserved by the Committee for further consideration involved the provision of access roads in areas previously reserved for medium density development. The intention of the variation is to permit the construction of detached housing in those areas. Objection was made by the Society for Social Responsibility in Science to these items. The Society has again lodged formal objections to 3 items in the current series on similar grounds. It was considered that more information should be provided by NCDC as to its medium density housing policy in order that the Committee might consider these items in their proper perspective. The opportunity was taken by the Committee to obtain a detailed statement by the National Capital Development Commission on its medium density housing policy which is appended to the Committee’s report.

The Committee gave careful consideration to the arguments of the Society for Social Responsibility m Science in support of its formal objection. The Society believes that Canberra’s increasing suburban sprawl is due in part to over emphasis on standard detached housing. It considers there should be a greater effort made to reduce this by the provision of medium density housing. In the Society’s view, urban sprawl has serious social implications and it also believes that a mix of residential styles and densities is desirable in urban planning. The Society thus objected to the reclaiming, for detached housing, of land previously proposed for medium density development. The National Capital Development Commission was able to satisfy the Committee that it has actively and effectively promoted medium density as an alternative to standard housing. It also brought to the Committee’s attention certain matters associated with the housing situation in Canberra which has made it desirable to release more sites for standard residential development in established areas. These issues are dealt with in detail in the Committee’s report.

The other matter which I wish to mention concerns proposals contained in this series for the provision of cycle paths. These proposals have been approved by the Committee and when implemented will provide a network of cycle paths from Belconnen in the north of the Territory through to Manuka. The next stage will be from Commonwealth Avenue through to Phillip in the Woden Valley. The Committee will, I understand be examining the latter in its report on the 64th series of variations. There are now 9 kilometres of cycle paths in the Territory and when this variation is implemented, there will be a total of 19 kilometres constructed. When the entire network is completed, there will be 113 kilometres of cycle paths in the Territory. These cycle paths are a significant amenity and a special element in the development of the urban environment of the national capital. I commend the report to the Senate.

Senator RYAN (Australian Capital Territory) I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1365

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

Mr President, I seek leave to have the text of the speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

This Bill has 2 main purposes- to provide the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation with a financial charter appropriate for a Government instrumentality operating in competition with private enterprise, and to provide the Corporation with greater flexibility in its operations. When legislation to establish the Corporation was introduced in 1964 it was expected that the government agency would be the sole operator in the mortgage insurance field. Accordingly, it was not thought appropriate that the Corporation should pay income tax, State taxes and stamp duties, nor that it should aim to make profits from its insurance operations. As the then Minister for Housing indicated in his second reading speech to establish the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation:

The Corporation will be required to aim over the long term neither to make a profit nor to incur a loss.

The Corporation now has a number of private enterprise competitors, and these companies are required to pay income tax and State stamp duties, and to pay dividends on shareholders funds. The Corporation is exempt from these requirements. It is the policy of this Government that the private sector is to be encouraged, and this demands that the potential for unfair competition with private insurers because of the Corporation’s present financial charter, be removed.

Apart from industry considerations there are other reasons why HLIC might be placed on a commercial footing and expected to pay a return to the Commonwealth. HLIC has proven to be a very successful venture. It has enjoyed an enviable record since its establishment m 1965. The Corporation has insured more than $3,500m in housing loans, assisting some 235 000 borrowers to obtain a home of their own, and demonstrated leadership and innovation in its field. The time has come to amend the Corporation’s financial charter to recognise the Corporation for what it is- a large and successful commercial venture.

Because of this success, and because of its freedom from income tax and profit payments, the Corporation has accumulated substantial reserves. The surplus exceeded Sim in each of the 3 years to 1973-74 and rose to $2.4m in 1974-75. In 1975-76 the surplus was just short of $3m. The total surpluses to date amount to $ 12.7m and are held in the General Reserve. These results have been achieved despite three substantial reductions in premium rates. There is a limit, however, to the level to which premiums can be reduced further. The premium rates set by HLIC, and adopted by its competitors, are already among the lowest in the world.

Up until now, the Corporation has operated without any formal capital. The Government proposes now to arrange the financial affairs of the Corporation on more orthodox lines, and to impose on the Corporation an obligation to service capital. A new section 3 1a will provide that $5m is to be transferred from the General Reserve to form the capital of the Corporation. Section 26 of the Act, which sets out the premium policy to be followed by the Corporation, is to be amended to require the Corporation to seek revenue sufficient to meet all its expenditure properly chargeable to revenue, and to permit payments to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on capital. At the same time, the Corporation will be required to charge premiums at the lowest possible rates consistent with this obligation.

The Corporation’s current exemption from Federal and State taxes will be removed by the repeal of section 38 of the Act. A new section 38, which will come into force on 1 July 1 977, will have the effect of making the Corporation liable to pay income tax in respect of 1976-77 income, and to pay State stamp duties on insurance commitments entered into on and after 1 July 1 977. The Bill frees the Corporation, and its customers, from any liability for State or Territorial charges in respect of commitments entered into before 1 July.

A new section 3 1b will require the Corporation to pay such amount to the Commonwealth out of its after-tax profits as the Minister determines.

Provision is also made in section 3 lc for interim dividends to be paid. The first payments will be made in respect of 1 976-77 profits.

Because it is considered that the Commonwealth is entitled to some share of the residual surplus of the 11 years’ operations by the Corporation, during which time it has paid neither taxes nor dividends, the Bill also provides for the payment to the Commonwealth from the General Reserve of an amount of $4.5m. This will leave the Corporation with an amount of $8.2m by way of capital and reserves, which is judged to be adequate for the Corporation’s needs. This amount can be expected to increase, but at a slower rate than the rate at which the General Reserve has been increasing in recent years, as residual profits after tax and dividend payments are added to the General Reserve. However, the Bill provides a mechanism for capital to be repaid, or additional capital to be provided by appropriation, depending on the Government’s assessment from time to time of the Corporation’s need for capital funds.

The Bill widens the present investment powers to enable the Corporation to increase investment income, now that it is to be liable for dividend, income tax and stamp duty payments. This amendment also recognises the importance of investment income in an insurance operation, particularly in the insurance of long term mortgages. Hitherto, the Corporation has been able to invest only in Commonwealth securities, fixed deposits with banks, and the official short term money market. Among other things, HLIC will now be empowered to invest in trustee investments, public securities and, with the approval of the Treasurer, in permanent building societies.

I turn now to the widened insurance powers to be given to the Corporation, to give it maximum flexibility in its operations in recognition of its new commercial charter. At present, HLIC may only insure prescribed classes of housing loans as specified by the Minister, and an insurable loan may not exceed limits as to the amount, repayment term, or interest rate which have been set with the concurrence of the Minister. In any case a loan in excess of 95 per cent of property valuation may not be insured. The Bill removes these restrictions, leaving it for the Corporation’s own judgment to determine criteria to be met by insurable loans.

The Bill enables the Corporation to insure loans made for land acquisition and development and subsequent home construction provided there is clear evidence that the construction phase will commence within a reasonable period of time. The Corporation will not underwrite land transactions of a speculative nature. The Corporation’s entry to this area of the mortgage insurance market will enable it to offer comparable insurance services to those of its private enterprise competitors. It is also in keeping with our pre-election proposals that permanent building societies might experiment with front-end lending subject to supervision by State Registrars of Building Societies. The Corporation’s activity will not interfere with or be contrary to State responsibilities. It should not be seen as endorsement by the Government of this particular activity or a suggestion that lenders should increase their lending for such purposes.

The Corporation will also be authorised to insure loans for rental housing and loans made by government instrumentalities, such as State superannuation funds and local government bodies. The Bill also authorises the insurance of unsecured loans for home improvements, to encourage the more efficient utilisation of our existing housing stock. The Corporation will not be permitted, however, to insure loans which are not made for housing purposes according to the definition of insurable loan provided in clause 4 of the Bill, and the Minister will retain his powers under section 25 with respect to the policies of the Corporation.

In the 12 years since its introduction, the Housing Loans Insurance Act has been amended, only in minor detail. Over that period a number of shortcomings in the legislation have become apparent as a source of administrative inconvenience. This Bill seeks to remedy these faults. I will not take up the time of honourable senators with a full recital of these changes. The most important changes are the streamlining of procedures for the assignment of insured loans, and a procedure whereby the Corporation may insure a loan made in the name of someone who is not an approved lender, provided that the loan will be managed by an approved lender.

The Bill also provides for a number of technical amendments aimed at updating certain provisions, and in some cases to insert new provisions, in line with those now generally included in new statutory authority legislation. For example, the audit and annual report provisions have been amended in this way. Ministerial directions and determinations given to the Corporation are to be published in the annual report. There is to be a new requirement that the Corporation provide such information and reports on its operations as the Minister may require, but existing constraints on the Corporation to maintain confidentially in dealing with the affairs of individuals will be preserved.

The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has assisted numerous people to attain home ownership and has been largely responsible for the successful foundation in this country of a mortgage insurance industry. This Bill recognises the development of this industry and seeks to regularise the role played by the Government agency. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1367

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1976-1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Mulvihill had moved by way of an amendment:

At the end of motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that-

1 ) the slashing of government spending is part of an inept economic strategy which has led to a decline in the standard of living of all Australians; and

) There is an urgent need for alternative policies of promoting a consumer led recovery by cuts in indirect taxes and appropriate stimulatory expenditure on job creation and manpower training programs, all done in a context of not increasing inflation by.

phasing out the more extravagant business tax concessions,

increasing the money supply but not beyond the rate of inflation plus growth, and

instituting a more vigorous bond-selling program. ‘

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– Yesterday evening, before the adjournment of the Senate, I made reference to the crude oil situation in this country. I stated that whilst President Carter had indicated the situation in America, which was one of grave concern to that country, there should be grave concern about this issue throughout the world, particularly in Australia because to a great extent Australia’s energy needs for crude oil are based upon transport. Because of the peculiarity of our countryits sparseness of population and the distance between cities- road transport will always play a very important part. That being the case, we have to take a very close look at our crude oil supplies. Whilst at the present time we have approximately 70 per cent self-sufficiency in crude oil, it is estimated on current usage and estimated increased usage that by 19d’’ our reserves could be down to about 25 per cent to 30 per cent of our needs with the depletion of our oil fields.

We have been a fortunate country inasmuch as our local crude oil returns to the producer in the vicinity of $2.33 a barrel or, to put it another way, it is provided to the consumer at a cost of about $4.30 a barrel landed on the Australian coast, compared with a price of some $12.50 a barrel for imported crude oil. At present our import bill for crude oil alone stands in the vicinity of some $805m per annum. But if we were to convert all our crude oil prices to import parity we would be standing with an import bill of something like $ 1,200m per annum and much dearer petrol. If we were to project that figure to 1985 and estimate the cost of crude oil and the volume we would require at that time our import bill for crude oil could be in the vicinity of $4,000m per annum.

There is a great need, firstly, to encourage exploration for oil to make further findings within Australia and, secondly, to make the people more aware of the need to conserve our energy. In the past our cheaper fuel prices have encouraged excessive usage of petrol and the average motorist has not realised that petrol will rapidly become a scarce commodity if we do not find more oil. We should consider what has occurred in the field of exploration for oil in the past few years. If we look at the figures for 1970 we find there was a great deal of exploration activity at that time. In that year alone some 120 wells were drilled, both on-shore and off-shore. But gradually this activity slowed down until in 1976, last year, we find only 21 wells were drilled, both on-shore and off-shore. Even though at the present time we are encouraged to see an increase in oil exploration, we are still faced with this bad gap between 1972 and 1976 when, unfortunately, many oil rigs not only stopped working in Australia but, worse than that, they left the Australian continent because of the lack of incentive to do anything about exploration.

Even if new discoveries were made at the present time we would still be faced with a time lag and a widening gap, creating a shortage of Australian crude oil. There is a great time lead- it could be a few years, depending on whether oil is found off-shore- between when the crude oil is found and when the well is brought into production. So whichever way we turn we find we have no alternative but to face the realities of life, which mean that we must anticipate increased prices for crude oil which, in turn, means increased prices for petrol. If no more oil is found in Australia we will have to import more oil to fill the gap. We know what the price of crude oil is at the present time. Worse than that, we know also what the oil exporting countries can do. We saw an example of this a few years ago when they created the energy crisis.

We have another problem at present which I think I should point out to the Senate. We have just seen the results of an election in Israel where a party that has an entirely different attitude from the previous Government of Israel has come into power. I suppose one could describe this Party as a more hard-line government with regard to the situation in the Suez area. Already we have seen the Arab countries hardening in their attitudes with regard to oil prices. Saudi Arabia, which last year opposed the gigantic increase of some 1 5 per cent in crude oil prices by the Arab countries and finally obtained an agreement for an increase of only 5 per cent, indicated 2 days ago that it would be looking for further increases this year- no doubt greater increases. One can immediately assume that what this is all about is what one could term ‘resources diplomacy’. Without any doubt, resources diplomacy could become a fact. The attitude of Israel in turn could have an effect upon future crude oil prices which will affect this country.

I mention that to indicate the sensitiveness of the situation with regard to foreign crude oil, upon which we are becoming more and more dependent. At any time the Arab countries could create a situation with crude oil such as the one I mentioned earlier which caused such an economic and energy crisis throughout the world. We are leaving ourselves more open all the time to dependence upon imported crude oil from the Arab countries, which could lead to the same situation as that which occurred so many years ago. But when it happened then we were in a more fortunate position in as much we had our own crude oil to the extent of some 70 per cent of our requirements.

We have to consider what we can do to fill the gap between our supplies of crude oil and our requirement for it. Firstly, we can move into secondary recovery, as it is called. Normally when oil producing wells are tapped the oil flows to the surface. Whilst one could talk of the volume and structure of the oil, the actual recovery of oil from normal pressure out of the ground is limited to not a very great percentage of the totality of the crude oil in that reservoir. Further amounts of crude oil are able to be extracted by other methods. It is done by injecting under terrific pressure either gas or sea water, which forces more oil out of the structure. That process is more expensive. If we wish to move away from the current rate of depletion that we are facing both in Bass Strait and at Barrow Island at present and into secondary recovery, which will recover more oil, in the process we will have higher costs. Whichever way we turn we will have to face increased prices for crude oil.

One can go further in this area. There are pockets of oil in Bass Strait which are too small to be viable at present. It would be uneconomic at present prices to get any recovery from them. It has been estimated by Esso-BHP that there could be some 400 million barrels of crude oil in the small pockets in Bass Strait. They are uneconomic at the present price of $2.33 a barrel. With an increased price for crude oil, recovery could take place to such an extent that we could add something like 20 per cent to Australia’s crude oil reserves at present. Quite frankly, I see for us no alternative to facing up to facts. This is what we will have to do. It would be far better for us to pay more for our local crude, even if the price of that local crude were to go up to import parity- at least the money is staying at homethan to import this extra 20 per cent of crude oil.

One might be questioned about why it would be expensive to extract oil from these little pockets. One must realise that the oil is sitting under the seabed and under a few hundred feet of sea water. There is the cost not only of laying a pipeline but also of setting up a platform over that pocket, small though it may be but valuable as it may be at the right price or an economic price for recovery. Platforms today are costing between $80m and $100m. No company would invest that sort of money to recover a small amount of oil and risk showing a loss. When one looks at the cost involved in the recovery of oil, particularly from these small pockets, one appreciates that an incentive must be given to companies if we are to recover this extra 20 per cent of our reserves.

I repeat that Australia has been a very lucky country. As I said last night, we have had some of the cheapest petrol in the world. Whilst we have been fortunate in many ways, our luck has meant 3 things: It has encouraged the increased usage or perhaps one could say wastage of petrol; it has discouraged the development of alternative energy sources; and it has discouraged oil exploration and production, particularly production. By ‘production’ I am referring again to these small pockets of oil. This applies also to Barrow Island, where the companies will have to move into secondary production if they are to continue much of the production.

Whilst some can sit back and be complacent about the situation, I think we must realise that oil is now becoming a dearer commodity not only overseas but also in Australia. Many people have the idea that all oil companies are wealthy; that they are all multi, multi, multi-millionaires. Some are. Some oil companies are lucky. EssoBHP in Bass Strait has been very fortunate. Australia has been very fortunate because of the finds of crude oil made in Bass Strait. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 1369

RANGER URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY SECOND REPORT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report. I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

-I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1369

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1976-77

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was speaking about Australia’s crude oil reserves and the fact that as a nation we will eventually have to face the problems of increased prices for crude oil, which in turn will mean increased prices for petrol. I do not say when that will happen, or how high these prices will go, but it is a fact of life that whichever way we turn we are going to face dearer crude oil, whether in the form of imported oil to fill the gap created by a depletion of our reserves, which oil costs much more than Australian oil at the present time, whether it be in the area of secondary recovery which costs a lot more than in the area of primary recovery, which I dealt with earlier, or whether it involves bringing into production pools of crude oil which at the present time and at present prices are not economical.

At the suspension of the sitting I was suggesting that incentives be given to oil companies to encourage them to explore for oil, an activity which, tragically, has been allowed to run down in this country for many reasons, including previous government policies the prices for crude oil at the present time and a lack of incentives generally for companies to take the high risks involved in exploration. I make passing reference to the fact that Esso-BHP has done extremely well in Bass Strait. This company has been very fortunate in making a quite good find very close to the shores of Victoria and it has made quite big profits. At the same time Australia has benefited considerably because if we did not have the Bass Strait oil and if we did not have the Barrow Island oil and some of the other finds that have been made around Australia, our import bill today would be $ 1,200m instead of $800m. As time goes on and the prices for overseas crude oil increase, that bill of $ 1,200m will be very small in comparison with what countries will have to pay for crude oil when they have to rely on imports.

Having said those things and having referred to the fact that Esso-BHP is showing a profit from its find in Bass Strait, I point out that there are many oil companies throughout Australia which have spent terrific amounts of money on exploration but have found absolutely nothing. Exploration is not cheap by the time a company carries out the various technical surveys before finally drilling wells, not knowing whether it is going to find anything. One thing oil exploration companies do know is that each off-shore well is going to cost a minimum of $2m to $3m, whether it be a dry-blow well, as the industry calls it, or a well which shows encouraging signs. I am talking now of wells in shallow water. When it comes to exploring in deeper water these companies are putting at risk some $5m just to drill a hole in the seabed in the hope that they will find something, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that they will find anything. This is entirely different from much of the mining that has taken place in Australia in the past because before the mining companies started they knew from the minerals exposed on the surface that they had something. They did not know the vastness of the deposits but they knew that they were drilling down to minerals. By drilling they could find out the extent of mineralisation in the area. But that is entirely different from the situation faced by oil exploration companies. These oil companies can do their exploration, they can look at their graphs, they can look at their charts and everything looks extremely good on paper, but when they drill a hole they find absolutely nothing.

There is a vast element of risk in oil exploration, particularly off-shore exploration, and the cost is extremely high. It has been estimated that more than $ 1000m will need to be spent in the next few years just to evaluate Australia’s off-shore oil prospects. Evaluation does not mean that oil companies will find oil. These companies will have to spend, on present costs, at least $ 1000m to evaluate our off-shore oil prospects. It has also been estimated that we will need to discover in this country a further 3000 million barrels of crude oil, which is the equivalent of twice the Bass Strait production, just to hold our present level of some 70 per cent of self sufficiency by the year 1 990. So one can see the great expense and great risk involved in assessing and hoping to find further fields of crude oil in Australia and around our coastline. Incentives must be given to the oil industry if it is to spend this terrific amount of money because although we may be fortunate enough to find some oil, not all companies are going to have success. Many companies will spend millions of dollars on oil exploration and in all probability they will get no return whatsoever for their efforts. There is a need as far as I am concerned, as far is this Government is concerned and as far as this nation is concerned, to encourage further costly oil exploration if we are to find more oil around Australia.

There is a need for Australia to find more oil, not only because ofthe cost saving factor but also because, as I said earlier this evening, it is important for us to have some independence from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries which in the past has held the world to ransom. There is a possibility that member countries of OPEC will do the same thing in the future because as crude oil becomes more scarce and fewer countries have this very scarce commodity, they will be able to hold the heavy stick. This is a dangerous situation for us to be in. So there is a need for us to strive for and hopefully achieve independence in this very important energy commodity. As I have said before, whatever we do, whether we find more oil but need time before it can come into production or on stream, or whether we enter into the field of secondary recovery, which could increase our reserves by some 20 per cent but which is a costly process, we will have to face the reality of dearer crude oil.

Senator Georges:

-Spend a few million on alternative sources of energy.

Senator YOUNG:

-It is all very well for Senator Georges to make comment but to me this is a very serious situation. It is not one into which politics should intrude. As far as I am concerned it is a matter of national importance and should be looked at nationally not with any party bias or for the benefit of any party. It is of national importance and it has been shown throughout the world to be of international importance. Having said that, whilst we must look to our dwindling reserves of oil, I think we as a nation must look also to what we can do to conserve as much as possible our crude oil supply. Therefore, we must look perhaps to smaller cars than many of us have been used to driving around the countryside. With smaller cars we will get a far better mileage per gallon.

We must look also to the possibility of increasing the electrification of our railways where coal could be used in the generation of electricity. I think we should be looking also as a nation to the encouragement of greater use of liquid petroleum gas in motor vehicles. I suggest to the Government that it should give serious consideration to lifting the sales tax on the conversion equipment required to modify a car from the use of petrol to liquid petroleum gas. I say that very seriously because I think there is a need for the Government to take a lead and give both encouragement and assistance to people to do this to help save crude oil. Australia, when it comes to natural gas, is in a very fortunate position. There is also the possibility that the Government could look to lifting the tax on LPG- granted it is not very high; nevertheless there is a tax- to give further encouragement to motorists.

For a long time Senator Jessop has initiated talks and discussions on research into solar energy. I think there is a need for governmentshere I look to the State governments- to give a lead in encouraging consumers throughout the States to use solar heaters in their homes. It has been estimated that solar heating, if it were to be introduced both commercially and domestically, could conserve approximately 28 per cent of our energy resources at the present time. One must discount to a certain extent the use of solar energy in commerce but the 1 8 per cent that it is estimated could be conserved by the use of solar heating in homes is something to which we as a nation- again I look to the State governmentsshould give serious encouragement by way of assistance to the communities in the States in the implementation of this form of heating.

Australia, with its peculiarities, its long distances and its dependence upon road transportation will always require a great deal of crude oil for petrol usage and also for diesel usage. The prospect of a growing shortage of local crude oil really is more alarming when one considers the end use of all products. Esso Australia has estimated that about 55 per cent of Australia’s oil requirements is consumed in transportation and that petrol alone accounts for about 35 per cent of all oil consumed. As a major trading nation and as a sparsely populated nation, the efficient functioning of our economy is vitally dependent upon adequate transportation and, of course, we are totally dependent upon oil for road transport because this is the only form of portable energy presently available in sufficient quantities. For this reason there is very little scope for substitution of alternative energy sources on any significant scale in the near future. I refer here to such things as electric powered cars and many other modifications that have been suggested. That is for the future and we are talking about the concern of the present- the gap that has to be filled and the conservation that is necessary to make sure that we do not waste our scarce commodity. It has been estimated that the future growth in oil consumption is expected to be significantly less than in the past; that is, something of the order of 3 Vi per cent per annum between now and the year 1990 compared with what it was over the past 10 years, which is estimated to be 5.7 per cent per annum. Nevertheless, at the current rate of growth in consumption the total oil demand will be about 850 000 barrels a day by the year 1985 and it has been estimated that it could reach up to 1 million barrels a day by 1990.

I think this shows clearly the position. It shows clearly that we as a nation must take cognisance of the situation with which we will be faced in the not too distant future and we as citizens of this country must face the realities of life that the days of cheap oil for Australians are pretty well over. We have reached a situation now that whichever way we turn, whether it be to fill the gap by importing crude oil or whether it be by secondary recovery, which is expensive, we will face higher prices for crude oil. This means higher prices for the motorist. This is something which we as a nation will have to accept. In the acceptance of this, I hope we will realise also that we are dealing with a scarce commodity and must be conscious of the need for conservation.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– ‘We will supply the jobs Australians need’ said the present Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, in glib pre and post election promises. The most serious of all the current defects of this Government is, of course, the continued deterioration in the level of employment. It is difficult to obtain meaningful comparison because the Government has manipulated deliberately a number of the variables. At the end of last year it suspended the payment of unemployment benefits to school leavers, a matter which was the subject of a debate earlier this afternoon, deliberately to deflate and understate the real level of unemployment in the DecemberJanuary period. It has abolished the seasonal adjustment formula which was used previously to give meaningful comparisons in the level of unemployment throughout the year. So, the most meaningful way in which the level of unemployment now can be compared to the level a year earlier is by a direct month by month comparison between registered numbers of unemployed in a month this year and in a month 12 months previously. This would disregard, of course, the distortion that I have mentioned already in the degree to which registrations for December and January last understated the true level of unemployment because school leavers were said at that time to be ineligible for benefits. I have a table which sets out from November 1975 to April 1976 and from November 1976 to April 1977 the registrations for numbers of registered unemployed. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The table read as follows-

Senator WALSH:

-This table shows for the most recent months that there are 55 000 more people registered as unemployed at the end of April 1977 than there were at the end of April 1976. The trend movement clearly is in the wrong direction. Whereas in April 1 976 it was clear that until that time there had been an improving trend in the level of unemployment, since that time there has been an equally clear deterioration in the employment situation. Moreover, the real position is probably considerably worse than these figures show. In what the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations defines as the work force- that is, the number of people employed plus the number registered as unemployed- there has been an increase of some 92 000 for the year ended February 1977. The actual growth in the work force in that period- that is the number of people who reached the age at which they would enter the work force in excess of those who would normally retire- has probably been in the vicinity of 120 000. As well as the 55 000 increase which the registration figures show we can probably add, to obtain a really sound basis of comparison, something like another 30 000. The real level of unemployment has probably increased by about 80 000 in the last 12 months. This has occurred under the leadership of a Prime Minister who promised to supply the jobs Australians need.

The failure of this Government’s economic policy which has been most clearly demonstrated by the unemployment figures was totally predictable. It was imposed by the present Prime Minister and it had failure built into it. Basically the Prime Minister believes that there is a productive and an unproductive sector. The productive sector comprises agriculture, mining and manufacturing. Everyone else, which includes most of the public sector, of course is, in the Prime Minister’s judgment, a bludger and a parasite. If you grow something, dig up something or make something you are a productive worker. If you do not do those things you are something else. The Prime Minister’s view is that what he defines as the productive sector must expand. He believes that this is the right and proper order. It is on that point that his policy begins to break down. An attempt to expand what he calls the productive sector runs counter to all recorded economic history. It has been a fact recorded in every country where significant per capita economic growth has occurred that the relative number of people employed in what the Prime Minister calls the productive sectors steadily declines, and it continues to decline as long as the per capita growth continues.

Until the end of last year the Government presented 2 apologias for the clear deterioration in the employment situation since April 1976. The first apologia was that inflation control must take priority and that in seeking that greater good it might be necessary to accept a short term increase in the level of unemployment. The theory continued that once the rate of inflation began to fall the unemployment situation would correct itself. On 28 November last the Government repudiated that policy by devaluing the dollar knowing full well that the decision would accelerate inflation.

Moreover, the Government recently has claimed that what the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) somewhat originally calls the underlying rate of inflation has declined from either 16 per cent or 14 per cent at the end of the calendar year 1975 to a little over 10 per cent at the end of the calendar year 1976. Given this Government’s theory that the employment situation will correct itself once the inflation rate has been brought under control, and given this Government’s assertion that the underlying rate of inflation, which the Treasurer tells us is the important index, has dropped by either 4 per cent or 6 per cent in the last month, we must in following that logic conclude that the employment situation would have to be improving. But the unemployment level is undeniably increasing. So that apologia has been discredited.

The second apologia was that unemployment is the last indicator to respond to an economic recovery. Before hiring more labour the Government used to claim employers would increase the amount of overtime worked by existing employees. Six months ago overtime was increasing marginally. Government spokesmen smugly cited the fact as evidence of an alleged embyronic economic recovery. Overtime worked is now falling, and has been falling for the last 2 months. Both the Government’s previous apologias for the deterioration in the employment situation have now been destroyed by the criteria established by this Government itself.

The Government’s economic policy apart from being rooted in the Prime Minister’s absurd dichotomy of a productive and an unproductive sector also incorporates his primitive preKeynesian obsession with Budget deficits. His view of a Budget deficit is derived from conceptual and historical ignorance. He insists on equating a deficit with a family overdraft. As recently as 6 April in his message to the nation the Prime Minister said that a government is like a family, and that a family which spends too much finishes up in debt to the bank. Then he said:

We know that while paying off debts we are going to have to give up other things.

Of course, this analogy between a deficit recorded by a government and an overdraft or money borrowed from a bank by an individual or a family is a favourite analogy of the Prime Minister. Of course the one grain of truth in that is that a deficit may in some circumstances, especially if we are in a full employment situation, stimulate inflation by increasing the money supply, but the magnitude of the deficit even under these conditions which do not apply now is far less important than the manner in which it is funded. If it is funded by loans subscribed by Australian citizens it has no effect on the money supply at all and consequently no effect on the rate of inflation via its effect on the money supply. The Treasurer sometimes gives some indications that he understands that. The Prime Minister clearly does not. The Prime Minister and virtually all his colleagues assert ad nauseum that post- 1972 inflation in Australia was caused by the deficit Budgets brought in by Labor governments I have here another table which I have sought Senator Cotton’s approval to incorporate in Hansard. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The table read as follows-

Senator WALSH:

-The table shows the deficit as recorded by the Niemeyer statements issued by the Treasury at the end of each quarter for the fiscal years from 1971-72 to 1974-75 inclusive. I wish to make several comments on the table. Firstly, it shows of course a lumpy pattern of quarter by quarter cumulative deficit. Anyone who looks at the subject at all knows that government revenue collections tend to be concentrated very heavily in the last quarter of a financial year. Therefore the deficit normally is much greater in the December and the March quarters than it is at the end of the year. Secondly, the table shows that in the 1972-73 financial year the final deficit was $774m. That was under a Budget brought down not by the Labor Government but by the last Liberal and Country Party Government. Incidentally that Government officially budgeted for a $630m deficit in that year. That figure greatly exceeds the $293m final deficit in the first Labor Budget of the fiscal year 1 973-74. More importantly, the table clearly shows that inflation peaked in the June and September quarters of 1974, disregarding of course last December’s figure, for that period of inflation. At that time the relevant deficit was the very low figure of $293m for the fiscal year 1 973-74.

The final point I want to make is that a large Budget deficit was recorded in 1974-75 and indeed in every year since. But large deficits did not cause inflation in Australia because the inflation predated the deficit. I would have thought that even the Prime Minister should be capable of understanding that.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

-There is a 12- months lag in the calculations. That is a lot of nonsense.

Senator WALSH:

– If there is a 12-months lag that makes my argument even stronger.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It does not. It makes it worse.

Senator WALSH:

-If Senator Sir Magnus Cormack wants to argue that there is a 12- months lag- in these matters frequently there is a lag of something like that- the conclusion that we come up with is that the inflation which occurred in 1973 was caused by the expansion in the money supply as a result ofthe large Budget deficit that the last Liberal and Country Party Government left as a legacy to the Labor Party.

Of course- this is far more significant- it was caused by the enormous increase in the money supply during the calendar year 1972 which in turn was caused by the capitulation of the majority Liberal Party to the minority sectional interests of the National Country Party in refusing to revalue the dollar in December 1971. It would be disturbing enough if the exposition of these fictions were restricted to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser); but I was more than a little surprised to find that on 5 May the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), when speaking at an Australian Society of Accountants conference, claimed that the devaluation decision of last November was not an about face by this Government. ‘Some commentators’, Mr Viner said, ‘have suggested that by devaluing the dollar in November last year the Government threw away its anti-inflationary strategy’. ‘Nothing’, said Mr Viner, ‘could be further from the truth’. He claimed that the Government had bravely maintained the exchange rate through 1976 in spite of- I use his words- ‘persistent speculation against the Australian dollar in late 1975 and throughout 1976’. The comment I wish to make on that is that, while there was speculation against the Australian dollar in late 1975, in fact the net inflow of capital for the March and June quarters of 1976 was $3 12m and $255m respectively, compared with a $77m quarterly average for the 4 years ending 1975-76.

The most recent action in the economic area of this Government, which seems to be moving more and more away from rational analysis and into the realm of mysticism, was the wages and prices freeze. It arose from a conference which was called to sort out the financial squabbles between the State governments and the Federal Government pursuant to the introduction of the Government’s much- vaunted federalism policy. After that conference had degenerated into the usual unseemly squabble, with the Premiers and the Prime Minister attempting to blame each other and to hand responsibility around like the poison parcel at a party, in order to divert attention from that charade the Prime Minister persuaded the Premiers to sign a joint statement calling for a voluntary 3-month wages and prices freeze. The original reason for the Premiers Conference was promptly forgotten. The next day, 14 April, the Australian Financial Review commented: lt - that is the freeze- has been pulled on by the politicians, particularly the Fraser Government, as a smokescreen for their own inability to get inflation under control.

According to the Australian Financial Review, the next day the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, rang Sir John Moore, the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to officially inform him of the freeze which floated out of the Premiers Conference. Mr Street is alleged to have said to Sir John Moore that he did not have a clue how it would be implemented. Events the next week were to prove that the whole Government did not have a clue how it would be implemented.

On 16 April Sir Charles Court jumped into the smokescreen by asking the Western Australian Industrial Commission to suspend the March quarter wage increase which it had already decided to give, notwithstanding the original statement issued by the Premiers and the Prime Minister on 13 April which, inter alia, said:

Governments would not expect either business organisations or the union organisations to agree to such voluntary restraint arrangements without agreement by the others.

So, without any agreement on the prices front, Sir Charles Court on 16 April made an official application to suspend the wage increase that had already been approved by the Western Australian Industrial Commission. Sir Charles thus became the first person to identify the real purpose, insofar as it had any coherent economic purpose, of the proposal- that is, to impose a freeze on wages and consequently a further cut in real wages. On 19 April the Parliament sat. The

Prime Minister was asked a question on whether the freeze would apply to fruit, vegetables and other perishables. He replied:

I have already expressed the broad view of the Government that there ought to be no exceptions.

In making that statement he flatly contradicted a statement of his own Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, on 14 April, when Mr Sinclair said:

For perishables price restraint is just not possible.

It was the first of many contradictions. On that same day the Labor Party moved to suspend Standing Orders to allow the Prime Minister to make a statement on the freeze. The Government used its numbers to defeat the motion after the Leader of the House, Mr Sinclair, had stated:

The Government intends that a statement should be made later today.

Acting on this assurance, journalists spent the rest of the day running around from the office of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Howard, to the office of the Prime Minister and to the office of the Minister for Primary Industry, attempting to extract a statement from one of those Ministers. Each passed the buck and no statement was made.

The next day, 20 April, Mr Sinclair was asked in Parliament how prices for perishables, which are normally sold at auction, would be frozen, as the Prime Minister had asserted the previous day they should be. The question should, of course, have been addressed to the Prime Minister; but he was not in the House. Mr Sinclair dodged the question, which is not surprising because there is no way to sell such commodities, which are sold at auction, at fixed prices- unless a raffle is conducted amongst all the bidders who bid the maximum fixed price. That is a pretty clumsy way to sell a crate of cabbages. Finally, at 9 p.m. on 20 April, a week after the proposition floated out of the Premiers Conference and 32 hours after a statement had been called for in the Parliament, the Prime Minister made a statement in the House of Representatives in which he clarified nothing.

On 20 April the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, called for a national conference to compensate wage earners for the effective reduction in wages that they would suffer because of the postponement of indexation increases already in the pipeline. He was backed by the Victorian Premier, Mr Hamer. Mr Hamer was, of course, promptly assailed by the Prime Minister for having backed the call by the ACTU President. Ultimately, of course, it was revealed that in fact precisely such a proposal had been pan of the original proposition which had been put forward at the Premiers Conference and to which the Premiers had subscribed. So, because it was already on record and because the claim of the ACTU President was correct, Mr Hamer had no option but to stick with the truth, at least in that instance, and support Mr Hawke. For so doing, of course, he was vilified by his Federal colleagues. On the same day the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia Ltd announced a 4 per cent increase in prices. Its Manager, Mr Andrew, was reported to have said:

I don’t give a bugger what Fraser says -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I realise that the honourable senator is quoting; but he cannot quote unparliamentary language, even though it is not his own expression.

Senator WALSH:

– I am sorry, Mr President. It certainly was a quotation published in the daily Press. On 2 May the chief of the Canberra bureau of the Melbourne Sun broke the story of a secret deal between the Government and car manufacturers on 20 April to increase prices by 7 per cent at the end of the so-called freeze. The story was based on a leaked Government document which also revealed that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) had promised car manufacturers that he would ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Howard, to consider their application. The Treasurer asked the Manager of the Ford Motor Company, Sir Brian Inglis, to delete any mention of the deal from the proposed Press statement, which has connotations of a cover-up a la Watergate. Last Friday Mr Dunstan finally brought the farce to an end by announcing that the freeze was finished in South Australia. Although Mr Dunstan was vilified by Federal Government Ministers for that action, it is interesting to note, once again, that he was beaten by one day by Sir Charles Court who had stated the day prior to Mr Dunstan ‘s statement that the Western Australians Government would not take any action to curb a projected 25 per cent increase in meat prices.

In the few minutes that remain I would like to make some brief comments about the referendums or referenda, which ever is the correct plural, held last Saturday. It ought to be a matter of concern that the forces of darkness and misinformation duped 38 per cent of the electorate into voting no in relation to the simultaneous elections question. The decision of that 38 per cent of the Australian voting population coupled with the absurdities of the Australian Constitution has prevailed. I was particularly taken by a statement by the Professor of Politics at

Macquarie University, Professor Aitkin, which appeared in his article published in last weekend’s National Times. He summed up the quality of the No case officially circulated by the Australian Electoral Office. I understand that it was written by people in this Parliament. Professor Aitkin stated:

All in all, the Case Against Simultaneous Elections is the worst argument I have seen for a long time; if it were put forward by a first-year student in an essay on the subject you would be forced to fail the essay on grounds of incoherence, irrelevance and fatuity.

So that proposal was defeated.

It is apparent that the self-evident chicanery of the events of 1975 concerning the appointment to fill a casual vacancy in the Senate convincingly demonstrated to the electorate that the previous rules or lack thereof could not be tolerated. Despite quite trenchant opposition from the people who opposed the simultaneous elections question with the backing of funds conscripted from the taxpayers of Western Australia and Queensland the question regarding casual Senate vacancies was approved. Perhaps what is really needed to carry the first question is a State government, as it is perfectly entitled to do under the present law, to refuse to issue the writs for a Senate election when requested to do so by the Federal Government. Perhaps it would be better still if each of the 6 State governments decided to hold Senate elections on a different Saturday. The first of the 6 Senate elections could be on 3 July next and the last on 30 June 1978. I hope that one or more State governments take a step in that direction. If or when that happens it will be made perfectly clear to the people that the simultaneous election provision in the Constitution can no longer be tolerated. Clearly the majority of people in all States have become aware that they can tolerate no longer the old system with regard to filling casual vacancies in the Senate.

I wish to comment on a question raised by Senator Wood earlier this afternoon. He asked why the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) could not hold a conjoint House of Representatives and Senate election next May, that is, hold an election for the House of Representatives 6 months early and a Senate election about the normal time. One reason is that the State governments might refuse to issue the writs. That is the proposition that Senator Wood and his colleagues persuaded 38 per cent of the people to endorse. Sir Charles Court believes it absolutely essential that the power to issue writs be retained by State governments.

The most satisfactory aspect of the referendums was the vote on the retiring age forjudges. An overwhelming 80.5 per cent nationally and a minimum of 65 per cent in any State voted yes. I note with great approval that in recording that vote the electorate overwhelmingly rejected the senile gibberish of an octogenarian former Prime Minister who went into bat very heavily recommending a No vote on this issue. Hopefully we will hear no more geriatric gibberish from that quarter or, failing that, the Australian Press will at least have the sense for once to ignore his incoherent babbling.

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

– Tonight the Senate is debating Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) and the amendment moved by the Opposition. It is an amendment which I firmly oppose. I wish to discuss the Green Paper on population because I believe that the population problem of Australia is of vital importance to this country. It is of vital importance to its economy and to maintaining the standard of life that we are used to. This paper was prepared by the Australian Population and Immigration Council, which was established by the Fraser Government. The paper is titled ‘Immigration Policies and Australia’s Population’. It is the first paper to be tabled on the subject in this Parliament. Anyone who has read this paper undoubtedly will agree with me that it is a first class paper. The Council as such has to be congratulated on its work. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) also has to be congratulated on his initiative in suggesting to the Council the general theme of the paper. I feel that the value of the paper lies in several areas. First, it has identified the major immigration issues to be discussed. Secondly, it has illustrated the relationship between the variables in the population equation and the linkage effects of immigration and general population policy decisions on the socioeconomic system. Thirdly, very significantly it has used a multi-disciplinary approach and in doing so it has considered all aspects of the issues simultaneously and their interrelationships. The latter has achieved effectively the overall principal function of producing the paper- that of identifying and discussing the major issues to be considered in immigration and population inquiries. The publication of the Green Paper has come at a very opportune time. This is for several reasons. First, our immigration program has been substantially run down. Secondly, the question of our population growth has taken on a new stance in discussions on the population of this country. Thirdly, international crises are creating pressures on us to clarify our attitude on accepting refugees and on our total humanitarian immigration program. In times of economic recession it is customary to analyse more deeply the direction in which our country is developing, to isolate those objectives that are of top priority and fundamentally to rethink the whole situation. Indeed if that is not done and if structural changes are not implemented the position would be illustrative of a rather myopic approach to government and policy making.

The impact of the Green Paper has been undeniable. Indeed, the media coverage has been most favourable. The Government has attempted to tackle the task of immigration with zeal and enthusiasm. The Government has taken many initiatives, the most recent one being the declaration of its refugee policy. The refugee issue is a key one, and its significance was unforgivably ignored or not realised by the previous socialist Administration. Its self-proclaimed humanitarianism was definitely found to be wanting. That fact should never be forgotten. We should not forget the way in which the previous socialist Administration handled the refugee problem. I would like to read to the Senate what Senator Mulvihill said in this chamber on 29 March 1977 about the refugee problem. His remarks are recorded on page 606 of the Senate Hansard. He said:

I have never felt that the United Nations refugee organisation was as efficient as it might be. I think that it has imposed unduly at times on Canada and Australia, but let us hope that in the light of the support of the unions I have enumerated justice will be done to those people across the Pacific.

As recently as yesterday Senator Mulvihill said, as reported at page 1266 of Hansard:

In turn, if Australia and Canada are bearing the major responsibility in this humanitarian area I should like to see some European countries which have a fairly high standard of living make even higher donations for the sustenance of refugee organisations than they are making at present.

Senator Mulvihill twice mentioned the point that Australia and Canada are the two countries which are taking a very high percentage of refugees while other countries are completely ignoring the people who find themselves outside their own country.

I refer now to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Under its charter it has 3 1 members which form the Executive Committee. It is an interesting fact that only in 1 967 the number of members of that Committee was increased from thirty to thirty-one.

The method by which the members of that Committee are chosen is set out in the Committee’s handbook. It reads:

The Committee is appointed on the widest possible geographical basis from those stares (members of the United Nations and others) with a demonstrated interest in. and devotion to, the solution of the refugee problems.

I am sure that the Senate will be interested to know that the thirty-first member to be appointed to that body was none other than Uganda. Another interesting fact is that included among those thirty-one members of the office of the High Commissioner for Refugees is none of those so-called humanitarian countries, led by the most humanitarian country in the world- the fatherland of the socialist forces in the world, the Soviet Union. None of those countries is included in the membership of that Committee. None of them has ever contributed a penny.

Senator Baume:

– It is a one-way street.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-That is right; it is only a one-way street. The humanitarianism of the socialist forces in this country and in countries all over the world stops where their ideology stops. That is a fact which can be substantiated by looking at the figures which I have just cited.

I would like to point out also that in 1975 the High Commission for Refugees had resettled, among others, 1925 Chilean refugees. Of that number, thirty-six went to Hungary and 103 to Romania. All of the others chose to go to Western democracies. That raises an interesting question. There are 3 questions really. Firstly, why did those people not choose to go to the so called humanitarian countries led by the Soviet Union? Did those countries reject their applications to go there? Secondly, maybe the refugees know exactly what kind of life exists in socialist paradises and they prefer to be ‘exploited’ by the socalled Western capitalists. The last possibility is that maybe those refugees- I am referring to the Chileans- chose to go to the Western countries because the people who support their ideologies in the Western countries lack revolutionary zeal and enthusiasm and have to be given a bit of new blood in order that they can continue to upset the Western democracies. Maybe it is a planned approach to increase the activities of the revolutionary groups in the Western world. I have stated my thoughts about the refugee problems. Everybody can read the facts if they want to do so.

I would like to analyse briefly the Green Paper dealing with population. The Green Paper is divided into 1 1 chapters. It covers all aspects of the population and immigration issue, from background chapters covering such areas as goals and options, population growth rate trends and recent policy history, right through to a discussion of the effect of immigration on the economy and the possible policy options. I would like to concentrate my discussion on the effect of immigration on the economy. However, I shall preface that discussion with some remarks on these background chapters. That will provide a perspective to the ensuing discussion. The initial chapters in the Green Paper are very important. The section covering goals and options deals with the national objectives in the light of the latest figures on population growth rate trends in Australia. The paper concentrates on immigration as an option in population policy. One could be concerned that it perhaps should have included more discussion on the growth of the natural population. However, as the report notes, immigration is the population variable most readily controllable by government in seeking specific population goals.

The objectives of immigration can be reduced to two: Firstly, those serving specific national interests such as providing needed manpower for industrial and economic development and more generally stimulating Australia’s economic growth; secondly, those of a humanitarian nature. This covers such areas as family reunion and refugee policies, which I have already mentioned. The fact that immigration policy is a component of both these objectives, each motivated by quite separate and different considerations, is very important. It is an unfortunate fact that the socio-economic system imposes a finite limit on our immigration absorptive capacity. This necessarily means that we are forced to weigh them against each other and act according to these established priorities. The Minister stated:

Ultimately, however, if an integrated comprehensivelybased policy is to be enumerated to serve the national interest as fully as possible, it is imperative that the various pros and cons be weighed up and, as far as possible, reconciled.

The paper then progresses to a discussion of recent trends in the growth of Australia’s population and the implications that they have. The question of the population growth rate is the crucial consideration when discussing the raison d’etre of this paper and the matters and facts revealed. This chapter convincingly supports the very real necessity for a consistent and sustained immigration intake if we are to ensure a healthy economy and a high standard of living in Australia. This statement is made in the light of the disturbing population growth rate trends occurring in Australia.

Another aspect of the paper relates to the question of migrants and the economy. The paper is facilitated by the perspective rendered by the previous discussion of the background. The paper rejects criticism that Australia’s immigration program has had adverse effects on capital accumulation, economies of scale, technological progress, employment and economic stability. It then deals separately with each of these aspects. Firstly, it deals with capital requirements, costs and immigration. This area resolves to a discussion of 2 major assertions: Firstly, the question of the viability of an immigration program in the light of the demands it makes on investment in infrastructure- social overhead capital- for instance, welfare, education, housing and so on. The paper dismisses this as manageable and short term in duration. The second assertion is the effect of the age and replacement of capital equipment in industry when migrants join and thus inflate the size of the workforce. The paper states:

There is little evidence that immigration is a major retarding influence on the growth of the capital-labour ratio in industry.

The paper suggests that in the short run immigration may have a dampening effect on the rate of growth of productivity and thus real wages. In the long term, the paper states that this should be countered by the expansion of production induced by the demand of migrants. The latter, coupled with the skills and enterprise they possess and apply, should secure gains in productivity and efficiency which, in conjunction with progress in technology, should ensure the long term basis for increasing real wages.

The next question with which the paper deals concerns migrants in the workforce. This is perhaps the area of most discussion and debate in immigration considerations. In this area immigration has supplemented areas of shortage of both skilled and unskilled labour. Such labour can be injected regionally and structurally as required by the labor force. Recruitment of migrants for this purpose can be controlled and directed to obtaining workers possessing necessary skills. The question which is so often asked and which is dealt with quite adequately in the paper is this: Has immigration increased pressures sustaining the high level of unemployment in Australia? A lot has been said about the high level of unemployment of migrants in Australia. Mr Whitlam claimed- falsely, I must say- at a migrant rally in Melbourne:

Migrants now have the highest unemployment in the Australian workforce. You are the first to be made redundant in an economic crisis, the first to suffer from the stagnation and cuts in government programs by this Government.

The honourable gentleman has forgotten, if he has ever known the fact, that the sackings in the industry are worked on the trade union principle of ‘last in first out ‘. This paper refutes the truth of Mr Whitlam ‘s statement. Further figures do also. Between November 1975 and November 1976 there was a drop from 70 000 to 69 700 in the number of overseas-born unemployed. This is a long way short of a doubling in migrant unemployment, as claimed by the honourable gentleman. In this 2-year period there was an increase of 8.6 per cent in overseas-born unemployed whereas unemployment generally in the Australia labour force rose by 26.5 per cent.

It is a fact that the Green Paper rejected as insupportable claims that immigration has added to unemployment. It states that, if anything, the evidence points to a very ready entry into earning activities by migrants. Unemployment currently in Australia is significantly structural in nature. Lack of skills in some areas is hampering economic recovery. Immigration is a positive policy instrument in alleviating this. The discussion on unemployment is brief. The paper states that the maintenance of stable intake and a consistent program is vitally important. This enables investment decisions to be made with a degree of certainty about future levels of the labour supply, market trends and the like. The recent inconsistency of the program, the paper implies, has been a disincentive to investors and has probably contributed to the generally depressed situation. It is interesting to note what La Fiama said in its front page editorial after the presentation of the paper. It said:

From all the arguments the fact comes clearly to light, that the immigration policies adopted during the last few years have not Deen in the best interests of this country.

On the question of economic stability the Council stated:

That it is difficult to support claims that immigration has made an independent and continuing contribution to inflation.

Apart from some short term disequilibria, the effects are dismissed. The discussion on the economy in the paper is a good one. It has clarified many fundamental misconceptions and unjustified fallacies about our immigration programs. This applies especially to the effect on unemployment levels and real wage rates, a subject much exploited by unions both in voicing and in attempting to justify their opposition to immigration. The discussion is qualified by a distinction between the short term and long term effects of policies. In any assessment of immigration this distinction is vital. It is vital also in considering the costs of immigration, especially in present times when these might appear uneconomical. The Minister states on this issue:

We cannot responsibly formulate a policy which serves the present but not the future, and vice versa- the best policy is one which optimally serves both today and the future.

It goes on to suggest:

The Australia of 1977 is very much the result of the decision taken by its leaders in years gone by . . .

Indeed, we cannot let present difficulties blind us from the economic and social realities of the future. The point made by the paper regarding the importance of having a stable and consistent policy is a fine one. In conclusion, the paper presents policy options. Firstly, it presents the option of cessation of immigration, as such, which is dismissed as totally unfeasible. Secondly, it presents the option of restricted intake of refugees and family reunions categories. This also is untenable as it would mean a net loss in numerical terms of skilled labour. The paper opts for a net intake of 50 000 people, with a gross of 100 000. This target the paper indicates could incorporate all groups justly and with respect to the national interest. In the longer term when the economic absorptive capacity of the country increases, this figure can be upstepped to a net gain of 70 000 to 100 000 people per annum. Many observers feel this is what is required currently as such a figure would allow more entries on humanitarian grounds and further would add stimulus to the economy and thus create more job opportunities.

These considerations will have to be qualified by two constants: Firstly, the statistics on total departures from Australia, in which we have found that in the past 10 years 339 000 Australian bom citizens left this country; and, secondly, the availability of suitable migrants, which should not be taken for granted, especially if we are giving priority to skilled categories. As the Minister noted, the success of an immigration policy is dependent upon its being actively pursued and being based on a public consensus. The debate provoked by the release of this report is most necessary to establish this consensus.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the Appropriation Bills. I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Mulvihill. In so doing, I want to refer to a speech made yesterday by Senator Wright. One of the main points of that speech, I recall, was that the institution of Parliament was threatened by the absence of senators from this place when they ought to be here. It is of interest to note that Senator Wright has not re-emerged, as far as I can recall, since he made that speech. But I do wish to refer to what he said because a lot of it stuck in my mind. It was, in fact, a fine and moving speech, particularly the last words, when he said:

So, in the last year of my existence in this place, I am putting forward this proposition in the hope that we will be able to formulate a new sense of purpose to enable parliamentary government to be the reality that people believe it is . . .

Of course, I cannot imitate Senator Wright in this chamber and my repetition of what he said is mundane by comparison with the way in which he delivered it. But, as I said, it was a fine speech- a fine theatrical Shakespearian speech. It would be a bold and presumptuous man who would pretend to match his eloquence. I am, however, sufficiently bold and presumptuous to challenge some of the assumptions which were at the basis of Senator Wright’s speech. In a sense it was a call to arms- a warning that Parliament and society was being white-anted from within and attacked from without. On a number of occasions he referred to the crisis of Parliament. He saw the crisis of Parliament as being illustrated by a number of points which he put forward. One was the lack of quorums in the Senate; another was that too much power was given to the executive arm of government; a third was a lack of diligence in relation to Appropriation Bills in the Senate; a fourth point was a decline of the work ethic in Australia; and a fifth point was a lack of social discipline in societies like Australia. In citing these points he used as his authority to support his argument none other than Lord George-Brown, a distinguished politician in Britain, as Senator Wright described him. In fact he described him in these words:

He is a most astute man, an intellectual man and a man of judgment. One failing or one frailty lost him the Prime Ministership.

That was a very polite way of putting it. One might have put it that Lord George-Brown fell over in the gutter outside No 10 Downing Street and that lost him the Prime Ministership. But the quotation from Lord George-Brown which runs to some length in Senator Wright’s speech is devoted to the same sort of points which Senator Wright was seeking to make- the sort of points which led him to call for what he called ‘the new sense of purpose ‘ in Australian society.

I see what Senator Wright was saying as a journey into retrospect. I saw him and listened to him as a man like Hotspur who summoned spirits from the vasty deep which would not come. In fact, everything Senator Wright said amounted to a sigh for the past- a nostalgia for the days when government in Australia was relatively simple and when this country, in a sense lived on the sheep’s back or, as Senator Lajovic no doubt will recall, to some extent on the migrant’s back. It was a time when economic decisions were much easier to make and when government was much easier. Where I differ with Senator Wright is that I believe that those days are gone forever and unless this Parliament faces up to that fact it is as doomed as he in his most deep forebodings considers it is doomed. I thought he failed to face up to some of the very key facts about the nature of our society- about questions such as the restructuring of industry, the decline of manufacturing industry in Australia, the need for a manpower policy and the complex nature of the industrial relations scene. All those things did not have to be faced up to in the period about which Senator Wright was talking.

In his speech he rejected- and some of his colleagues have rejoiced- the apparent sanctity of our 1900 vintage Constitution, which has a high degree off immunity from change. In 1 977 Senator Wright persists in describing this chamber as a States House and apparently is incapable of recalling as far back as 1975 when his revered leader in this place, Senator Withers, walked the corridors of non-power here boasting that he had 3 1 in the bag when the then Leader of the Opposition in the other place had Senator Wright and other honourable senators now on the Government side of the chamber waiting breathlessly to find out what they had to do at the behest of the then Leader of the Opposition in the other place. Senators waited to find out what to do.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is a load of rubbish!

Senator BUTTON:

– There is a mumble from the past that what I am saying is a lot of rubbish. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack would be no more capable of facing up to the facts I have outlined than Senator Wright would be, but of course that is the precise point I am making.

I want to examine the sort of things Senator Wright was talking about in the light of the political problems in recent weeks which he talked about- some of the problems that have bedevilled this country in the past few weeks and probably will do so for the next 30 years. The first example that Senator Wright took was the air traffic controllers strike. He bemoaned the fact that parliamentarians looked very silly because they were able to travel around the country which they apparently governed only in Royal Australian Air Force planes. Like others, he suggested that the solution to that problem might be in some form of social discipline, which is always talked about but is never capable of being prescribed. Like many Ministers, he probably deluded himself into the belief that the air traffic controllers strike was being run by a group of militants with some allegiance to a foreign power. All these mumblings, which have the approval of some Government senators, are totally unreal and do not assist them in any way to face up to the realities of that sort of situation.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was no better. He told the air traffic controllers during the course of the strike that they would get not one cent. I think I can tell him now that they will get a lot more than one cent. He will have to discover, as every Prime Minister in this country has to discover, that it is not as easy to make statements of this sort and make them stick as Prime Ministers would like. So, we had a lot of threats and a lot of abuse, but no action. Behind all the bluster nothing happened, because the Government was incapable of taking any action which would have resolved that dispute along the lines it would have liked in terms of its rhetoric of 1977.

Senator Missen:

– It is often difficult to deal with bushrangers.

Senator BUTTON:

– It is very difficult. The bushrangers to whom the honourable senator is referring are a fact of life in Australia society, and one has to deal with them if one is in government. All I am saying is that it is not easy to do so. If one compares the rhetoric of 1977 in this regard with the rhetoric of 1975, one sees the differences between the Opposition of 1975, and its promises about how it would resolve these matters, and the Government of 1977. It recalls to mind the phrase that life was not meant to be easy. It was not meant to be easy for Prime Ministers as well as others. That applies particularly to Prime Ministers in Australia, with the Constitution about which Senator Wright spoke at length. In 1975 Mr Fraser said:

Our view is that satisfactory industrial relations depend ultimately on the attitudes of mind of people in industry. Attitudes of mutual respect, of willingness to listen, to understand, to reason, and discuss in an informed way, are essential. These attitudes cannot be created by any party’s industrial relations policies.

He also emphasised the need for the prevention of industrial disputes and so on. I cite the air traffic controllers dispute as an example involving a government which gave forth a lot of bluster but which was unable to do anything about the dispute. I cite that because Senator Wright was talking about the decline in the respect for the institution of Parliament. One of the reasons for that decline is that half the time it cannot do what it says it can do and pretends it can do.

Let me take another example. Only today the Prime Minister announced that the price-wage pause was at an end. That was only 6 weeks after it was announced. Now it is officially off. Everybody in Australia knows that it was never really on, because of the absence of power in this Parliament to do anything about it. It was suggested that the wage-price pause would be a voluntary one but that the wage aspect of it would, if possible, be compulsory. There never was any such power in this Parliament, because, for one thing, of decisions made by the then Opposition in 1973 to campaign against the referendum on prices and incomes. That referendum was not carried. The Government now finds itself without the power which would enable it to do the things which it would like to have done in the contest of the so-called price-wage pause.

Senator Primmer:

– It is hoist with its own petard.

Senator BUTTON:

-Precisely. The reality of life in a society such as Australia is that a wage freeze alone cannot be imposed when a company such as the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia says that it will not be bound by any price freeze; when the Managing Director of Safeways, the supermarket chain, says ‘We will impose a voluntary price pause, but we will review it every day’; when exemptions are announced by the Government the moment the so-called pause is announced; when it does not apply to incomes as distinct from wages; when it does not apply to dividends- numerous companies during the course of the so-called pause announced dividend policies contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Government; when parents of Australian children who travelled in the recent school holidays know that motels increased prices for that period; and when a government which promised wage indexation did not keep that promise.

In all these contexts it is not reasonable to expect that that sort of gimmickry can be imposed on Australian society. That sort of thing can be imposed on any society only if one has the constitutional power to do so and the will to do so. I do not want to go into an analysis of the Government’s degree of genuine will about that gimmick, but it did not have the power to do what it wanted to do. If one looks at the whole question of incomes in that context one sees that governments- this Government in particularhave never been prepared to grapple with that question. Until it does so, until a government is prepared to do so, we cannot say to people earning wages that they are not entitled to wage increases, when those people know that incomes for non-wage earners are rising. That is the sort of problem which I believe we as a parliament must face up to.

Let me turn to another issue which is relevant to what Senator Wright said. I refer to manufacturing industry and manpower policy. The Government has produced a White Paper on manufacturing industry. There have been some furtive noises about a manpower policy. I recall Senator Lajovic ‘s remarks of a few minutes ago to the effect that the Australia of 1977 is very much a result of decisions of leaders of days gone by. Of course it is. The decisions of leaders of days gone by in relation to manpower policy were those of a Liberal government in 1968. The then Treasurer boasted in international forums that we did not have any manpower policy in Australia and that we left it to market forces. That was a decade after most countries of equal economic sophistication had developed manpower policies. I agree with Senator Lajovic ‘s point about today’s problems being the results of previous failures. This is perhaps another reason why the decline in the influence of Parliament about which Senator Wright talked is occurring. Again the realities do not match the rhetoric.

I think the problem of the restructuring of industry and developing a manpower policy for this country will be so enormous in the next couple of decades that we in this Parliament should be thinking about making a decision to cut defence expenditure drastically and to redirect those resources to the restructuring of industries. I think we should be thinking seriously about trying to develop a bipartisan policy and not relying on the adversary system in respect of this very grave problem for the captains of capital, whom honourable senators opposite represent, and for labour, which we represent.

Senator Walters:

– What rot! Absolute rot!

Senator BUTTON:

– We are not talking about apples and pears now. The word ‘rot’ is appropriate to them. If the honourable senator is hostile to the view that there should be a bipartisan policy on this important issue, because she does not understand it, I hope she will express her hostility at the appropriate time.

Senator Missen:

– You are suggesting that the confrontation between capital and labour no longer exists.

Senator BUTTON:

-I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that capital and labour have mutual interests in this respect.

Senator Missen:

– And are mutually represented across the chamber.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Walters might regard herself as an exception. I do not want to paint all honourable senators opposite in the same colour. I agree that there are different shades. Basically the point which I am making is true. We represent different interests in that respect. What I am saying to the Senate is that on these issues the context of the adversary system under which the Parliament operates is detrimental to the interests of industry in this country and it is detrimental to the interests of labour in this country.

Senator Chaney:

– Quite right.

Senator BUTTON:

-I am grateful to Senator Chaney for his brief interjection when he said quite right’ because I think he is aware of the sort of problems which totally elude Senator Walters. All this amounts to saying that we live in a very complex society, in a post-industrial society in which there are no easy solutions for governments- no easy solutions at all. There are none of the son of soft options which Senator Young was talking about tonight in relation to energy. I do not believe seriously that they are available to us. In a society in which there are few soft options and no easy solutions the Parliament has, I believe, a not very significant role to play at all. Those of us who are parliamentarians would, I believe, better serve the country if we recognised that fact and recognised that many of the decisions and debates that we have here are not of half the significance that many of us sometimes think they are. I think there are alternative reasons for the institution of parliament falling into disrespect- alternative reasons of the type which I have indicated, such as the incapacity to grapple with contemporary problems. That incapacity is one of which this Government has provided some classic examples. Again, if one compares the rhetoric of 1 975 on unemployment, for example, when the Prime Minister of today said in December of that year:

Unemployment is the worst possible way of restraining industrial conflict. It solves nothing. It will be a principal objective of our policy to re-establish and maintain the circumstances in which full employment will prevail.

Of course 2 years later the present Prime Minister has discovered his own inadequacies in regard to his words of 1 975. They are not entirely personal inadequacies- he has those- but they are inadequacies of the parliamentary system and the way the system operates in relation to its capacity to grapple with these issues. The same thing can be said about inflation. The same can be said about the promised return of business confidence. The same can be said about all the sort of glib talk about getting people in Australia working again as if one could do it by waving a magic wand. These are all fantasies, absolute fantasies. They are fantasies which are not assisted by the frustration which arises when a government discovers that it cannot do any of these things in Australia and then decides that it will get people working again by waving a big stick over them. That is the ultimate fantasy and the ultimate delusion.

I would have thought that Senator Wright, a man for whose ability I have a great respect, might have made a greater contribution in this debate to the contemporary problems about which he talks if he had pursued with more vigour his own convictions of 1959- nearly 20 years ago- when he was just passed the peak of his career as a parliamentarian. In 1959 he was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review. In 1959 as a supporter of the Menzies Government- nearly 20 years ago- he recognised the fact that the Commonwealth Parliament lacked sufficient powers to deal with the sort of contemporary problems which existed in 1959. Again I come back to what Senator Lajovic said: The problems of today are the inheritance of yesterday. In 1959 Senator Wright saw that it was necessary in the interests of the good government of this country if it was to develop as a viable political democracy, if its economy was to develop, to have changes to the industrial powers of the Commonwealth; he saw that there would have to be changes to the broadcasting powers, to the corporations powers, to the marketing powers of the Commonwealth Government; he saw that the Commonwealth Government should have power over interest rates; he saw that there should be alterations to the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution. In 1959 Senator Wright saw all these things and the Government of the day saw all of these things, but for 20 years they sat on them and they did nothing about them. Senator Wright described himself last night as a grizzly bear, I think, but for 20 years he grunted away about these things and did nothing about them. The somnolence of that period in a sense leads to the seeds of destruction probably of the Whitlam Government and probably of the Fraser Government because neither of those governments has had or has the capacity to tackle the problems which face Australia as a contemporary society in 1977. The delusions, as I say, of 1975 of the Fraser Government about what it could do in this country have been shown to be false and manifestly delusions.

Of course the sad thing about all that is that a politician of Senator Wright’s generation and Senator Wright’s considerable ability sees these things, sees solutions to all these problems with which he cannot quite grapple and with which probably we are all inadequate to grapple as being some sort of reinvigoration of the life of the Senate- a little more attention to quorums and committees and watching the power of executive government and a few things like that will mean that all these things will come right and, suddenly, the Australian people will come to respect the institution of the Parliament again and know that we are all behaving ourselves here and working very hard on their behalf. But of course that is no solution at all. What the Australian people are entitled to look for from the Parliament and from governments is achievement. There can be no achievement in relation to the sorts of problems which Senator Wright discussed and to which I have adverted tonight in the context of an absence of power to deal with those achievements and, in some sense, in the absence of some unanimity within this Parliament about the extent of those problems and perhaps a bipartisan approach towards some of them if we are, in the interest of the people of this country, to achieve anything very significant in the future.

So while I share that sad view, expressed in the last year of my existence in this place, as Senator Wright put it, and while I share his concern about this institution, I see very different reasons for that quite legitimate concern- very different reasons for it- and very different solutions to the sorts of problems which he poses. Senator Wright is a very difficult act to follow, but I am grateful to him because the points which he made were I think valiant efforts but difficult ones conceptually for him to deal with. I am not in any sense being patronising about that, and I hope I do not sound so. They are difficult problems for us all to deal with and I think, if we do not face up to them in a very real way, the sort of fears which a man like he has will continue to be justified and will get worse as the institution of parliament is seen not to be an achiever, as parliament is seen to be an under-achieving institution. So long as it is an under-achieving institution in terms of the lives of the ordinary people of this community it will not get the sort of respect which Senator Wright and I, and I believe other honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, hope for.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-The Appropriation Bills now before the Senate deal with a wide range of government activities and services. Government departments are seeking additional funding for a variety of activities. This sort of legislation affords honourable senators the opportunity to discuss a wide range of subjects dealing with government activities and public affairs. I want to take up a point that I was making yesterday in my question to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) concerning education needs in the future. There is some controversy today, and I suppose there always will be, about education expenditure and the matter of value for money. I drew the attention of the Minister to a paper that I read about that had just been issued in the United Kingdom which states that big changes in education policies will be required in that country to meet the dramatic developments in the next 25 years. I asked the Minister whether his Department had done any research in relation to that period ahead as far as Australia was concerned.

It is not only a matter of providing funds or equipment for education facilities in the next quarter of a century; it is also a matter of taking account of community needs bearing in mind employment opportunities, social welfare, social outlooks and job and community satisfaction. In his reply the Minister indicated that the Government had been doing some work on this matter and I have been following his advice by looking at one or two areas which he mentioned. Before dealing with those I think it is important to highlight, with regard to education in a debate of this kind, that in the developments in the structure of education and the growing interest in new concepts and new styles of education- open education, recurrent education, retraining and the growing importance of the recognition of technical and further education- there is the whole matter of the relevance of education to a person’s working life, social life and family life. All of these things I believe require not only Government attention but also continuing, changing and developing community thought and research.

I was interested to learn from the Minister that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development a few months ago conducted a review of Australian education, focusing its attention on the important matter of the transition from school to work or to further study. It is a matter of some satisfaction that the Government has recognised that a comprehensive review is required and that this review is under way and will complement and not duplicate the other reviews that have taken place or that are taking place in the various States. This review takes on an added importance because Australia, as an advanced industrial nation and economy, has aspirations and demands that mean that a substantial share of the nation’s resources must be devoted to the cause of education. When we speak of matters of education in this context we are not thinking so much of studies that may take place in a classroom, laboratory or library but of education in its total and widest possible sense; that is, education for living.

If an educational system fails to provide the community with satisfaction and fails to provide people with skills which they can use not only in their vocation and their work but also in a recreational and social sense, then the education system is most unsatisfactory. I think it can be argued that the existing pattern of education and training in Australia has led to some bottlenecks in our economy. We have faced from time to time shortages of critical skills which have created difficulties in job opportunities in a number of areas. There is a danger that as the economic growth of a nation gathers it can be hampered by the inadequate availability of people not only with the appropriate skills but also with appropriate desires to use those skills. So, there is a great need for examining the relationship between the labour market and the education system and the education system and our social system. We must always take into account that there is a considerable number of young people in any generation who do not proceed too long into secondary schools. The role of the education system in preparing people for work and influencing their choice of occupation is, of course, of the greatest possible importance.

Therefore, I have been interested to learn from the Minister of the work of the Williams Committee, which currently is undertaking a substantial review and whose terms of reference are very extensive. The terms of reference cover the points to which I have referred already as well as a great many others. I hope that the delivery of this report will not be too long delayed and that when it is finally presented it will take into account the total facets of community life and living not only at the present time but particularly in the rapidly changing circumstances that undoubtedly will occur within the next 25 years.

I turn briefly to one of the chapters of the OECD inquiry, to which the Minister referred. This is a very large, comprehensive and detailed report. I select merely that chapter to which I have already made reference. It concerns what is referred to in the chapter as ‘transition to work’. It places some importance on the transition of school leavers from their school to their commencement of full time employment and some of the problems and emphases as far as Australia is concerned. It starts off with the problems of young people in rural areas in a rapidly changing and developing society. There is also the important issue of the degree of expectancy felt by employers today. They are expecting greater educational qualifications than before. They are expecting greater results from applicants for their jobs. This has a particular effect upon young people who leave school at an earlier age, say, at 15 years of age, and who do not pursue any further or later education. As people who are uneducated and unskilled they are in a particularly unfortunate situation. The OECD makes the observation that apprenticeships are something of a problem and are becoming scarce due to the increased costs which are related to them. Interestingly enough the OECD emphasises the points made by employers concerning a number of problems with applicants for jobs in their establishments. They referred to what are seemingly such unimportant problems today as lack of punctuality and respect for authority and even the failure to dress appropriately. I place greater emphasis on the fact that there is a complaint from the employer section as to the level of literacy.

I suppose most important of all in the OECD reference to Australian education is that it notes with concern the circumstances of people in the lower economic classes. They have less chance of gaining the employment of their choice and many people in that group give up any hope of improving themselves and are thereby resigned to a number of set tasks. This, of course, is a matter of very great seriousness because not only do these people resign themselves to a life that can be dull and uninteresting but also in so doing they are unable to share in the good order that a well educated society experiences. Again, it is to be hoped that as a result of the reviews which are taking place some particular emphasis will be placed on the need for assistance to these people at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.

It is interesting in this matter of education, which always involves a great deal of public discussion, that the wheel of public interest seems to have done something of a complete circle and that we are coming round to discovering that there is a great lack of skill in the community today concerning literacy and numeracy. This does not reflect credit on the plans that were made and carried out in education say in the last 20 to 25 years when a whole range of new ideas, new thoughts and new plans were put forward as being superior for the development of educational skills. Now we find that there is a generation which is starting to learn the simple tables and simple spelling disciplines that were standard education practice a good many years ago. I hope that as this generation receives the benefit of modern interpretation, it will provide those people who are receiving that kind of education with a degree of satisfaction which certainly a great number of people who missed out on that style of education are not getting today.

In the Appropriation Bill there are a number of items which cover Australian activities both at home and in an external capacity. Recent years have thrown Australia as a nation into a number of circumstances and into a number of problems. They seem to be compounded as we draw towards the end of this century. They seem to be compounded in spite of the fact that there is a great advance in technology, literature, science and all of the other superior disciplines. We still find ourselves living in what I have described before as the century of the homeless man. I am referring to the world refugee problem.

Refugees I suppose were most known to those of us here after World War II although of course refugees have existed throughout history. In our time when there were some 9 million refugees in Europe alone at the end of World War II we became aware of this situation and of the great need. Australia was identified then as a country that was prepared to accept an intake of refugees. From 1947 to 1952 something like 170 000 displaced persons arrived in Australia. After the Hungarian crisis in 1956 we took in some 14 000 refugees, and 10 years later as a result of the uprisings in Czechoslovakia 5500 refugees came to this country. We have continued to accept refugees from various sources in the years since then. In the period from 1970 to 1975 some 35 000 refugees have come to us from Austria. Of course many of those people were passing through Austria from many other countries.

During a great deal of this period when we have been accepting refugees into Australia our immigration program has been flowing at a very high level, so much so that in addition to those people to whom I have just referred we have spent a great deal of time and money seeking more migrants from what we have known as the migrant source countries. Today a refugee situation of a different kind has arisen in our own part of the world. Our experience with refugees has been largely as a country a long way from the centre of the trouble which caused the refugee situation, but now we find ourselves as it were in the centre of a refugee situation. New circumstances involving refugees from Indo China and South East Asia have evolved. I am pleased that the Government has responded to the demands that these new circumstances have made. If the circumstances are different from those that existed at the end of World War II the basic human problems are the same. The United Nations definition of refugees reads:

Any person who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality or is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

It is a very complex definition but it sets out in appropriate United Nations terms how a refugee may well be described. Indeed the Green Paper on immigration policies and Australia’s population points out also that historically victims of many different circumstances have been called refugees. Displaced persons, stateless persons, persons seeking political asylum, defectors, members of oppressed minorities and victims of national disasters all have been described at some time as refugees. Australia has become involved in these situations and has to act responsibly.

The Green Paper refers to the fact that future refugee policy to be taken into account must not only apply to persons in refugee situations who might be admitted for permanent resettlement, but also must look at the possibility of Australia, by force of circumstance if not by choice, being a country of first asylum for refugees from nearby regions. Already we have had experience with evacuees from East Timor and Vietnam. A country of first asylum is, I suppose, only a place of temporary refuge for persons until they can be resettled in other countries. Nevertheless it must be pointed out that refugees who come under first asylum provisions require special assistance and services while they are in Australia. I mention this because it raises the issue of the need for planning and the provision of such facilities and services. The matter of education is one which in its broad ways has the capacity of providing these facilities and services. The planning must also recognise that some of those admitted under these first asylum provisions may seek to remain permanently in Australia and that many may not be accepted for settlement in other countries. All of this makes up for a very complex situation to which the Government, I am glad to say, has been giving particular attention but the Government will be required to give more attention to it. What is more, the Government will have to take the community along with it. Therefore the statement which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has put out is interesting and welcome. We are glad that he has indicated that Australia has accepted a responsibility to contribute towards a solution of the world refugee problem.

I think the Minister had a high degree of expectancy when he talked about the solution of the world refugee problem in the nongovernment agency field. I have had a personal involvement in this matter for a long time, including one exercise known as World Refugee Year. We were going to solve the world refugee problem. That year is a long way behind us and the problems certainly have not been solved. I think all that we can deal with are our next steps. However, let us accept with appreciation that the Government has taken this strong line of indicating that it wants to make an adequate contribution. It is also true to point out that our capacity to accept a great number of people is not unlimited. Our capacity depends on a number of factors. Included in the factors- I notice the Minister has mentioned this- are the number of refugees for which voluntary agencies or non-government organisations can care.

The Government has committed itself on 4 priniciples as far as refugees are concerned. It recognises its humanitarian commitment and its responsibility to admit refugees for resettlement, it points out that a decision regarding admittance must always remain with the Government of Australia. Special assistance will often need to be provided for movement from one place to another. The Government also points out, I think wisely, that it may not be in the best interests of some refugees to settle in Australia: It may well be that they must be resettled in some other part of the world. The Minister indicated that he was setting up a standing interdepartmental committee on refugees. It will be made up of senior officers of a number of departments. The committee will advise the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on a number of matters. It will consult annually, and otherwise as necessarythe emphasis is on consulting annually- with voluntary agencies regarding the numbers that could be accepted for resettlement. The committee will give advice in certain other areas.

In relation to this matter I turn to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled ‘Australia and the Refugee Problem’. The strong recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee was that the Government should set up an advisory committee to be known as the Austraiian Refugee Policy Council for the purpose of assisting the Government to formulate an Australian policy on all aspects of refugee resettlement. The recommendation goes on to indicate some of the areas in which this policy council might work. The point on which I wish to place emphasis is where the Standing Committee states:

Membership of this body should be drawn from both government and non-government sources. On the nongovernment side, membership should comprise representatives from the major Australian refugee-receiving and overseasaid agencies, the Australian representative of the UNHCR - the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees-

Red Cross, other organisations having practical experience in settlement work and post-hostel community support for refugees, and representatives from the academic community.

In addition, it stated that a similar number of representatives should be drawn from the Government and it listed a number of departments. I notice in the Minister’s plans for Government action on this matter that a wide range of Government departments will be represented on the inter-departmental committee. I think that we will learn in a few days, if not tomorrow, that Austcare- the major nongovernment organisation in Australia for caring for refugees- is disappointed about this, especially in view of the conferences that were held between the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, his Department and the nongovernment organisation. I emphasise that voluntary organisations have been caring for refugees for as long as, if not longer than, governments have. I have had a close association with this matter in times past. Over the years these voluntary organisations have relieved governments of a great deal of responsibility. Non-government organisations have raised millions of dollars. They have established large social welfare programs, housing programs and education programs.

Australia today has a great number of people who are skilled in the matter of looking after refugees. They have one unparalleled advantage which no inter-departmental committee could ever have, and that is that they are able to persuade public opinion in relation to public attitudes to refugees. Very real problems exist in this area. It is all very well for someone involved in it to make his own commendations, but not everybody has the same attitude on this matter and people need to see what their fellow citizens are doing rather than what a government says it proposes to do. The non-government organisations and their supporters, in concert with the Government, could work out an interdependence which would inform government on the one hand and persuade people on the other. I am a great believer in advisory committees which comprise both government representatives and community representatives. Therefore, I have some criticism of the Minister’s plans for the mechanism for dealing with the refugee situation. As I recall his references, he will consult at least annually with voluntary organisations. This is ignoring a great source of humanitarian talent which also can persuade the Australian community. There are many other observations I could make about the Appropriation Bills, but I rest with those two because they are of some interest to me at this stage.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Senate is debating 2 Appropriation Bills. I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt. Before proceeding to direct my remarks to the Appropriation Bills, I take this opportunity to record on behalf of my constituents, the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, our satisfaction at the results of the recent referendums. In particular, I record the satisfaction of the constituents of the Australian Capital Territory with the decision of the rest of the Australian electorate to accord to us, the citizens of the Territories, the right to participate in future referendums affecting the Constitution. It is a most important right. It is one that Territorians have long regretted not having. We welcome this democratic decision by our fellow citizens in the Australian States.

Let me say at this stage also that we take heart that the current attempts to reduce the democratic rights of the citizens of the Territories- attempts which are being pursued by 2 Liberal and National Country Party State governments- will not succeed. We believe that now there is a clear indication to those making decisions in these matters that the citizens of the Australian States do regard their fellow Australians in the Territories as their equals and do consider that they should have equal political rights. For this, the people of the Territories are most grateful. I suggest to the Senate that the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory demonstrated a progressive attitude to matters that might arise by way of referendum. They were given by the present Government the option to vote in the poll to choose a national tune. In the Australian Capital Territory we recorded a majority vote in favour of the tune of Waltzing Matilda. I think that bodes well for the future participation by citizens of the Territories in referendum proposals.

I now turn my attention to the Appropriation Bills before us. I remind the Senate that the effect of the amendment moved by the Opposition is to criticise the Government for its economic policies- in particular, its inept economic strategy which depends on the slashing of government spending- and its failure to provide constructive alternative economic policies. Nowhere, I suggest, is the failure of such policies better demonstrated than in the national capital, in the Australian Capital Territory. I propose to relate to the Senate some distressing evidence of the failure of the Government’s economic policies as it is manifested in the Australian Capital Territory. Before I do so, I should like to comment on some of the points raised by preceding speakers in this debate.

Senator Lajovic raised a very interesting issue with regard to future population policies in Australia, particularly as they affect immigration policies, which is a matter of great concern to all of us. He raised the subject of unemployment amongst migrant groups. He cited figures which he claimed refuted the claim by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, that migrant groups had been particularly hard hit by unemployment. By way of interjection, I tried to draw Senator Lajovic ‘s attention to the fact that the figures he was quoting were by no means complete. I will now take this opportunity to clarify what I meant. As far as migrant participation in the work force is concerned, one characteristic is of particular interest. I am referring to the extremely high participation in the work force of married women of migrant background. The rate is much higher than the comparable rate for Australian born married women. This extremely high rate of participation by migrant women in the work force exists because of the need for migrant families to become established in Australia. Most of the migrant women working in Australia were working in areas such as manufacturing industry. They have been the hardest hit by the failure of the Government’s economic policies as manifested in the collapse of manufacturing industry.

Thousands upon thousands of married migrant women working in manufacturing industry have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. Those women do not appear in the unemployment statistics, because if they are married and the husband is earning more than $70 a week they are not eligible for the dole. Therefore, although they do have the right to register as unemployed, they rarely exercise that right. I might add that their plight is extremely grave in the current economic circumstances because a properly funded retraining scheme for workers made redundant through economic failure no longer exists. If Senator Lajovic is genuinely interested in the extent of unemployment in migrant groups, I suggest that he address himself to investigating the unemployment amongst married migrant women. I suggest also that he endeavour to get the Government, of which he is a supporter, to carry out a survey of this serious social and economic problem. At the moment the extent of unemployment in this group is unknown. If Senator Lajovic is genuinely interested in that subject he could aid those migrant groups who are experiencing high levels of unemployment by seeking sound data on which policies could be developed.

For the Australian Capital Territory the Fraser Government has had two economic strategies both equally disastrous. The first was simply that of slashing public expenditure with no regard to the close inter-connection between the public and private sectors in the Australian Capital Territory. The second was an arbitrary imposition of staff ceilings throughout the Public Service. This was a crude and very ineffective method of reducing the number of persons employed as Commonwealth public servants. Both of these strategies have failed and both have brought about economic chaos and the highest unemployment figures that we have ever experienced in the Australian Capital Territory.

I raise these matters not simply because of my parochial concern for the Australian Capital Territory but because in the Territory the Government of the day has no excuse for bad management. Federal governments can always blame the State governments for what happens in the States. They can claim that State governments are poor administrators or are not pulling their weight or maintaining their level of financial expenditure, and so on. The Government of the day can make no such claim about the national capital. It is interesting what the Federal Government does when it is unimpeded by State governments. It manages very badly and applies very crude tools to the economic situation. One example of this - it is a very important example because it affects all Australians- is the question of housing. The Government in its last Budget decided to cut the allocation for housing in the Australian Capital Territory by over 50 per cent. It cut the amount available for Commissioner for Housing Loans from $24.6m to $ 12m.

It did a number of other things. It increased rents in some cases to the extent of 100 per cent. It imposed a means test on eligibility for Commissioner for Housing Loans and rental of Government housing which was so strict as to exclude very many medium and in some cases low income families from this form of housing. So severe was the restriction placed on the Commissioner for Housing loans that the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) was embarrassed to find a couple of months ago that a large proportion of the money allocated for Commissioner for Housing loans in fact had not been borrowed by would be Canberra home buyers. This is an absurd situation given the current difficulty of gaining housing finance. It came about for 2 reasons. One was that the Government would not set a realistic means test for eligibility. It would not recognise average income or the cost of living. The other was that the Government kept the Commissioner for Housing loan, which is available at a low interest rate, at the very low figure of $ 1 5,000. Many representations have been made to the Government by people, including the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem), to increase the amount to $20,000, which would be more realistic and which would enable people to start a home purchase; but the Government has remained deaf to all pleas. So many young families in Canberra cannot rent or buy nouses. Money allocated for the specific purpose of assisting them cannot be used because of the unrealistic attitude of the Government.

The effect on the housing industry has caused distress and disappointment on families anxious to get their own home. The Government’s attitude has also caused disaster in the building and construction industry. A report in the Canberra Times on Friday, 20 May, stated:

The A.C.T. had nearly the lowest rate of housing commencements during the March quarter due to the Government ‘s policy of curtailing growth in the Territory, an official of the Master Builders Federation of Australia said yesterday.

Note the source of the criticism.

The vice-president, housing, of the federation, Mr M. N. Mitchell, was commenting on preliminary building estimates for the March quarter issued by the Bureau of Statistics yesterday.

The figures showed that 620 houses were commenced in the A.C.T. during the March quarter, compared with 670 commencements during the December quarter. This was a fall of 7.5 per cent.

The number of new houses approved in the A.C.T. during the March quarter was 340, compared with 790 approvals during the December quarter, a fall of 60 per cent.

The number of new houses completed during the latest quarter was 540, compared with 970 completed previously. This was a fall of 54.4 per cent.

Mr Mitchell said that the building slump throughout Australia which was evident in the housing industry was reflected in the March figures.

Mr Mitchell said some of the problems affecting the building slump needed long-term solutions. But other solutions could be effected ‘in reasonably short terms with minimum impact on economic strategy if the Government has the will and is prepared to consider selective measures’.

I will repeat that proviso. It comes from the Master Builders Federation. It states that the problem could be ameliorated if the Government had the will and was prepared to consider selective measures. The report went on:

Some of these solutions included changes in the security deposit ratio for savings banks, a release of trading bank controls in regards to housing finance and an indexing of government loans closer to the real cost of housing.

The Government could follow such strategies. It would lose nothing by doing so other than losing face because it would be admitting that its previous strategy had been wrong. It could bring home purchase within the reach of many families and it could give much needed stimulation to the building and construction industry. I hope that Senator Cotton will take note of the recommendations made by the Master Builders Federation.

The effect of an across the board crude reduction in Public Service staff ceilings also has been disastrous in the Australian Capital Territory. It is not the position of the Opposition, nor was it the position of the Australian Labor Party when in government, that the bureaucracy must continue to grow and expand. It is not our position now that there is no case for rationalisation of resources within the Public Service. Despite accusations to the contrary, we were not and are not a bureaucratic-minded party. However, the Coombs report made several excellent recommendations for rationalising the number of people employed as Commonwealth public servants, but instead of taking note of those recommendations the Fraser Government simply imposed a figure down to which various Public Service departments had to go within a specific time. It gave no opportunity for sound management including staff management. It gave no recognition to the career structure of the Public Service. It was merely a crude way of reducing numbers. It has reduced numbers but it has meant that whereas some departments have adequate numbers of officers to perform tasks other departments are now desperately understaffed. Several of these departments are central to the administration of the Australian Capital Territory. The Department of the Capital Territory itself is suffering from severe staff shortages. One example is that the transport section has a 3-month pile up of work. When some urgent need with regard to traffic control or some other matter of vital concern to the community arises staff simply is not available to do the work. Similarly, the decision to reduce the number of ancillary staff in schools in the Australian Capital Territory has caused a great deal of industrial trouble. There have been more problems with the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation during the period ofthe Fraser Administration than ever previously. The situation is still unsatisfactory in that there is still inadequate ancillary staff in the Australian Capital Territory schools and the education of the children suffers.

Another example of mismanagement, I think, is to be found in the Government’s attitude to providing financial assistance to Koomarri. Koomarri is an excellent institution and one which has a great deal of support from the Australian Capital Territory community. The Koomarri complex includes a pre-school, a school for handicapped children, sheltered workshops for handicapped persons and various other programs, shops and enterprises which provide income for running the Koomarri organisation. However, being the sort of institution that it is, it does require government support. Expecting that government support would be maintained at previous levels, Koomarri expanded its operations in order to provide more facilities for handicapped persons and children in the Australian Capital Territory. But the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) was unable to maintain the level of funding which would have allowed Koomarri to expand its operations as required. As a result Koomarri has had to reduce the services it has offered.

It has a waiting list of 30 handicapped persons for accommodation and 30 persons are waiting for places in the sheltered workshops. There are 50 children in special schools on a waiting list to move into the sheltered workshop position in the next 3 years. I would have thought that an institution like Koomarri, which makes strenuous and effective efforts to raise revenue on its own through its shops, its carpentry workshops and so forth, would attract a greater degree of assistance than it has been successful in attracting to date. I again suggest that in this debate on the Appropriation Bills we are criticising the shortsightedness of the Government in failing to give adequate financial support to institutions such as Koomarri.

Senator Knight:

– Is that why the Labor Government refused to build the Koomarri school?

Senator RYAN:

– It has been suggested by Senator Knight that the Labor Government refused to build the Koomarri school. The facts, of course, are quite different from what he suggests. The Koomarri school was planned for a long time. Its financial allocation was approved in the last Labor Budget. Because that Budget was never implemented there was yet another delay. I am pleased to say that funds have now been made available for that purpose.

I draw the attention of the Senate to the extent of unemployment in the Australian Capital Territory. The April figures show that 4496 persons are registered as unemployed in the Australian Capital Territory. That is an extremely high figure. It is the highest number of unemployed we have ever had in the Australian Capital Territory. However, we find that there are only 748 job vacancies. So however much Government members may like to cry ‘dole bludgers’ and talk about the availability of work and people not being prepared to go out and find it, the statistics, which everyone knows are a very conservative estimate of the real picture, show that there is a shortfall of almost 4000 job vacancies in the Australian Capital Territory, even if one could match persons with jobs perfectly, which of course one cannot do.

The Government has made no attempt in its policies towards the Australian Capital Territory to take constructive action on that unemployment figure. Of course the explanation is quite clear. Whereas the Public Service once provided a career opportunity for school leavers and for graduates of the various tertiary institutions in the Australian Capital Territory, it no longer offers such an opportunity because the number of new appointments to the Public Service has been pathetically low. Similarly the building and construction industry, which once took on a large number of apprentices and employed a high number of skilled and unskilled workers, is now retrenching employees at a drastic rate. The only alternative strategy which the Minister for the Capital Territory has been able to devise is one that is so absurd and so dangerous that responsible citizens in the Australian Capital Territory are amazed that he suggested it. The alternative strategy put forward by the Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Staley, to deal with the economic problems of the Australian Capital Territory is to establish a casino- a large gambling house- which is supposed somehow or other to produce funds to solve all of our economic problems. I think the absurdity of that suggestion speaks for itself.

In conclusion I draw attention to a very serious matter which affects not only people in the Australian Capital Territory but also people throughout Australia. It is a matter which I have raised many times in the Senate and one which is still unresolved. I refer to the financial plight of women’s refuges in the Australian Capital Territory and throughtout Australia. I shall read to the Senate a letter written to the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) by the Co-ordinator of the Canberra Women’s Refuge, because I think it summarises and expresses very clearly the problems being faced by women’s refuges and the failure to date of the Government to face its responsibilities in that regard.

Senator Knight:

– It has been doubled in size since this Government came to power.

Senator RYAN:

– I hope Senator Knight listens to me as I read the letter. Perhaps he has received a copy of it. It reads:

Dear Mr Fraser:

The total bed occupancy of women and children at the Canberra Women ‘s Refuge in the first three months of 1 977 only, was 1896 people. That is an average of 21 persons per night which is very crowded! It is estimated that in the financial year ending this month that 200 women and 300 children will have used the Canberra Women’s Refuge. We need more than $20,000 per annum to keep the refuge functioning effectively.

Over and above this fact however, the members of the Canberra Women’s Refuge wish to stress the urgency of the need for funding for all community-based women’s refuges presently struggling to function throughout Australia.

None of the women ‘s refuges that have been opened since your party came to power in 1975 have received any government funding.

At the present time there are twenty funded refuges. There are up to thirty more needing funding; two previously funded (Queensland); -

They have been shut- 14-20 operating without funds; one that closed in January 1977 due to lack of funds and seven that are ready to open, with houses if financial assistance is available.

Those that have been running unfunded for the last year or two, cannot do so for another year or two while the Federal Government takes time to decide on a future Refuge Program.

If these refuges are not granted reasonable funding for the fiscal year 1 977-78, many more will be forced to close down. This will be a tragedy for Australian society as a whole and for the individual women and children who will be forced, because of no option to remain at the mercy of violence and/or alcoholic and mentally cruel husbands and fathers.

All refuges need funding for running costs and several paid workers, who, freed from economic pressures of their own, are able to give enough time and energy, providing continuity and taking overall responsibility for the daily running of the refuge.

The relatively small cost of funding fifty women’s refuges throughout Australia should be compared with the escalation in costs to our society if refuges cease to function. For instance, in many cases women under pressure from their home situations may finally succumb to the extent of requiring psychiatric and in-patient treatment, with complete care of their children usually being taken over by a government institution.

As we believe that you and the vast majority of parliamentarians regard women’s refuges as worthwhile and necessary to Australia in 1977 and the immediate future, we ask that you guarantee funding for all these women ‘s refuges that are constantly filled to capacity. All refuges that have applied for assistance should be funded directly from the Federal Government now rather than just those presently funded, as these refuges are only funded on the ad hoc basis of having applied before June 1 975.

Yours sincerely, CHRIS HILVERT Canberra Women’s Refuge

I conclude my remarks with the plea that the Government take note of the plight of women’s refuges throughout Australia. That matter has been raised, as I said, many times in this chamber. The Government has had sufficient time to investigate the needs and to establish the criteria to set up funding mechanisms. I hope that we will not have to rise again in this chamber to ask for financial support for this basic community facility.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I want to comment on the speech made by Senator Wright in this debate. I congratulate him on the very fine speech that he made about the Senate. Senator Wright came into the Parliament at the same time as I did. I can truthfully say that over the years he has always displayed a very sound and strong interest in the proper functioning of the Senate. It has been most gratifying to see that he has not been one of those who says yes to everything. When he felt that something was wrong he was not afraid to say no. It is good to know that we have had in this chamber people such as Senator Wright. I think that each and everyone of us, instead of tearing down the Senate with criticism, ought to try to build it into a very strong section of the democracy of this country. I believe that we have done that.

I know that some people talk about another chamber as being the all important chamber but over the almost 28 years that I have been in this Parliament I have never seen a more ‘yes man ‘ instrumentality than that chamber. If any chamber should be abolished I believe it would be better if that one were abolished. The service that Senator Wright has given in this chamber over the years has been of a very high order. His speeches throughout that period have always been based on the principles in which he really believes. I think that the speech he made the other night indicated very clearly that he felt that before this chamber lies the opportunity to improve and to rectify certain things that may not be ofthe standard that he would hope to see.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is this- a valedictory?

Senator WOOD:

– No. It is a compliment to a very fine parliamentarian.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But his is not leaving us, is he?

Senator WOOD:

-No. The speech that he made suggested that the standard of the Parliament should be uplifted. It should be the aim of everyone who comes here to work in order to leave this Parliament a better place than he found it. That should be the ideal of all parliamentarians. In his speech Senator Wright referred to matters that he felt this chamber might pursue further. In particular he referred to the reports of the Estimates Committees that come before us and on which this debate is based. He said that if we find that something is not in order in the Estimates we should pursue the matter further. I believe that if the Senate does that it will make an even greater impression upon the Ministers concerned. These things can be done. Senator Cavanagh interjected a while ago. He and Senator 0 ‘Byrne would remember back to 1949 when the Regulations and Ordinances Committee had a very great fight with the Ministers of the then Liberal-Country Party Government. The Ministers always snorted and carried on whenever the Regulations and Ordinances Committee pulled them up.

Senator Steele Hall:

– They did not do that, did they?

Senator WOOD:

-Of course they did.

Senator Baume:

– It is a distinguished Committee.

Senator WOOD:

-Yes, but they used to fight the Committee. It was to the credit of the Senate that the Committee always won the battle. Over a period it became established in the mind of the Parliament and in the minds of the Ministers that the Committee had that right and that they had to accept the Committee’s decision. Over the years we have had some very fine senators serving on that Committee. I always pay tribute to Senator Cavanagh who, although a layman, showed in that Committee, a very good sense of what was right and what was wrong. He played a very important part on that Committee over a number of years. The fact that the Committee has operated in a non-political way has helped it to build the Senate into a better chamber than before. I think that honourable senators individually and collectively can do more to make this institution a really strong section ofthe democracy of this country. I wanted to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to Senator Wright for his very fine, thoughtful and illuminating address yesterday.

Senator Walsh had something to say about the referendums. I do not think that the referendums did the Parliament or the Government any credit. The referendums were the greatest piece of put-over I have ever seen in my public life. They were a complete fabrication, they were untruthful, and they presented arguments that had no foundation. The present Government, which was the Opposition in 1974, opposed the referendums which the then Labor Government put forward.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes. They are all hypocrites.

Senator WOOD:

– I must say that it was a piece of outstanding hypocrisy. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) led off a referendum campaign- I speak my mind about things- and put forth the argument that the people of Australia should support that series of referendum questions. We are not political infants. We know that the real purpose was to get through the number one question, to have simultaneous elections of both Houses. Two complete untruths were told in this matter. The first related to the holding of simultaneous elections and the second was the reason why some people changed their minds. It was said that they did not support the question previously because it was part of a package deal and therefore they had to oppose the lot.

Senator Baume:

– I thought that the campaign was over.

Senator WOOD:

- Senator Walsh dragged this up. He had a go on it and he took me on about certain things. So I want to say this: First of all, the matter of simultaneous elections was all moonshine. The comrade-in-arms in the referendum campaign of Mr Fraser and Mr Anthony- I refer to Mr Whitlam- has stated publicly that the Prime Minister could bring the House of Representatives to an election with the Senate in about May of next year. That is exactly what we on the No side said. We said that it could be done, and everybody knew that, but the screen was put up and we were told that the referendum had to be passed so that we could have simultaneous elections. Everybody knows that the prime reason why the Prime Minister and Mr Anthony proposed this referendum question was to delay the half Senate election until things are better so that it would not have an adverse reflection on the House of Representatives election 6 months later. I am not a political infant and I know what is in their minds. So this fabrication was put forward and then their comradeinarms, Mr Whitlam, blew the gaff when he said that the Prime Minister should hold the House of Representatives election at the same time as the Senate election. He was quite right, but it blew one of the main arguments that they had. The other argument that they put forward to excuse their complete hypocrisy was that they had changed their minds. They said it was a package deal, meaning that there were other items in it that they did not want. Therefore they had to oppose the lot. That is complete and utter nonsense.

It should be drawn to people’s attention that referendum questions do not go in a package. Every question in a referendum is an individual item. The questions are set out individually. Furthermore, the yes and the no cases are presented for each individual question. They are voted for by the people as individual questions, not as a package. That, I think, destroyed the excuse that our Government had for its hypocrisy in making such an acrobatic turn. As I said before, there have been so many acrobats on the Government side over this referendum that they really could make a complete circus.

I want to mention the untruths that are being told in connection with the allegation that there was a package deal. There is no such thing as a package deal in referendums. It is individual questions upon which people are called to decide. In view of the remarks that have been passed concerning my attitude to this matter, that is what I want to say. I feel that the people of Australia, in giving their answer to the first question of the referendum, gave the right answer. The small numbers of people in each State who voted no are not to be deplored. The very basis of the Constitution and the only reason that we have an Australian Parliament is that it was agreed that each State should have equal representation in this chamber. That permeated through to such things as referendums. The smaller States had to be treated on an equal basis. The result of that is that we have an Australian Parliament. Otherwise we should not have had it.

Senator Baume:

– Does the honourable senator welcome the people’s vote on the other 3 questions too?

Senator WOOD:

– I personally, should like to have seen the other 3 proposals defeated. I have no hesitation in saying that. But the major question was the first one. There is no argument but that if that question had not been put the Government would not have held the referendum.

Senator Chaney:

– We would not want an Albert Patrick Field again, would we?

Senator WOOD:

– It is very nice of our yes man Whip to say: ‘You would not have another Field’. That happened in Queensland where they chose a Labor man.

Senator McLaren:

– He was not a Labor man.

Senator WOOD:

– He was a Labor man. I am not saying it was right to choose him. But to our yes man Liberal Whip I say that the man who started this business was the Liberal Premier of New South Wales, Mr Lewis, as he should recall. So let us be quite honest and frank about these things.

Senator Grimes:

– That justified it, did it?

Senator WOOD:

– I am just saying that we should not blame Queensland because Queensland was not the State that started this business. As far as I am concerned, I should like to have seen all the referendum questions defeated. But I repeat, if it had not been for the first referendum question put by this Government of ours there would not have been any referendum. The small States have spoken and as States have carried the day. They have stopped this proposal from going forward. All this nonsense of needing this referendum to permit simultaneous elections has been exploded by Mr Gough Whitlam, the Government’s political colleague. As I pointed out, the explanation given by some supporters of the yes vote for changing their minds on this issue is just a lot of nonsense. They simply were putting over the biggest put-over I have ever seen in my public fife when they said they changed their minds because of the package deal. Let me illustrate this. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and Senator Missen, who have been trotting around the country- and Senator Missen was interjecting today- twice, in 1975 and in the year after -

Senator Harradine:

– In VIP jets.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, Senator Missen has been trotting around the country in a VIP jet with the Prime Minister. Did we get any VIP jets? No. In the early part of 1975, the year after the Labor Party’s referendum for simultaneous elections was defeated and later, about the middle of the year, Mr Malcolm Fraser, the

Prime Minister, and Senator Missen both voted twice against a Bill that was introduced to hold another referendum, not as part of a package deal that they could cover themselves with, but as a specific question, which was related to simultaneous elections for the Houses of Parliament.

Senator Chaney:

– You voted for the Racial Discrimination Bill in that year too. Did you agree with that?

Senator WOOD:

– I have expressed my opinions about racial discrimination. I think the way some honourable senators behaved in regard to that matter indicated we have a lot of galoots here. The way Mr Fraser and Mr Peacock behaved about Rhodesia and South Africa indicates that it is about time they learned a bit of sense too. What I am saying is that twice in 1975, the year after holding a referendum, when the Labor Government tried to get authority to hold another referendum on the question of simultaneous elections, Mr Malcolm Fraser and his cobber in the VIP plane, Senator Missen, voted against such a proposal. The second vote was taken not long before Mr Fraser became Prime Minister.

I made a speech some time ago in which I pointed out that it should be precious to parliamentarians to make sure that they carry on in their debates and in what they say generally in such a way that the public believes them to be honest people. Parliamentarians should keep in mind how precious this is. If they continue to behave in the way they did concerning this referendum issue, all I can say is that they will have great difficulty in making people believe whatever they say. So far as I am concerned, what I have said should put the matter clearly. The whole thing was a piece of hypocritical nonsense.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-We have just heard from Senator Wood, who is a Senator from Queensland. He has declared his intention to retire at the end of his term. The Senate should be pleased to hear what Senator Wood has to say. He has had a wealth of experience in this House. He has stood before the people for the rights of this House. He has proved that his stand is correct so far as this House is concerned and so far as the people of Australia are concerned. By the people, particularly those in the less populous States, he has been proved to be correct. He has been proved to be correct again in praising the stance of Senator Wright. Senator Wright is a senator of long standing in this place. He knows the Constitution and knows the rights of this House. He believes that this House is the protector of the rights not only of the States but also of the minorities in the community.

I well recall after the last Senate election the declaration of the results of the poll in Hobart. I well recall the declaration of the results of that poll in the expanse of the plaza before the Australian Government Centre in Hobart. Senator Wright was present. The first senator elected was Senator Rae. The second senator elected was Senator Wriedt. I was the third. After that Senator Wright had his opportunity to speak. He made this declaration to all and sundry: ‘Those who think that this, my last term in the Senate, will be one of relaxation have another think coming. I will regard this, my last term in the Senate, as a jockey regards the last furlong of a race- one to be ridden vigorously with whips acracking’. Certainly we members of the Senate are pleased that he will ride his last term in the Senate with whips acracking.

The same applies to Senator Wood. He has declared his intention to retire after his period expires. I will have my money on those 2 senators, and I will have my money on Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I had my money on them in the last 2 weeks. They have been proven correct in their stand for the Senate. They have been proven correct in their belief that the Senate is the protector of the rights of the less populous States. I do not call them the smaller States, because if one analyses the position one sees that Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania are the revenue producers of this country. They are the States which produce the export income for Australia. They are the States which the Senate protects. The Senate also protects the people in the other States.

I, as the president of the third largest union in Tasmania, would dearly love to go to my membership when it is electorally advantageous to me, but I am governed by my constitution and rules which determine when I go to my members. So it is with the Senate. The Senate goes to the people as determined by the Constitution, not by the Prime Minister. We are not answerable to the Prime Minister. We are answerable to the people of Australia. That is how it should be. That is how it should be in the interests of democracy and in the interests of the stability of this institution. If it is good enough for me as president of a union to go to my members when my constitution says I shall, it is good enough for me as a senator to go to the people when the Constitution says I shall, not when the Prime Minister says I shall.

Senator Sibraa:

– In a court controlled ballot.

Senator HARRADINE:

-In a court controlled ballot, of course. I was one of the first to fight for the right of rank and file unionists to demand a court controlled ballot. We have seen the results of those ballots over the years so far as my union is concerned. I congratulate Senator Wood, with his long experience, for standing for this principle. I also congratulate Senator Wright and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

I was delighted to see you, Mr President, come to the defence of the Clerk of the Senate when a despicable accusation was made against him, namely, that he in some way was engaged in a political operation so far as the No case was concerned. I have complete knowledge of the development of the No case. In no sense was the Clerk of the Senate involved. I congratulate you, Mr President, for standing behind the Clerk of the Senate. I believe that the people of Australia have made their choice. They have made it, knowing that the Senate is the protector not only of the rights of the people of the less populous States but of the rights of all the people of Australia in that the Senate is answerable to them, not to the Prime Minister of the day. Whether the Prime Minister be a Malcolm Fraser, with whom I agree in many respects and disagree in some others, or a Gough Whitlam, with whom I agree in some respects and disagree in others, we are answerable to the people, not to the Prime Minister.

This debate is on the question of Estimates. I have a very grave matter to raise. Before I do so I would like to talk about the Central Intelligence Agency. We have heard a lot about the CIA in recent times.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Tell us its membership.

Senator HARRADINE:

– It is interesting that, despite all the things that have been said about me, never has anybody accused me of being in the pocket of the CIA. To the extent that there has been any American influence in the industrial sphere in Australia, through the State Department, it has been negative so far as the anticommunist fight in the trade union movement in Australia is concerned. Let me give the reason for that. The State Department has always advocated amalgamations and collective bargaining in Australia. They are 2 matters which are contrary to the best interests of the anticommunist fight in the trade union movement in Australia. Let us take the question of collective bargaining. The State Department has always believed, through the American multinational corporations in Australia, that collective bargaining is a good thing. The State Department does not understand Australia ‘s system of conciliation and arbitration. I seek leave to continue my remarks tomorrow.

Leave granted; debate interrupted.

page 1395

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate-Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-Before I begin my remarks on the matters I want to talk about tonight I would like to make the observation that since I have been a member of this Senate, and for some time before that, the Labor Party has always laboured under a disadvantage in respect of the order of the speakers list. We have had to suffer for many years because members of the Democratic Labor Party in this place were regarded as being opposed to the Government yet we know from the Hansard over the years that on every major issue the DLP has supported the Liberal Party. Again tonight, although I had my name on the list of speakers, another Independent- an under cover member of the DLP- was given preference over an official member of the Opposition. He is classed as a member of the Opposition but we know that on every major issue he will vote with the Liberal and Country Parties on every occassion. I think it is time something was done about priority in regard to the placement of names on the list of speakers. People who come into this place masquerading as Labor supporters, when in fact they are not, ought to be put down on the list as speakers from the other side of the chamber where they belong because they support the Liberal and Country Parties. They support them in every way possible. They support them in their votes in this Senate, in the speeches they make and in the preferences they give to the Liberal and Country Parties on election days. However, that is not what I rose to speak about tonight.

Senator Harradine:

– Have a look at the votes cast last Saturday.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, we have this cuckoo on our side of the Chamber. He has been monkeying around here for 1 5 minutes tonight when he should be on his back having a rest and recuperating. He is in here annoying the people in this Senate. When he wakes up in the morning and reads the Hansard he will not even remember that he spoke the words that he uttered tonight. I suggest that he dry up. We have had enough of him.

I want to speak tonight about 2 letters that I have received from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) in answer to questions which I have posed in this Senate. I want to have them on the public record because the answers are of public interest; otherwise I would not have asked the questions. The first letter is dated 23 May. It is from the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). It reads:

Dear Senator McLaren,

I refer to your remarks made during the Adjournment Debate on 31 March 1977 concerning the use of taxis in lieu of Commonwealth cars to transport members of the Parliament when the Houses rise at night.

The Minister for the Capital Territory, the Hon. A. A. Staley, M.P., has advised me on this matter in the following terms:

It is not correct to say that taxis compete with one another for business. They are called in to assist in getting Members and Senators home. To attempt to provide this transport by using Commonwealth vehicles would mean having a large number of drivers idle through the evening hours just to handle this unusual late night peak.

Whether it be Commonwealth cars or taxis congestion at Parliament House will continue until more formal parking is provided and can be properly regulated and in particular means found to ease the traffic congestion in the roads on either side of Parliament House. Late night demand has been aggravated over the last two or three years by the closure of both the Hotel Canberra and the Hotel Kurrajong with the consequence that many Members and Senators who walked home now have to be driven.

Efforts to relieve the problem of congestion are being made through discussions between officers of the Department of the Capital Territory and the Senate. ‘

Yours sincerely, R. G. WITHERS

I add as an afterthought that it is just as well that we have cars to drive people home from this place because some people might not be able to walk home, as we have witnessed here tonight. The other letter I received from Senator Withers is dated 25 May and it reads:

Dear Senator McLaren,

I refer to your question without notice of 28 April 1977 referred to me as Minister representing the Prime Minister concerning the release of documents pertaining to allegations concerning Central Intelligence Agency activities in Australia.

The Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser, C.H., M.P., has advised that the Government has taken steps to obtain copies of the transcripts of the trial referred to in your question, and has them under consideration.

Yours sincerely, R. G. WITHERS

I sincerely hope in view of the answer Senator Withers has given me that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has taken steps to obtain copies of the transcripts of the trial referred to in my question, that he has the matter under consideration and that he will in the interests of the people who reside in Australia make those documents public so that each and every one of us will be clear in his own mind whether in fact the Central Intelligence Agency has been engaged in underhand tactics in this country and whether in fact the CIA played any part in the downfall of the Whitlam Government in 1975. I leave it at that.

There is one other matter I want to raise and that is the matter of the tabling of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report in the Parliament today. I know that it is on the notice paper for debate so I am not going to debate it. But I do want to seek an assurance from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), who is in charge of the Senate tonight, that he will ensure that in view of the recommendations contained in the report sufficient copies are available to the general public. We know that when the First Report was published there were insufficient copies available for the general public to be able to obtain copies to inform themselves on what the Fox Inquiry had recommended. It is of vital importance to the whole community that sufficient copies of this Second Report are available to the general public so that they can purchase them, see what is contained in the report and inform themselves fully as to the ramifications or otherwise of the mining and sale of uranium in this country.

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

– I think the honourable senator dealt with 3 matters. I am of the view that the Central Intelligence Agency material that he talked about has already been made clear and published by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). On the other matters that the honourable senator dealt with, none of them belong in my area of responsibility, but I shall convey the honourable senator’s sentiments to those Ministers to whom they belong.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.7 p.m.

page 1397

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 51)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) For each State and Territory and for Australia as a total, what was, for each month since the inception of the National Employment and Training System, the number of full-time (a) trainees who commenced training; (b) trainees in training; (c) trainees whose training period concluded; and (d) trainees who terminated their course prematurely, (i) voluntarily, and (ii) involuntarily.
  2. What were the corresponding figures for part-time trainees.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for on the job trainees.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question in the form of a series of monthly tables covering the period October 1974 to March 1977 which are set out below:

Private Cars Rented by Ministers (Question No. 124)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of the use of private rent-a-cars by each Minister and his/her staff in the financial year 1975-76 and in the period 1 July 1976 to 31 January 1977.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is set out in the tables below which have been prepared by my Department from available records of processed accounts. The information relates to driveyourself vehicles and not to chauffeur-driven cars or taxis.

Prior to 1 July 1976 travel costs in respect of ministerial staff were met by Ministers’ own departments. Costs of the use of private rent-a-cars by Ministerial staff in 1975-76 are not therefore available in my Department.

Budget Deficit (Question No. 173)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

Why would an increase in the Budget deficit be inflationary whilst Australian industry is operating well below capacity.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to my 1976-77 Budget Speech delivered in the Senate on my behalf by Senator Cotton on 17 August 1976.

Mining Leases, Mount Larcom (Question No. 232)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. Under what conditions can a mining company increase the size of a single mineral lease beyond the standard 320 acres.
  2. In view of the fact that Darra Mining may be granted a cement export licence, has the company been granted such exemptions for their mineral leases at Mount Larcom in Central Queensland.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

The matter you have raised is one for determination by the Queensland Government. However, the Queensland Department of Mines has provided the Department of National Resources with the following information.

Upon proof to the satisfaction of the (Queensland) Minister that the applicant needs a greater area that 130 ha. (320 acres) to ensure the effectual and economical mining therof, the (Queensland) Governor in Council may grant a mining lease over such greater area as seems fit.

In the case of Darra Mining, on 19 August 1974 the (Queensland) Minister indicated that he was satisfied that areas greater than 320 acres were needed and would recommend to the Governor in Council accordingly. On 29 July 1976, the Governor granted to Darra Exploration Pty Ltd Mining Leases Nos 698, 699, 700 and 701 Gladstone Mining District, with area of 233.14 ha., 333.67 ha., 447.98 ha., and 208.43 ha. respectively.

Imported Tobacco Leaf (Question No. 349)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) At what point is import and excise duty payable on manufactured tobacco leaf entering Australia.
  2. ) Are inspectors or officers of the Department employed to check the weight of tobacco leaf imported by each tobacco manufacturing company. If so, how many inspectors or officers are so employed and where are they employed.
  3. What was the total value of excise and import duties collected on imported unmanufactured leaf to (a) 30 June 1976, and (b) 31 December 1976.
  4. How many physical checks were made during 1976 on the weights of unmanufactured tobacco leaf used by Australian cigarette and tobacco manufacturers.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Customs duty is payable on imported tobacco leaf when it is entered with Customs for home consumption. Rates of duty vary according to the product to be manufactured. Lower rates apply to leaf for manufacture into tobacco or cigarettes which will contain not less than 50 per cent by weight of Australian grown tobacco leaf.

Rather than enter the leaf for home consumption immediately upon importation, importers normally choose to store it in warehouses subject to Customs control until they decide upon the product for which it will be used (and hence the duty rate). Leaf is then entered for home consumption at the appropriate duty rate and is delivered from the warehouse for manufacture into an excisable product. The quantity for duty is based on the weight of the leaf at that time.

Excise duty is not payable on tobacco leaf as such. It is payable on Australian-manufactured tobacco products made from imported leaf, Australian leaf or an admixture of both, at the time of their delivery for home consumption.

Payment of the import and excise duties may be made on a weekly settlement basis.

  1. Departmental officers are not stationed at tobacco manufacturing companies, and no officers are employed specifically to check the weight of tobacco leaf imported by such companies.

Tobacco manufacturers are licensed under the Excise Act, and as a condition of licensing they have the onus of accounting to the Department’s satisfaction for receipt, production, storage, delivery, and duty payment of goods which are customable or excisable.

Investigation officers monitor company accountability with audit programmes, and by investigating companies’ physical and documentary accounting systems.

The frequency of officers’ visits to a company and the nature of their audit depends upon current assessments of the investigations considered appropriate to satisfy necessary controls. On occasions, their audit will include physical check of weights of some manufactured leaf against the company’s accounting systems as a test of those systems.

  1. The Australian Statistician has provided the following information:

Import duty on clearances of unmanufactured tobacco leaf-

  1. During 1976, investigations included twenty-eight physical checks on weights of leaf cleared to manufacturers.

Wheat Industry Stabilization Act: IAC Inquiry (Question No. 470)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What are the specific terms of reference given by the Australian Government to the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act.
  2. By what date has the Government requested the Industries Assistance Commission to present its report.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The terms of reference are:

I, JOHN WINSTON HOWARD, Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs

  1. . Refer the following matter to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry and report in accordance with section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973:

    1. whether Commonwealth Government assistance should be provided to stablize returns for wheat for seasons following the 1 978-79 season;
    2. if so, what should be the nature and extent of such assistance.

  2. Specify the period of fifteen months commencing on the date of this reference as the period within which the Commission is to report on the matter described in paragraph 1 of this reference.

Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs 14 February 1977 (2)See(l).

Overseas Borrowings (Question No. 477)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or representatives of the Australian Treasury are located outside Australia.
  2. ) Where is each such officer or representative stationed.
  3. Has the Treasurer or the Secretary of the Treasury authorised an officer or person stationed outside Australia to have discussions with any financial institution. If so, what are the names of the persons and when was any such authority given.
  4. Did any officer or representative of the Australian Government meet or interview representatives of any financial institution between 7 and 28 March. If so, what was the name of the institution and the person interviewed.
  5. Have any unsolicited offers of loans been made to the Treasurer or the Department of Treasury since 1 January 1 976. If so, from whom were the offers received and when.
  6. What are the names of the financial institutions through which the Australian Government has raised overseas loans since 1 January 1976.
  7. Were any fees or commissions paid to those institutions. If so, what was the fee or commission paid to each institution through which the loan was raised.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) There are 6 officers of the Treasury currently occupying official Commonwealth Government positions overseas. (This number excludes four officers on leave without pay who are currently attached either to the IMF, the IBRD or the ADB and three officers pursuing post-graduate work on public service scholarships. )
  2. London, one; Paris (OECD), two; Washington, two; Japan, one.
  3. and (4) Officers of the Treasury stationed overseas frequently meet representatives of a wide range of financial institutions in the ordinary course of their liaison duties. No specific authority is required for such meetings.

As stated in my press release of 17 December 1975, all matters relating to borrowings by the Government are subject to my authority, and no person has authority to do anything in relation to these matters without authorisation by me.

  1. Yes. Since 1 January 1976, the Department has handled some 40 unsolicited loan proposals made on behalf of unknown or unnamed principals involving overseas funds. None of the proposals met the guidelines contained in my press release of 1 7 December 1 975.

It is not normal practice to disclose publicly the names of particular individuals or companies from whom loan proposals are received or other details of such proposals. Generally, those putting forward loan proposals would regard these as being confidential and would not expect that confidence to be breached by the Government.

  1. The lead managers of the underwriting syndicates for loans raised since 1 January 1976 were as follows:

Deutsche Bank

Credit Suisse (Swiss Credit Bank)

Amsterdam- Rotterdam Bank

Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.

In three of the Commonwealth’s loans, the lead manager was assisted by co-managers: for the Dutch loan there were four co-managers, for the Swiss loan two and for the Eurodollar loan five.

The lead manager and co-managers were assisted by syndicates of sub-underwriters.

  1. Yes. Fees and commissions relating to the management, underwriting and selling of Commonwealth bond issues were paid. The fees and commissions for each loan were fully competitive with those charged other prime borrowers in the respective markets. It is noteworthy that for the $US300m raising in Europe, these charges were actually lower than those previously paid by other comparable borrowers.

The total commission paid by the Government is divided among all the financial institutions in the underwriting syndicates for each loan.

The following table sets out the commissions paid by the Commonwealth Government on its overseas borrowings since January 1976.

Processing of 1976 Census (Question No. 488)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Do Treasury estimates agree with the suggestion by Mr Bob Stimson and Mr Tony Cleland, contained in an article in the Australian dated 1 April 1977, that the Federal Government will waste$1 7m spent on the 1976 census to save $2m, because of the decision to process only a sample of the 1976 census forms. If so, will the Government reconsider its decision on this matter.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

While $2m will be saved it is not true that $17m will be wasted. The decision to adopt a sample technique involving about SO per cent of Census schedules will enable the processing of schedules to be completed two or three months earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Any loss of accuracy resulting from the use of sampling will be small because of the size of the sample. 1982 Commonwealth Games, Brisbane (Question No. 492)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

In view of the Queensland Government’s decision to allocate $10m for the staging of the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane, provided the Federal Government matches that amount, when will the Commonwealth’s final decision on this matter be made known.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

At a meeting of 20 January 1977 the Prime Minister asked the Queensland Premier for a reassessment of the proposed cost of facilities for the Commonwealth Games and for additional information relating to costs of administration and accommodation.

While some of this information has been provided recently, further detail, particularly in relation to accommodation proposals for the Games and the likely Commonwealth contribution being sought, has not yet been received.

When this information has been provided the Commonwealth Government will then be able to determine its position with regard to financial assistance towards the Games.

Professional Employment Office, Brisbane (Question No. 499)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

Is the Professional Employment Office in Brisbane, because of understaffing, not referring available jobs to persons registered as unemployed with the Professional Employment Office. If so, (a) what is the current staffing structure of the office in Brisbane; (b) what are the duties ascribed to each of the positions outlined in part (a); (c) what are the duties being currently carried out by each of the persons holding the positions outlined in part (a); (d) what action is being taken to locate jobs for persons registered as unemployed with the Professional Employment Office in Brisbane; (e) what action is being taken to rectify any problems being experienced within the Professional Employment Office in Brisbane; and (!) does a similar situation exist elsewhere in Australia. If so, what are the details.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Professional Employment Office in Brisbane is not presently experiencing any difficulty in referring available jobs to persons registered as unemployed at that office. Consequently it is not necessary to supply the details sought in the remainder of the honourable senator’s question.

Flood Damage, Warwick (Question No. 510)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

What disaster relief was (a) requested, and (b) provided by the Queensland Government in respect to flood damage in Warwick in February 1976.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth agreed to support, under the natural disaster assistance arrangements, expenditures by the Queensland Government on the following relief and restoration measures arising out of a series of floods in the State including in the Warwick area over the period between midDecember 1975 and early March 1976:

Relief of personal hardship and distress;

Emergency repair and protection works;

Restoration of State Government assets;

Restoration of local and semi-government authority assets;

Loans to primary producers;

Loans for small business enterprises;

Loans to church, sporting and other voluntary bodies;

Concessions for purchase and delivery to aircraft of fodder air-dropped to stranded stock;

Rail freight concessions;

Road freight concessions.

If detailed information is desired about the relief requested and provided by the Queensland Government, it is suggested that it would more appropriately be sought from that Government.

Hailstorm Damage, Toowoomba (Question No. 511)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

What disaster relief was (a) requested and (b) provided by the Queensland Government in respect to hailstorm damage in Toowoomba in January 1976.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth agreed to support, under the natural disaster assistance arrangements, expenditures by the Queensland Government on the following relief and restoration measures arising out of the hailstorm which struck Toowoomba in January 1 976:

Restoration of State Government assets

Restoration of local and semi-government assets.

If detailed information is desired about the relief requested and provided by the Queensland Government, it is suggested that it would more appropriately be sought from that Government.

Disaster Relief, Queensland (Question No. 512)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What disaster relief was provided by the Commonwealth Government to Queensland for each financial year from 1970-71 to 1975-76.
  2. What disaster relief has been provided by the Commonwealth Government to Queensland since 1 July 1 976.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Further details of payments for natural disasters may be found at pages 108-109 and 95-97 of Budget Paper No. 7 Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities’, for 1975-76 and 1976-77 respectively.

Apprentice Training Program, Brisbane (Question No. 558)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

Does the Commonwealth currently run a training program for apprentices at Eagle Farm in Brisbane. If so:

how many apprentices are involved in each intake, and

have the apprentices concerned been given no guarantee that their training from this program will be recognised for the purpose of obtaining employment.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth does not run a training program for apprentices at Eagle Farm in Brisbane. The course at Eagle Farm Technical College is a pre-vocational (trade-based) course which has been established jointly by the Technical Education Branch, Department of Education, and the Queensland Apprenticeship Executive.

The course referred to is 35 weeks in duration and entrants arenot indentured as apprentices. The course provides young people with a transition from school to work and familiarisation with a broad spectrum of trade based occupations. It also includes general education and personal development elements. The course consists of 5 modules and the 5th module involves the trainee in the completion of the equivalent of stage 1 of a basic technical education course for an elected trade.

A total of 1 12 places were made available for the first intake in late March this year.

After the completion of a pre-vocational training course a trainee is eligible for an exemption from stage 1 of technical education for an apprenticeship and up to 6 months credit on a 4 year term of apprenticeship. In addition a trainee will also have acquired some skills which are usable on the job. These factors should make the trainee a more attractive employment proposition and assist him/her in obtaining employment.

Australian Loan Council: State Borrowing Programs (Question No. 621)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

What has been the per capita contribution by the Loan Council to the various States for each of the past 10 years.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Australian Loan Council which consists of the Commonwealth Treasurer and the six State Premiers approves annually the aggregate permissible amount of borrowing by or on behalf of the several individual governments and allocates the approved amount between the governments. It also approves the aggregate programs of borrowings by the larger semi-government and local authorities of each government.

State Government borrowing programs approved by the Loan Council for each of the last 10 years are shown below on a per capita basis.

Northern Territory Ordinances (Question No. 626)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

Will the Minister provide a list of all the new Ordinances for the Northern Territory since 13 December 1975, and the actual power and constraints of each.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Altogether, 81 ordinances passed by the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory received assent between 31 December 1975 and 21 April 1977. A list of these ordinances is attached. All these ordinances have been tabled in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, in accordance with section 4Z of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910 (as amended), and were made available to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Accordingly, the ordinances are available to all honourable senators for perusal and evaluation.

Prime Minister’s Report to the Nation (Question No. 630)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) At which commercial studio or production company did the Prime Minister record his Address to the Nation transmitted on 6 April 1977.
  2. Did the studio or company charge a fee for the production and or recording. If so, what was the fee, and by whom was it paid.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The report to the nation was recorded in the Prime Minister’s Melbourne office.
  2. Any production costs over and beyond those normally incurred in recording such a talk were met by the Liberal Party of Australia.

National Song: Northern Territory Poll Arrangements (Question No. 631)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

What arrangements have been made in the Northern Territory for polling booths, postal votes and absentee votes for the voluntary poll for a tune for a national song to be held on 21 May 1977.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

As I indicated in my letter to you of 6 April 1977 arrangements have been made to open all 75 polling places in the Northern Territory from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. (Central Australian Time) on Saturday, 2 1 May.

Additionally, automatic postal votes have been sent to all eligible electors and postal vote application forms for other Northern Territory electors who need them are available at all Post Offices and from the two Electoral Offices in the Territory.

Beef Industry (Question No. 664)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

Can the Minister explain on the one hand how he could encourage beef producers to withhold cattle from market in an attempt to obtain higher prices and on the other hand the Government ‘s stated intention of controlling inflation.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Over the past three years the Australian beef industry has faced a situation of depressed international demand for beef; at the same time, beef production and cattle marketings have continued to increase. The depressed auction prices for cattle induced by these factors have been aggravated by the liquidity position of many producers which has resulted in a record number of cattle being marketed. The number of cattle and calves slaughtered in 1976 was a record 1 1 million head, 64 per cent above the number slaughtered in 1974 and 20 per cent above the 197S figure. The proportion of female stock slaughtered has reached a record SO per cent of total adult slaughterings, the highest for over a decade.

It is clear that, if cattle producers continue to market more cattle than are required, there is no incentive for buyers to increase prices paid-this in spite of increased returns from some export markets in recent months. My call for fewer cattle to be sent to market simply drew this fact to the attention of producers and was intended to encourage those who could to exercise their commercial judgment to achieve a balance between supply and demand at reasonable prices.

It was also intended to draw public attention to the high rate of slaughter of the Australian herd, particularly of breeding stock, and the significantly higher prices which would occur in the future if this continued.

Sugar Cane Fibres (Question No. 665)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What, if any, research and development projects are being carried out under the responsibility of the Minister’s Department which relate to the use of sugar cane fibres as (a) a building material, (b) an energy source, (c) an animal feedstock, and (d) a clothing/ textile source.
  2. If no current research is being carried out in Australia in any of these fields, will the Minister undertake to study the feasibility of such projects.
  3. Is any such research being carried out in any other country.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. None.
  2. 1 understanding that the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations and Sugar Research Limited (Sugar Research Institute) are collaborating with CSIRO in studies which might widen the uses to which sugar cane fibres can be put. For some years cane fibre was used in the manufacture of ‘caneite’ but because of the high cost of transportation of cane fibre it was replaced by pine. Currently bagasse is burnt at the sugar mill mainly to provide energy for the mill. It is unlikely that there will be sufficient excess bagasse on a regular basis to justify more than basic research into other possibilities. In the Bundaberg area some work has also been done on the utilisation of sugar cane fibre along with molasses as a feedstock for cattle.
  3. I understand that research is being carried out in some, if not all, of the areas you mention in ( 1 ) but I do not have details.

Liquid Petroleum Gas (Question No. 675)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. Does the Miniter recall his Government’s 1975 election policy statement on minerals and energy that ‘The Liberal and National Country Parties will encourage the use of liquid petroleum gas in commercial vehicles and fleets’.
  2. How is this project progressing and when is it likely to be of such a scale that it will reduce Australia’s domestic demand on the country’s precious and limited reserves of oil and natural gas.
  3. If this promise has not been implemented, why not, and when is it likely to be.
  4. Will the Minister undertake to regularly make statements to the Senate indicating progress made in these research and development programs.
  5. Has the Government encouraged or instigated a change over in the Commonwealth Government’s car fleet from petrol to liquid petroleum gas. If not, when is it likely to do so.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. to (5). See the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 168 ( Hansard, 4 May, page 1583).

Northern Territory: Transfer of Powers to Legislative Assembly (Question No. 689)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 26 April 1977.

What further powers does the Federal Government envisage transferring to the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory in the 1977-78 period.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The Minister for the Northern Territory advises that the timetable for further transfers of executive responsibility is presently being examined by an Interdepartmental Committee. While the Government would expect that further transfers will be made during 1977-78, no announcement on the specific functions to be transferred will be made until such time as the Government has received and considered the IDC report.

Sewerage Program, Queensland (Question No. 693)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

With respect to the Prime Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 43 concerning the sewerage program for Queensland, when does the Prime Minister expect to provide a final reply to the Queensland Government’s submission.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I replied to the Queensland Government in March 1977.

Aboriginal Land Rights Complementary Legislation (Question No. 703)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

With respect to the Prime Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 299 concerning Aboriginal land rights complementary legislation, is the Prime Minister aware that the Northern Land Council has publicly circulated copies of its telegram dated 4 March 1977. If so, will the Prime Minister give details of his reply to the Northern Land Council, or alternatively indicate his attitude to the matters raised in the telegram.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Government has appointed a Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory, one of whose functions is to examine and report on the adequacy of provisions of the laws of the Northern Territory relating to entry to Aboriginal land, the protection of sites of significance, wildlife conservation and entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land. The Committee is expected to report by August this year and the Government will consider its attitude towards the Northern Territory legislation in the light of the Committee ‘s report.

Northern Territory: Tourism (Question No. 714)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. Has an additional $3,200 been appropriated for a study to be undertaken on the development of Northern Territory tourism. If so, where was this study carried out, by whom, and how long did it take.

    1. What were the results and recommendations of the study.
    2. What areas in the Northern Territory did this study look at.
    3. When will the report become available.
    4. Was the study one in conjunction with the Department Of Environment, Housing and Community Development. If not, why not.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) In respect ofthe Northern Territory Tourism Development Study, an amount of $30,000 over a two year period was sought for the conduct of the study; of this amount $3,200 was approved for expenditure in 1976-77 and the remainder of the approved amount is available for commitment during 1977-78.

The study is being carried out in the Northern Territory by the Department of the Northern Territory, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Industry, and the Northern Territory Tourist Bureau, and is not expected to be completed until late in 1978.

  1. Analysis of the first surveys in the study has not yet proceeded far enough to permit conclusive results and recommendations to be made.
  2. The study is designed to be as comprehensive as possible and encompasses most aspects of tourism in the Northern Territory.
  3. There will be progress reports but a final report with recommendations is not expected before late in 1978.
  4. The Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development is not involved because in the early stages of planning the study, that department did not exist and there was close association with the then Department of Tourism and Recreation. The involvement of officers from that department continued when, ultimately, they were located m the Department of Industry and Commerce with policy responsibilities for tourism in Australia and also for the Australian Tourist Commission.

Northern Territory: Damages Awarded Against Crown (Question No. 719)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 27 April 1 977:

Was the sum of $10,750 awarded as damages against the Crown for certain actions taken in the Northern Territory. If so, to whom were these damages awarded, and for what reasons.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: $2,000 was awarded to Bernadette Murphy for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident between a vehicle driven by herself and a departmental fire engine being driven by a Fire Brigade Officer; and $8,750 was awarded to Albert Leone for personal damages as a consequence of an assault on himself by fellow prisoners whilst being held in Fannie Bay Gaol.

Fraser Island: Sand Mining (Question No. 755)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:

Did the Australian Mining Industry Council write to the Prime Minister on 10 February 1977, criticising the Government’s decision to ban sand mining on Fraser Island on two counts, namely:

that the Commission of Inquiry’s Report was not a proper basis for the decision, and

that the Prime Minister had been misinformed on at least one vital point relevant to the decision.

If so, what was the Prime Minister’s response to these two criticisms?

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Australian Mining Industry Council wrote to me on 10 February 1977 raising these questions. In my reply of 3 May I indicated:

That I rejected the allegation that the Commission was biased against mining. The task of the Commissioners was to conduct an Inquiry into all of the environmental aspects of the making of decisions by or on behalf of the Commonwealth Government in relation to exportation from Australia of minerals extracted from Fraser Island. The Commissioners and their advisers were well qualified for the task.

That AMIC’s assertion, that I had been misinformed on at least one vital point relevant to the decision, is ill-founded. At all relevant times the export of minerals including zircon and titanium was prohibited unless approval was lawfully given. The telex message of 13 December 1974 from the Department of Minerals and Energy to DM Minerals did not constitute that approval but was, rather, an indication by the Government of the day of an intention then to give certain approvals at a future time. It was obvious from the time that the Inquiry was announced that the granting of any approvals after the Commission had reported would be influenced by the Government’s decisions on its recommendations.

Employment Statistics (Question No. 759)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:

Is the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations currently preparing employment statistics for each local government area of Australia. If so (a) what are the details of the areas concerned, (b) when will the statistics be released, and (c) how often are statistics prepared for local government areas.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes, the Department is currently preparing such statistics. Figures relating to males and females (both adults and juniors) registered with the Commonwealth Employent Service (CES) as unemployed by local government area of residence.
  2. It has not been the practice of the Department to publish these statistics because of the considerable amount of detail involved; however, figures relating to particular local government areas are available to bona fide inquirers on request from either the relevant local office of the CES or Regional or Central Office ofthe Department.
  3. These statistics are currently compiled 3 times per year as at end-April, end-July, end-October. Staff ceilings prevent more frequent collections.

Sale of Government Homes in Darwin

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

-On 26 April 1977 Senator Robertson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, the following question without notice:

Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory indicate when the sale of government homes scheme will be resumed in Darwin? Will the Minister also indicate whether the conditions associated with the scheme will be the same as those which pertained previously?

The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Sale of Government Homes Scheme in Darwin resumed on 18 April. A public announcement to this effect was made by the Minister for the Northern Territory on that date.

Applications to purchase government owned dwellings are being accepted from eligible tenants.

Conditions associated with the new scheme will not all be the same as those which pertained previously.

The new scheme is closely aligned to the Northern Territory Housing Commission Sales Scheme and broadly follows 038 1 similar terms and conditions.

The main difference in the terms and conditions. The main difference in the new scheme as opposed to the Sale of Government Homes Scheme pre-cyclone are:

pre-tenancy qualifying period for eligibility to purchase: increased from one to two years.

interest rates: a two tiered interest rate structure based on needs test of 125 per cent of the Northern Territory average weekly male earnings. Applicants with incomes below 125 per cent of this average rate of earnings receive a concessional rate of 5% per cent, and applicants with incomes above 125 will be charged a rate of 9 per cent. Interest rates are subject to review.

All sales will be at a price equivalent to whichever is the greater of:

1 ) the Valuer-General’s market valuation of the house and land less $50; or

the construction costs of the improvement less an annual allowance of 2 per cent for depreciation and obsolescence plus the ValuerGeneral’s market valuation ofthe land.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 27)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:

Has the Federal Government provided any financial assistance for radio and television commercials for the Community Youth Support Scheme featuring the Federal Member for Brisbane, Mr Peter Johnson, M.P.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No. Commonwealth Government funds were not involved.

Department of Industry and Commerce: Apprentices (Question No. 152)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Industry and Commerce since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Under the Administrative Arrangements Order approved on 8 November 1976, a number of functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce became the responsibility of the Department of Productivity. Included among these was the operation of Government Factories.

The information sought by the honourable senator, insofar as the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned, for the period 1 July 1970 to 7 November 1976 is contained in the reply by the Minister for Productivity to question No. 170.

For the period from 8 November 1976 the answers are:

Nil.

Nil.

Nil.

Cummeragunja Co-operative Society Ltd (Question No. 458)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister received a request from the Cummeragunja Co-operative Society Ltd at Barma, New South Wales, for financial assistance to help supply the Aboriginal community with a medical car and adviser to transport the sick to Echuca.
  2. Is the Minister aware that there are over 70 Aboriginal people at Barma and Cummeragunja who could use such a service.
  3. If the Minister has received this request, will he advise of the progress made in considering this submission.
  4. If the Minister has not received such a request, will he undertake to sympathetically consider any such request.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (3) No such request has been received by my Department but I am informed that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which has responsibility for applications of this nature has been approached and has the matter under consideration.
  2. and (4) Should information be requested by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to assist in their consideration of such a submission, my Department will sympathetically consider all aspects of the matter before making any recommendation.

Nuclear Power Station at Whyl, Germany (Question No. 479)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, on 31 March 1977, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In the light of the Government’s stated policy that it will encourage widespread public debate on the uranium mining issue, will the Minister make public the recent court decision in West Germany which ordered the cancellation of planning permission for a nuclear power station at Whyl in West Germany.
  2. Will the Minister also make public that the reason for such a court decision was because of the inadequate safety precautions for such nuclear power plants.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Information provided by the Australian Embassy in the Federal Republic of Germany indicates that the written decision of the Court to which the honourable senator refers is not expected to be available for some months. However, the Court is understood to have ruled that while the plans for the plant conform to the laws governing reactor safety, the safeguards against the possible bursting of the pressure vessel did not reflect the latest available technology as required by the Atomic Law. Although the Court assessed the risk as very small it considered that considerable amounts of radioactive matter could be released if the pressure vessel burst and metal fragments pierced the outer casing of the reactor building. The Court rejected all other arguments against the plant including objections that the local ecology would be disturbed.

Australian Inland Mission Service: Financial Assistance (Question No. 481)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1977:

  1. Will the Government allocate moneys from the Medibank levy reimbursements from the Federal Government to the States to include the Australian Inland Mission Service so as to cover the small annual losses incurred by it.
  2. Does the Minister agree that the subsidy of such a small loss is more than compensated for by the invaluable service afforded to the people of north-west Queensland by the Service.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Inland Mission Service recently made representations seeking further financial assistance for operating its hospitals in outback Queensland. The form of assistance sought was the inclusion of these hospitals in the Commonwealth/State Cost-Sharing Agreement, under which approved net operating costs of recognised hospitals are shared between the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments.

At present, hospitals operated by the Australian Inland Mission Service are approved by the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments as private hospitals and receive

Commonwealth financial assistance by means of $16 daily bed payments for each patient accommodated. To be eligible for inclusion in the Medibank Cost-Sharing Agreement, it would first be necessary for the Queensland Government to change the approval status of these hospitals from private’ to ‘recognised’ hospitals and then for both the Queensland and Commonwealth Health Ministers to agree to amend the list of recognised hospitals in the Agreement to include these hospitals.

The Queensland Government already provides assistance to the Australian Inland Mission towards the running of its hospitals, and it is understood that the Queensland authorities do not wish to vary these arrangements at present.

Mining Projects: Environmental Assessment (Question No. 493)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

Have discussions commenced between officers of the Commonwealth and the States concerning the future environmental assessment of mining projects following the resolution adopted at the recent meeting of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council. If so, (a) when did the discussions commence, and (b) when is it expected that firm arrangements will be agreed upon.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The matter raised by the meeting of the Minerals and Energy Council is one aspect of detailed discussions currently underway with Ministers and officials of State governments. These discussions commenced last year.
  2. Agreement on arrangements is a matter of priority but a firm date for completion cannot be set as it is dependent on actions of each of the States as well as the Commonwealth.

Queensland Regional Co-ordination Councils (Question No. 567)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What effect is the Queensland Government’s decision to abolish the ten regional co-ordination councils in that State likely to have on urban planning in Queensland.
  2. Was the Federal Government consulted prior to the Queensland Government’s decision on this matter. If so, what are the details.
  3. What role, if any, did the councils play in the disbursement of Federal funds in Queensland.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Responsibility for planning in Queensland rests with the State Government and the role and responsibilities of Regional Councils is a matter for the State Government.
  2. No, not to my knowledge.

  3. Regional Co-ordination Councils have been involved in two Commonwealth Government programs in the following manner:

    1. 1973-74 to 1975-76 Area Improvement ProgramThe Moreton and Fitzroy regional co-ordination councils comments and support were sought by both State and Commonwealth Government before approving projects proposed by local Government under this program;
    2. b ) National Estate Program-During consideration proposals submitted for inclusion in the National Estate program the Commonwealth Government, in conjunction with the State Government, sought comments from the Regional Co-ordination Councils on proposals which were of regional significance.

Australian Capital Territory Police: Visits to Schools (Question No. 601)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will visits to schools by Australian Capital Territory policemen be curtailed owing to the cutbacks in the Force.
  2. How many visits were made by policemen to Australian Capital Territory schools in 1976 and how many visits are planned in 1977.
  3. At what level will the programs being conducted by the Traffic Centre at Deakin continue in 1 977.
  4. At what level will programs being conducted by the Juvenile Aid Bureau continue in 1 977.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The staff of the A.C.T. Police available to visit schools has been reduced pending the recruitment and training of new personnel to replace staff wastage. Fewer visits to schools will be made in 1977.
  2. 1976-179 visits to primary /infants schools; 101 visits to pre-schools; 15 visits to high schools, 1977-166 visits to primary /infants schools are planned.
  3. The Traffic Centre at Deakin conducted a course for a period of 2 weeks during the January school holidays. Similar courses are being held during the May holidays. It is intended to continue them during the September holidays. It is also planned to re-open the Centre for courses during school terms from July this year.
  4. The Juvenile Aid Bureau is an operational patrol unit of those areas frequented by young persons. At present it consists of a Sergeant and a Woman Police Officer but it is expected to be re-established to its former strength (6 personnel) by the end of 1977. In the meantime fewer patrols are being carried out.

Fraser Island: Logging Activities (Question No. 694)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

Is the Minister aware of the Queensland Government’s concern that the Federal Government will take action to prevent logging activities on Fraser Island. If so, what is the

Federal Government’s attitude to logging operations on Fraser Island.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes, I have noted Press reports to the effect that the Queensland Government fears action might be taken by the Commonwealth to prevent logging activities on Fraser Island.

Regulation of logging operations on Fraser Island is a State responsibility and I note that the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry found the present system of closely supervised sustained yield logging on the Island to be consistent with maintenance of its environmental quality.

Environmental Impact Statements (Question No. 756)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:

With respect to the Minister’s reply to Pan (2) of Senate Question No. 436, concerning legislation covering the use of environmental impact statements, when is the review of the respective roles of Commonwealth and State Governments likely to be completed.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

A firm date for the completion of the review cannot be set as it is dependent on actions of each of the States as well as the Commonwealth.

Ferntree Gully and Districts Welfare Association (Question No. 772)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. What grants have been made to the Ferntree Gully and Districts Welfare Association for the intellectually handicapped since the introduction of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.
  2. How much was provided in that time for hostel beds for the intellectually handicapped in the electorate of La Trobe.
  3. How many hostel beds did this represent.
  4. Has the leasing of Knoxbrooke land on the old Ferntree Gully quarry site prevented the Ferntree Gully and Districts Welfare Association from attracting funds for the extension of facilities for the intellectually handicapped at Knoxbrooke.
  5. As this land is held in trust for the Ferntree Gully and District Welfare Association to extend their services to the handicapped, what steps can be taken by them to restore eligibility for a grant under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act if they are currently ineligible.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Grants made to the Ferntree Gully and District Welfare Association for the intellectually handicapped from the inception of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act to 6 May 1977 total $35,583. This amount is broken down into the following components-
  1. $91,489 (Note: The Handicapped Persons Assistance Act benefits both physically and mentally handicapped persons and records are not maintained in respect of specific disability groups. However, I am advised that a majority of people residing in these hostels would be mentally handicapped).
  2. 96 beds (See Note on (2) above).
  3. Provided that a long term lease on the land in question could be obtained (99 years lease or 21 years lease with the option of renewal), this factor would not have prevented the organisation from attracting funds for the extension of its facilities.
  4. Provided the land tenure is satisfactory and the organisation proposes to provide a prescribed service for handicapped persons as denned under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, it seems likely that basic eligibility requirements would be met. However, all funds available for expenditure under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act on new or extended facilities for the handicapped during the current 3 year program have been fully committed until 30 June 1979, and it would therefore not be possible to provide a grant to this organisation during the current triennium. I have no authority to anticipate funding for the program beyond the 1976-79 triennium as the Government has not yet decided what form assistance to the handicapped will take beyond this date.

Fawnmac Group of Companies: Price Increases (Question No. 836)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

Has the Government finalised the purchase of the Fawnmac pharmaceutical manufacturing company. If so, why did the Government allow the company to sharply increase its wholesale price of some fourteen items on 14 April 1977, the day after the Prime Minister stated that the price freeze was in operation.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Government has finalised the purchase of the shares in the companies in the Fawnmac group. However, the companies did not increase wholesale prices of 14 items on 14 April.

The last price increases took effect from 1 April 1977, covering 17 of the companies’ own products and a further four handled on an agency basis. Letters to wholesalers advising them of the increased prices were sent on 29 and 3 1 March 1977.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 May 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770525_senate_30_s73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant