Senate
17 August 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 115

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Peacock, leaves Australia today to attend the World Antiapartheid Conference in Lagos. He is expected to return on 26 August. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry, the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 115

PETITIONS

Private Nursing Homes Subsidies

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 43 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That many pensioners who are holders of Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of Private Nursing Homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.

Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the Private Nursing Homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.

Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.

That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.

That those pensioners who have only their pension anc very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, arc in many cases living in extreme poverty.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Make sure that subsidies paid to Private Nursing Homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health Benefit Card will pay the Private Nursing Home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow six dollars per week to be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.

That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, oral a very nominal charge.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a Means Test.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Private Nursing Homes Subsidies

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 70 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of private nursing homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.

Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the private nursing homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.

Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.

That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Make sure that subsidies paid to private nursing homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health Benefit Card will pay the private nursing home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow six dollars per week to.be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.

That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, or at a very nominal charge.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a means test.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

As this petition is identical in wording to one already presented, I do not propose to have it read.

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 1 8 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Refugees from South Africa

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 2 1 7 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) On 16 June 1976, when the students of Soweto township in South Africa demonstrated peacefully, many hundreds were shot down.

Since that date the people of Soweto and of South Africa in general have continued to protest at the denial of human rights and at the terrible conditions to which they are subjected by the white minority Government.

In consequence of the savage repression suffered by the African, coloured and other oppressed people in South Africa, thousands have been forced to flee across the borders into such neighbouring States as Botswana and Mozambique.

We, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government take immediate steps to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees from South Africa, in particular by providing funds for

The supply of clothing, medical supplies, etc.

Scholarships and transport costs to enable student refugees to continue their education in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Refugees from South Africa

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 191 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) On 16 June 1976, when the students of Soweto township in South Africa demonstrated peacefully, many hundreds were shot down.

Since that date the people of Soweto and of South Africa in general have continued to protest at the denial of human rights and at the terrible conditions to which they are subjected by the white minority Government.

In consequence of the savage repression suffered by the African, coloured and other oppressed people in South Africa, thousands have been forced to flee across the borders into such neighbouring States as Botswana and Mozambique.

We, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government take immediate steps to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees from South Africa, in particular by providing funds for the supply of clothing, medical supplies, etc.

Scholarships and transport costs to enable student refugees to continue their education in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present 2 petitions, similar in wording, from 38 and 32 citizens of Australia respectively as follows:

To the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens (students, parents, teachers) of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the decision by the Government to withdraw all forms of financial assistance to students of non-state tertiary institutions is in total conflict with stated Government education policy.

The decision will result in a shortage of places for training secretarial and clerical students and an inordinate demand upon the State Government education systems.

At a time of severe economic disruption, this action must lead to a serious worsening of the current employment situation, particularly school leavers.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will act immediately to reverse its decision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, from 26 and 28 citizens respectively, as follows:

To the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned students of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the decision by the Government to withdraw all forms of financial assistance to students of Non-state Tertiary Institutions is in total conflict with stated Government education policy.

The decision will result in a shortage of places for training secretarial and clerical students and an inordinate demand upon the State Government education systems.

At a time of severe economic disruption, this action must lead to a serious worsening of the current employment situation, particularly for school leavers.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will act immediately to reverse its decision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

As these petitions are similarly worded to one already presented I do not propose to ask to have them read.

Petitions received.

Purchase of Painting

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 62 citizens of Australia:

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

That failure to purchase, at regular intervals, fine and important an works from around the world as they become available, seriously inhibits the growth of cultural and artistic education in this country, restricting us to an isolationist art background.

That failure to purchase the Georges Braque painting, Le Grand Nu, now on offer to the National Gallery would badly set back a genuine attempt to secure a collection of twentieth century art in all its forms, in this case a fine example of cubist art.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government reconsider its decision regarding the purchase of the Georges Braque painting and release the moneys required for its acquisition, or give serious consideration to subsidising dollar for dollar the private donations being sent to the National Gallery for the purchase of this painting and all future works of importance, and, the establishment of an An Fund for this purpose.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Rights of Parents and Children

Senator RYAN:
ACT

-I present the following petition from 1 87 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:

We, the undersigned, express our concern at reported plans to alter or delete certain provisions of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act, 1973. These provisions embody many of the principles of International Labour Organisation conventions on maternal and child protection, notably numbers 3, 102, and 103, conventions which Australia has, regrettably, not ratified. They represent, thus, enlightened and considered thought on the importance of the early weeks and months in the parentchid relationship, with particular reference to the role of the father and the importance of natural feeding as long as possible. The beneficial effects, both physical and psychological, to mother and infant of natural feeding, have been convincingly established, and the present provisions for paternity leave recognise the positive good a father’s assistance and participation at this stage in his child ‘s development can do.

We are also concerned for the health of any mother whose confinement takes place six weeks or less before her return to work after twelve weeks of maternity leave; such a mother is, we consider, medically unfit to rejoin the work force, and should therefore be considered eligible for such sick leave as she has accumulated.

At the same time, the right of the mother to rejoin the work force after such reasonable time as she thinks the health and welfare of her child and herself require, and the wish of the supporting parent who is ready to work rather than receive social security benefits, must be safeguarded. Your petitioners ask that the Senate take action to preserve the rights of parents and children.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 23 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.

Children’s Libraries

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 318 citizens of Australia:

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

Children’s libraries are needed to assist with the stimulation of a child ‘s intellectual development.

Reduction of public expenditure should not be at the expense of the educational development of children.

Closing of any established library is a retrograde step and contrary to the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries.

That the purported decline in use of existing children’s libraries at O’Connor, Lyneham, Narrabundah and Red Hill can be directly related to:

) the reduction in hours of service;

the unsuitability of such hours for school children and working parents; and

the adoption of policies which discourage or fail to stimulate increased usage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate ensure that:

The existing Children’s Libraries at O’Connor, Lyneham, Narrabundah and Red Hill remain open.

That existing children’s library facilities be at least maintained, preferably extended by more reasonable hours, more sensibly related to use.

That rather than depriving the public of existing children’s libraries, similar libraries be built in all suburban shopping areas.

That reduced expenditure and staff cuts by the National Library Service should not be at the expense of educational facilities for our children.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Archives Repository

Senator KNIGHT:

– I present the following petition from 50 citizens of Australia:

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

That, contrary to the accepted principle that the primary duty of an archival institution is to look to the physical and moral defence of archives in its care, the Australian Government has so neglected to care for its archives in the Australian Capital Territory that they are in considerable physical danger.

And that it is a matter for national concern that unique records documenting the history of Australia and Australians are, in their present accommodation in the Australian Capital Territory, under constant threat of destruction.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That construction of a proper archives repository at Mitchell in the Australian Capital Territory be commenced without further delay, to prevent, as far as possible, further deterioration of archives at present housed in sub-standard accommodation, and

That funds be made available and planning commence immediately for the construction of a prestige national archives building within the national area.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Private Nursing Homes Subsidies

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

That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of private nursing homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.

Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the private nursing homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.

Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.

That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

  1. Make sure that subsidies paid to private nursing homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health Benefit Card will pay the private nursing home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow six dollars per week to be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.
  2. That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, or at a very nominal charge.
  3. That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a means test.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Carrick and Senator Lajovic.

Petitions received.

Refugees from South Africa

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

  1. 1 ) On 16 June 1976, when students of Soweto township in South Africa demonstrated peacefully, many hundreds were shot down.
  2. Since that date the people of Soweto and of South Africa in general have continued to protest at the denial of human rights and at the terrible conditions to which they are subjected by the white minority Government.
  3. In consequence of the savage repression suffered by the African, coloured and other oppressed people in South Africa, thousands have been forced to flee across the borders into such neighbouring States as Botswana and Mozambique.

We, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government take immediate steps to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees from South Africa, in particular by providing funds for:

The supply of clothing, medical supplies, etc.

Schorlarships and transport costs to enable student refugees to continue their education in Australia.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

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

That the decision of the Government to withdraw all forms of financial assistance to students of non-State tertiary institutions in the main, business colleges, is in total conflict with stated Government education policy.

The decision will result in a shortage of places for training secretarial and clerical students and an inordinate demand upon the State Government technical education systems.

At a time of severe economic disruption, this action must lead to an unnecessary worsening of the current employment situation for school leavers.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act immediately to reverse its decision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton, Senator James McClelland, Senator Archer and Senator Brown.

Petitions received.

Hunter Region Working Women’s Group

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Newcastle and Hunter Region respectfully asketh:

There be continuing and expanding funding for the Hunter Region Working Women’s Group so that it can continue to provide child care, legal aid, community health, welfare and educational services to the women of the Hunter Region.

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

Petition received.

Australian Legal Aid Office

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 grave concern is expressed about the Government’s intention to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office which is providing efficient, readily available legal aid to all communities in Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will undertake a full national enquiry as proposed in 1975 by the present Attorney-General, as a matter of urgency.

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

Petition received.

Federal Estate Duty

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

That where whole or part of a deceased estate passes to the surviving spouse it should be free from Federal estate duty.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton, Senator Carrick, Senator Baume and Senator Sibraa.

Petitions received.

page 119

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOLS

Notice of Motion

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

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to authorise the giving of guarantees on behalf of the Commonwealth in respect of certain loans made to non-government schools in the States and for purposes related thereto.

page 119

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to fix the maximum age forjudges of the Family Court of Australia and for related purposes.

page 119

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 119

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, is in respect of the Treasurer’s Budget Speech which was read in the Senate last night by the Minister. Can the Minister say whether the principle of full indexation as applied from 1 July 1976 will be continued throughout this financial year, including the new tax system? In asking that question, I refer the Minister to pages 19 and 20 of the Treasurer’s Budget Speech.

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

-When I read the Budget Speech last night- it was greeted with great enthusiasm by honourable senators on this side of the chamber but with stunned silence by honourable senators opposite- I realised that it was a quite complex document. I found it to be more complex than budget speeches presented in previous years. In a number of areas, I thought, it needed greater debate and understanding. I concluded last night that I would be very careful in answering questions which asked for precise details.

Senator Georges:

– Why do you say it was greeted with enthusiasm on your side when you could not understand it?

Senator COTTON:

– I wanted to be quite accurate when answering, in view of the cackle and noise which come from the galahs on the other side of the chamber. I hope that Senator Douglas McClelland will understand that I want to give a precise answer to his question. I will try to obtain that answer for him this afternoon by referring his question to the Treasury. If I am unable to obtain it this afternoon, I will provide it to him tomorrow. I cannot do any more than that.

page 119

QUESTION

REDCLIFF PETRO-CHEMICAL WORKS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Dow chemical company proposal to establish a petro-chemical works at Redcliff in South Australia. Is it a fact that the Dow company is prepared to go ahead with the project provided that a $245m loan can be arranged with South Australia for the infrastructure associated with the plant? Is the Minister able to say whether the South Australian Government has made an approach to the Federal Government for loan funds for this purpose? As the project would provide job opportunities for more than 3000 people during the 4-year construction period and would provide a stable operating work force of more than 700 when the plant was established, can the Minister say whether a decision has been made on this important matter? If not, when will the Government be in a position to consider it?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– If any honourable senator approaches me before question time seeking information such as this, I will try to get details for him. That applies to honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. Senator Jessop said that he wanted to know something about this matter. I have some information which I will read to the Senate. The South Australian Government has requested certain Commonwealth assistance for the establishment by Dow of a petro-chemical complex at Redcliff. The request does not involve a loan to Dow Chemicals but Commonwealth support in the Loan Council for a special addition to South Australia’s semi-government borrowing program to finance State provided infrastructure related to the project. This request is presently being considered by the Commonwealth against the background of the major review of infrastructure financing being carried out by the Commonwealth and the States. In addition to funds for infrastructure the Premier indicated that for the project to proceed removal of the $2 per barrel excise on liquid petroleum gas condensate would also be required. Last night’s Budget Speech announced, of course, that this duty will not be applied to condensate from fields already discovered but not yet developed in the Cooper Basin.

page 120

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-My question to the Minister representing the Treasurer follows one asked earlier by Senator Douglas McClelland. Is the Senate to understand that the very Minister who came into this chamber last night and read the Budget Speech of the Treasurer is telling this Senate that he is now not able to tell us about such a fundamental aspect of the Government’s policy as full indexation? In view of the Minister’s half reply to Senator Douglas McClelland in which the Minister talked about preparing himself for questions on the Budget Speech- as the representative of the Treasurer he ought to be able to answer questions, especially fundamental ones- I remind him of what appears on page 20 of that Speech which he himself read. It says:

Full automatic indexation to prevent effective rates of personal income tax from increasing purely because of inflation will be maintained in respect of the new system in future years.

I ask the Minister: Is that a correct statement? Will full automatic indexation apply in future years under the new system?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-Surely it will be understood that I deliver here, on behalf of the Treasurer, the Government’s Budget Speech. It is not my speech; it is the Government’s speech.I gettheBudgetSpeechveryshortlybeforeIdeliverit.Ireaditinthisplace.IamextremelycarefulabouthowIreadit.Ireaditaccurately.Any query as to its accuracy I take back for certain interpretation. If that is what the Speech says- I do not have a copy with me- that will be correct, but Senator Douglas McClelland was inclined to put a shade of misunderstanding on that and it was that that I wanted to interpret.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Wriedt on a supplementary question.

Senator WRIEDT:

-The Minister having said that that is correct, I now ask him whether he can explain why, buried away in the Budget Papers which were not read in the Speech delivered to the Parliament last night, the following statement appears on page 129:

The new system will be indexed as from 1 July 1978. The indexation factor to be applied to the rate scale in 1 978-79 will be half that given by the annual indexation rules . . .

I ask the Minister: Which statement is correct? Does he wish time to discuss with the Treasurer which statement is correct?

Senator COTTON:

– I imagine, although it has not been stated to me, that what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is one of the statements attached to the Budget Speech. They are of course never read out. I have not even read them myself yet. This demonstrates one very very clear thing- the need for me to be quite certain that any interpretations by the Opposition are accurately rendered by me and that information is obtained from the Treasurer.

page 120

QUESTION

COINAGE

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask of the Minister representing the Treasurer a question which does not relate to the Budget. I preface my question by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that in many overseas countries it is possible to direct dial around the world from public telephones. No doubt such a facility would at least be technically feasible at the moment in Australia, but a 3-minute overseas call from Australia might cost $10 or $12 and by the time a person put in the number of 20c pieces to cover the charge the 3 minutes would be just about up. I am not asking as I have on previous occasions for consideration to be given to the minting of a silver one dollar coin although I think it is a good idea. I should like to know whether the Minister will ask the Treasurer to examine the whole range and size of coins that are used in the Australian currency at the moment with particular emphasis on modernising and reducing the size of all the coins and also introducing a sensibly sized coin to the value of either $2 or preferably $3. Such a coin obviously would be extremely useful for a host of purposes apart from long distance telephone calls.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Any questions concerning changing the value, size or structure of the coinage would have to be directed to the Treasurer. I will take this suggestion to him.

page 120

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Senator GIETZELT:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Since he has conceded that it is rather difficult for him to give concise answers concerning some of the more fundamental principles contained in the

Budget Speech, I think he must concede also how difficult it is for members of the Opposition and the general public to understand and comprehend some of the principles that have been established. Will the Minister, in conceding that point, ascertain from the Treasurer or any other Minister who might understand what is encompassed in the Budget Speech, whether the full indexation arrangements that began on 1 July last year, plus the benefits that are alleged to accrue under the new system that establishes three new tax categories, will apply after 1 July 1 978?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As in the other cases, I will undertake to obtain the information.

page 121

QUESTION

ETHNIC BROADCASTING

Senator DAVIDSON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer particularly to the joint statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications of 15 August relating to advisory committees on ethnic broadcasting services. I acknowledge that it is pointed out that the advisory committee will be the National Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council but I refer particularly to the State ethnic broadcasting advisory committees which, according to the statement, are to be announced in the near future. I ask: Will the Government, in giving effect to its decision, take care to consult people involved in immigration and ethnic areas so that all areas of opinion, action and experience, as well as contemporary interest, will be involved?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I undertake to draw to the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the matters which were raised in the honourable senator’s question. I agree with him that in the composition of the State committees it is important that consultations be held with those who will have an interest in the ethnic broadcasting service. It is important also that the areas of experience and expertise are used to ensure that whatever committees are established reflect the experience that is available to the Government in this area.

page 121

QUESTION

POLISH EX-SERVICEMEN: PENSIONS

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. It concerns those Polish born Australian citizens who served under British command during World War II and were awarded British campaign medals. In view of the Minister’s repeatedly expressed sympathy for the morally persuasive case that such ex-servicemen should not continue to be denied Service pension entitlements, why was this discrimination against a handful of ex-servicemen not remedied in last night’s Budget.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– As I have said in answer to a number of questions on this subject, it is not just a handful of people who are concerned. The number encompassed by Senator Harradine ‘s question may be small but I have said in answer to these questions that there are numbers of other Allied ex-servicemen who would have to be considered in any initiative taken by the Government in this direction. I promised that the matter would be looked at in the Budget context. I assure Senator Harradine and all the Poles concerned that it was considered but in view of the publicly known policy of the Government that there was to be, as far as possible, zero growth in this Budget, and also the policy of restricting new initiatives to the absolute minimum, I regret that the Government was unable to accede to any new initiatives in this direction in this year’s Budget.

page 121

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct to the Minister representing the Treasurer a question which follows upon questions asked previously by Senator Douglas McClelland, Senator Wriedt and Senator Gietzelt. I have a particular interest in the interpretation of the indexation scale. I say respectfully that, having been in the chamber and having heard the questions and answers, I am now more confused than I was before I read the Budget documents. I ask the Minister whether, when he is seeking the information from the Treasury or the Treasurer, he will endeavour to assist me in interpreting the following passage at page 20 of the Budget speech:

The new rate scale, which will have been operating only during the second half of the financial year will be indexed at that time by half the factor given by the annual indexation rules.

Does that mean that the indexation scale that was introduced on 1 July 1977 will be halved and will then cease on 30 June 1978 and be replaced by a new system of indexation? I point out that at page 129 of the documents attached to the Budget Speech the new arrangement purports to be as follows:

The new system will be indexed as from 1 July 1978. The indexation factor to be applied to the rate scale in 1978-79 will be half that given by the annual indexation rules . . .

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is this year.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– Yes, this year. So there is a lot of confusion. The Minister will be doing the Senate and the country a good turn if he can obtain from the Treasury an explanation that can be readily understood by us all.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As I said in answer to the previous questions, I shall be very happy to try to get this whole matter cleared up.

page 122

QUESTION

EUROPEAN CARP

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I refer to a report in the Age of 6 August 1977 which detailed the tremendous destruction of Victorian waterways being caused by European carp, especially in the River Murray system. Does the Minister agree that this problem is spreading at an alarming rate and is now serious enough to constitute a national problem? Does the Minister also agree that, compared with the enormity of the problem, comparatively little is currently being done about it? Will the Government give recognition to the serious nature of the European carp problem and act with urgency to mitigate the enormous damage currently being inflicted on Australian waterways and the environment generally?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I did not see the article in the Age of 6 August, but I will certainly do so. I am aware, as indeed the Government is, of the growing damage to our waterways by the European carp. I have no specific knowledge in detail of what steps are being taken by various departments. I know, for example, that my colleague the Minister for Science is deeply interested in this problem. I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the appropriate Ministers and seek appropriate information for him.

page 122

QUESTION

MIGRANTS IN THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT

Senator MCINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Since the Minister, Senator Guilfoyle, was bom in Northern Ireland it is most appropriate that she should answer the question. Will the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs be seeking legal means of deporting migrants, who could be citizens of this country, because they choose to become active members of the trade union movement? If so, will this policy be extended to mirants in the political arena? Maybe I should ask Senator Bonner that question.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I will refer the matter that has been raised by the honourable senator to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic

Affairs. I have no comments to make in regard to the introductory part of the question. Perhaps I share a heritage from some other place with the honourable senator who directed the question to me.

page 122

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY BUDGET

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory News of 10 August 1977 reported Mr John Isaacs, the Australian Labor Party leader in the Northern Territory, as saying that he had been advised from an impeccable source that extra revenue of some $ 1 5m was to be raised on top of normal internal revenue in the Northern Territory budget. The Australian Broadcasting Commission in the Northern Territory said today that the figure would be $2 1 m. In view of the fact that Budget documents give no indication that these allegations can be substantiated and that they would appear to be nothing more than a red herring to worry and disconcert the Northern Territory community, will the Minister comment on these statements?

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

-Regrettably I am unable to give any positive information relating to these statements. They have not been drawn to my attention. I will immediately seek information from the appropriate Minister and bring it to the Senate ‘s attention as soon as possible.

page 122

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Senator WALSH:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the patent inability of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who represents the Treasurer in the Senate, to give information pertaining to the Budget, perhaps the Leader of the Government knows something about the Budget which his Government has presented, especially in view of his colleague’s comment a moment ago that there were some galahs on this side of the Senate. I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government to the statement on page 17 of the Treasurer’s Budget Speech that as a result of tax indexation revenue amounting to $965 m would be forgone in the financial year 1977-78. I ask whether it is correct, as implied on pages 125 and 134 of Budget Paper No. 1, that this revenue comprises $825m arising from the current income year and $140m arising from the previous income year. Would it not have been more truthful for the Treasurer to draw attention to the fact that the benefit to taxpayers from tax indexation in this financial year is not $965m, as his Budget Speech asserts, but $825m?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-It is quite obvious that Senator Walsh has sat up all night worrying about what he believes to be some terrible trick of the Treasurer to outwit him- not that that would be terribly difficult. The honourable senator should not come in here, quote figures and play around, and expect to get answers off the top of my head. I have no intention of accepting his invitation in that respect; nor have I any intention of accepting his invitation in which he is enticing me to lock horns with my colleague and deputy, Senator Cotton.

Senator McLaren:

– He has not got any horns.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator should not be too certain about that. I will not be enticed by that silly interjection either. Senator Walsh asked me a question without notice requiring answers to mathematical questions. I have not the relevant documents before me. I therefore suggest that he put the question on notice.

Senator WALSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate inform the Senate whether any Minister of the Government knows anything about the Budget that was presented last night?

Senator WITHERS:

-The best answer I can give to Senator Walsh is that I can well understand why he cannot work out what is in the Budget; he does not even know what a supplementary question is.

page 123

QUESTION

SALMONELLA

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, concerns the problems of salmonella infection of baby milk powders detected at Tongala recently. Can the Minister say whether powdered milk products produced at other factories in any way constituted any threat to the health of infants? Specifically, can the Minister say whether the products of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd, the other major producer of these products, manufactured at Parramatta in Sydney were at any time suspect? Is she satisfied that the standards and quality of powdered milk produced by Wyeth were always of the levels required? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether all the problems associated with salmonella infection in baby milk powders have now been overcome?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that at no time were the products of the Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd factory at Parramatta suspect. I also understand that Wyeth powdered milk has not been shown to be deficient either in standard or in quality. I am unaware that any other factories have been shown to have difficulties. As I indicated yesterday, the Government has treated very seriously the recent salmonella infection which was detected in milk supplies. If I have any further information which the Minister for Health can provide I will see that it is given to the honourable senator.

page 123

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce agree that the clear implications of Treasury Budget Paper No. 2 are that there is no prospect of a reduction in interest rates in the foreseeable future? I ask this question of him because as Minister he will recognise that this matter is of vital concern, particularly to small businesses.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I have not yet read Budget Paper No. 2. I think I mentioned that earlier. I said that any senator who wants a serious answer to any question should come to me prior to question time and I will endeavour to get it. I snail not be drawing out of thin air some assumption of knowledge that I do not believe I necessarily possess at the moment. Therefore honourable senators may take it that I will be very careful in answering questions, to be right on these matters. As I recall the Treasurer’s Budget Speech, he indicated that a desirable aim of the Government in bringing down the inflation rate was to be able to bring down interest rates and, in managing the money supply, to be able to help in that process. I think it extremely unlikely that Budget Paper No. 2 would contain what Senator Button said. Over and above that, my view on this is quite well known. One of the things one wants to do in a society like Australia is to bring down the inflation rate in order to be able to bring down interest rates.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that in a number of statements and ministerial speeches which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has made in the past couple of months he suggested that the prospect of a reduction in interest rates was foreseeable? In view of the fact that he made those statements publicly as a Minister, does he now seriously say to the Senate that he is unaware of the implications of the Budget on this question?

Senator COTTON:

– Either one of us is or both of us are extremely obtuse. I did not say that. The honourable senator did not indicate that. In no way could he so construct my remarks. I can let him have free a copy of a speech I made outside the Senate in which I said what I am saying here.

I said that a reduction in the inflation rate was extremely critical. One of the by-products of that in due course should be a reduction in interest rates. That would be highly desirable. That seems to me to be quite consistent.

page 124

QUESTION

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs been drawn to the answer that the Opposition spokesman on economic management gave to the accusation that the advertisement inserted by the Australian Labor Party in the daily paper of 1 1 August should be considered a breach of the truth in advertising section of the Trade Practices Act? Is the answer an admission that the Labor Party does not consider it necessary to abide by truth in advertising?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Senator Walters has drawn my attention to allegations that an Australian Labor Party advertisement in the daily Press was misleading and to an answer which is reported to have been given by Mr Hayden, the Opposition spokesman on economic management. As the advertisement dealt with allegations of the Government’s economic mismanagement and so on, I suppose he was the appropriate man to make a response, although it is always difficult to determine who is responsible in the Labor Party for speaking on economic matters. The Labor Party seems to be unable to make up its mind who it’s spokesman is on these matters. The charge that has been made by Senator Walters about the advertisement, which I have not seen but about which I have heard, would seem to be well justified. It is a fact that the Trade Practices Act does not provide any method of taking proceedings to correct misleading advertisements by political parties or politicians. The consumer protection provisions of that Act apply only to misleading or deceptive conduct in matters relating to trade or commerce. However I must say that it is rather passing strange that Mr Hayden, in answering Senator Walters, should fall back upon legal technicalities and apparently not be prepared to defend the advertisement on its merits.

page 124

QUESTION

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING

Senator WRIEDT:

– In view of the answer just given by the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, I ask him two questions. Firstly, was he saying in fact that Senator Walters did not know what she was talking about, as Mr Hayden implied when he said that she did not understand the provisions of the

Act? Secondly, was not the Minister giving a legal opinion?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I was referring to the general consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act. If that constitutes giving a legal opinion, I am guilty of giving a legal opinion.

Senator Wriedt:

– You are accusing Mr Hayden of talking legalities.

Senator DURACK:

– I am accusing Mr Hayden of hiding behind legalities in defending himself against the charges which I believe were quite properly levelled by Senator Walters.

page 124

QUESTION

SHARE DEALINGS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to a recent comment by the prominent Australian Financial Review columnist ‘Chanticleer’ which pointed to the possibility of insider trading by Australian Capital Territory residents in shares of companies subject to merger or take-over discussions with the Trade Practices Commission. While in no way insinuating any impropriety on the part of any person, will the Minister assure the Senate that there is no question of any doubt about the integrity of officers of any relevant departments or commissions in view of the fact that insider traders in the Australian Capital Territory are not presently subject to laws applying in this situation in other States?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-At the risk of being accused by the Leader of the Opposition of giving a legal opinion, I must say -

Senator Wriedt:

– We would not mind as long as we got something definite from somebody.

Senator DURACK:

-Is the Leader of the Opposition now pleased that I give a legal opinion, or is he chiding me for it? Senator Messner raised a question regarding insider trading under the laws applying in the Australian Capital Territory. I am afraid that I am not sufficiently aware of the details of that legislation to be able to give a specific answer. However I will certainly have the matter looked at. Nevertheless I think I should say something further about the article by Chanticleer’ to which Senator Messner has referred. I think it refers to the boys in Canberra having the sort of information on which fortunes are made. I do not know to what that is really referring. It is probably not meant to be a serious reflection on Commonwealth public servants, who are certainly at times in possession of such information. However, it would certainly be a very serious breach of the Crimes Act if any one of them used that information in that way. I have no reason to believe, and I am sure that the Government has no reason to believe, that any Commonweath public servants are doing so. However, I will look at the matter further in respect of the insider trading provisions of the legislation referred to by Senator Messner and I will advise him and the Senate accordingly.

page 125

QUESTION

DEPORTATION APPEALS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the actions of the Minister in submitting one case, involving the possible deportation of a New Zealand national, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and another case, that of Mr Salemi, an Italian resident in Melbourne who is also facing deportation, to Professor Richardson, the Federal Ombudsman. Are we to interpret those actions as meaning that people from Comonwealth countries may appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and that people from nonCommonwealth countries will have the right to go before the Ombudsman? I also ask the Minister whether that procedure will be followed in relation to people who are denied citizenship.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Australian citizens and people having resident status in Australia may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs under section 12, 13 or 48 of the Migration Act 1958. Sections 12 and 13 of the Migration Act provide powers under which the Minister may order the deportation of people who have been admitted to Australia for settlement and who are convicted for crime. People who have been admitted to Australia temporarily or who are here illegally do not have the right of appeal to the Tribunal. However, people not having resident status and prohibited immigrants may request the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate any complaint they may have concerning administrative actions of departments or officials. The Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate actions taken by a Minister.

The New Zealand citizen to whom the honourable senator refers exercised his right as a person having resident status in Australia to apply to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the Minister to order his deportation pursuant to section 13 of the Migration Act. Mr Salemi, on the other hand, being in Australia illegally and not being the subject of a deportation order made under section 12 or 13 of the Migration Act, or for that matter any other section of the

Act, has no right of appeal to the Tribunal. His legal representative complained on his behalf to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, alleging amongst other things errors on the part of the Department in the manner in which Mr Salemi ‘s application for amnesty had been handled and in the advice furnished to the Minister. It is a matter for each individual to decide whether he will exercise whatever right of appeal is open to him. The citizenship of the individual has no bearing on the matter. The Administrative Review Council, which was established under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, will review and make recommendations on other classes of decisions which the Council considers should be the subject of review by a court, tribunal or other body. I hope that that explains the matters raised by the honourable senator.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question which is prompted by the reply given to me yesterday by Senator Withers. I am not ungrateful for the depth of the Minister’s response, but I would like to know whether it negates any report that may have emanated from Mr Justice Hope’s Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, relating to citizenship, which Senator Withers told me yesterday was still in a sort of limbo.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I feel that I should have advice on that, unless the Leader of the Government wishes to make some further explanation. I will seek advice on the matter in relation to those particular cases.

page 125

QUESTION

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: PAYMENT OF COSTS

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Attorney-General. The Canberra Times carried some news in the form of a leak, it appeared, suggesting that the Government had entered into an arrangement with the defendants in a constitutional conspiracy case- Mr Whitlam, Dr Cairns, Mr Connor and Mr Justice Murphy- to the effect that the Government had agreed to pay the costs of the defendants in regard to those legal proceedings. I ask the Minister whether that news has any basis in fact. If so, to what proceedings does the announcement refer? Does it refer to summary court proceedings only, appeals therefrom or ultimate higher court proceedings if they become necessary? Is there any limit to the commitment?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– A report about this matter appeared yesterday in the Canberra Times. It was not a leak. It is true that no public announcement has been made by the Government in regard to this matter. The reason for that is that the Attorney-General intended to write to the former Ministers concerned or to their solicitors to convey the decision of the Government on this matter. I now have reason to believe that the solicitors for three of those involved and Mr Justice Murphy, who was not represented by a solicitor in relation to this matter, have been informed of the Government’s decision. They have received the Attorney’s letter. In that case, I am prepared at this stage to confirm the decision of the Government that the Commonwealth has agreed to pay reasonable costs- as determined by the Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealthof the defendants in the proceedings brought by Mr Sankey. As to the further question Senator Wright asked about whether these costs would cover the costs of proceedings on appeal in the New South Wales Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, the contemplation is that the reasonable costs incurred by the defendants will be met in all the proceedings which flow from those instituted by Mr Sankey.

Mr BRIAN DODD: PRESS RELEASES

Senator COLSTON:

– My question is directed to Senator Withers in his capacity either as Leader of the Government in the Senate or as Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. By way of preface, I mention that I have received a letter from Mr Brian Dodd, Press Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Dodd attached to his letter two draft Press releases about the Burdekin River Basin. Mr Dodd suggested that I might use the Press releases and even promised to send me more of this type of material. Due to the biased nature of the draft Press releases, I did not contemplate using them. Can the Minister inform me whether it is normal for Mr Dodd to write Press releases for the possible use of an Opposition senator?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-A11 1 can suggest is that Mr Dodd has had a look at the many questions that the honourable senator has placed on the Notice Paper, realises how ill informed he is on so many matters and is trying to help the honourable senator.

page 126

QUESTION

MEDIBANK: FALSE CLAIMS BY DOCTORS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Regrettably, odd cases are still coming forward indicating that a small minority of the medical profession has abused the position of trust doctors occupy by making false Medibank claims. As their own association does not appear to be taking disciplinary action against them, has or would the Government consider deregistration as the appropriate penalty rather than a fine which is of little consequence to such people?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will draw the question to the attention of the Minister for Health and obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 126

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS ASSOCIATION LTD

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I draw to the Minister’s attention a pamphlet being distributed in Victoria by the Hospital Benefits Association Ltd. In part, it says:

In addition HBA offers higher hospital benefits of $60 and $70 per day and also other benefits Medibank does not provide . . .

It continues:

HBA offers Dental/Chemist/Ancillary cover (not available from Medibank Private) . . .

As both these statements are false, will the Minister have the matter investigated as a breach of the Trade Practices Act and, in the meantime, instruct HBA to withdraw this blatant example of false and misleading advertising?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I shall refer the matter raised by Senator Melzer to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs whom I represent.

page 126

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY SOURCES

Senator KNIGHT:

– I ask the Minister for Science: Is it true that the first Fox report on uranium stated that ‘all reasonable practical steps should be taken to limit reliance on nuclear energy’? Can the Minister indicate whether action is being taken on this recommendation? Can he state what provisions have been made in the Budget brought down last night to limit reliance on nuclear energy and to develop other energy sources? Specifically, can he indicate what action the Government will take to promote research and development of solar energy in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Government is presently studying the Fox Report. The honourable senator will understand that questions relating to research into nuclear energy should be directed to the Minister for National Resources and I will forward that part of his question to that Minister. The honourable senator will be aware that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is within that Minister’s portfolio. However, I can make some general comments in relation to other energy sources, particularly the work that is conducted by branches of my Department, particularly the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, on solar energy. The Senate should be aware that when we speak of research into solar energy it may be that the work that is carried out by the CSIRO is only a small part of the vast amount of research into solar energy by institutions, universities and colleges of advanced education. There is a great deal of work being done and increased funds, although the amount is not great, have been directed this year towards solar energy research by organisations within my responsibility.

The honourable senator’s question also embraces research which is being done in other areas of energy. Again a great deal is being done in Australia and overseas. On solar energy work by the CSIRO, we will be spending in excess of $1.4m this coming year. As I have mentioned previously, it is reported that the United States of America will be spending approximately $200m this year on this research. The information obtained there will be very valuable to this country. From my reading I understand that Canada is spending about $750,000 on solar energy research. There is also a great deal of work being carried out on behalf of the Australian public into coal research, liquefaction and gasification of coal and oil shale. There is also electro-chemical research which is particularly important and geothermal research has been receiving attention.

There are programs being conducted generally throughout Australia for wind, wave and tidal energy research in an attempt to obtain benefits for this country. There is also the very important area of photosynthesis which is the traditional use of solar energy in the development of plants and research is being carried out into the use of plants for conversion into useful fuels. I believe that what is occurring in space research has great prospects for solar energy. It has been predicted that, during the next few years, it will become possible to overcome the problems presented by the atmospheric layer around the earth and to beam purer solar energy back to earth stations by way of short wave or other types of communication. So, there are great prospects for general use of many energy forms other than solar energy.

page 127

QUESTION

CHILD CARE

Senator RYAN:

– I ask the Minister for Social Security: Why, after approving a grant of $24,400 to the Women’s Trade Union Commission for the co-ordination of a child care project for working people, has she refused funds for the resulting Eden Park industrial estate child care project? Does her refusal to fund that project indicate a change in the criteria for funding community based child care projects? If so, why was the Women’s Trade Union Commission not informed of those changes?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Projects for approval for this forthcoming year are under consideration. The Eden Park project is one of the matters under consideration and when we are able to determine the new projects which will be approved in this year an announcement will be made.

page 127

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: PAYMENT IN ARREARS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security to see whether anyone knows anything about the Budget. It was stated last evening in the Budget Speech that there will be an alteration to the method of payment of the unemployment benefit. The benefit is now paid fortnightly in advance. In future it is to be paid a fortnight in arrears. The Minister’s statement circulated this morning referred to inaccurate speculation regarding the benefit and suggested that the change in the method of payment will apply only to new applicants for the unemployment benefit. Can the Minister say what is the actual position? Will those people presently receiving the unemployment benefit have to wait 3 weeks or a month before they receive payment?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It was one of the Budget announcements that in future payment of the unemployment benefit will be made in arrears instead of in advance as at present. We will continue to pay by cheque on a fortnightly basis and the 7-day waiting period for eligibility will be retained. The changes will apply to those people who apply for the benefit after 1 November. We will retain the present system of fortnightly cheque payments for all those people who are currently receiving the unemployment benefit. There will be no change to their situation. Those people who come onto the unemployment benefit after 1 November will have to wait until a fortnight has elapsed before they receive their payment. I could issue a full statement as I did to honourable members and senators last night about this matter and all the Department of Social Security and Commonwealth Employment Service offices will have instructions today on the new procedures. Where a person is currently receiving the unemployment benefit and continues to receive it after 1 November there will be no change in the payment of cheques to him.

page 128

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The question probably has some implications for her own Department of Social Security. What is the present status of Vietnamese refugees who arrived recently, as I understand it illegally, in Australia? What is the Government’s attitude and policy with regard to these people? Have they been or will they be given Australian citizenship? If they are to remain in Australia where will they be accommodated and what action will be taken to fit them into the Australian community? What sources of income do these people have to sustain them at the present time? What is the Government’s attitude towards the offers made by some State governments, as I understand it, and certainly by community organisations to provide accommodation and sustenance for these refugees? Is there a likelihood of a continued substantial influx of refugees from Vietnam? Finally, what would be the position if entry under similar circumstances by people from another country were to occur?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-There are in the question a number of matters which relate to my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and there are other matters which relate to my own responsibility. In view of the detailed nature of the question I suggest that it be placed on notice. In the meantime I say that where refugees have arrived in this country there is an immediate payment of a special benefit to them. If they are in foster care the appropriate payments are made for fostering. Also double orphan and all sorts of other payments are made. If the honourable senator places the question on notice I could give detailed information as to what State governments are doing and how we are co-operating in making the settlement of these people as comfortable and secure as possible.

page 128

QUESTION

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. She will recall that yesterday I sought information in respect of the transfer of the head of the Department of Social Security and received the following reply:

The matter raised in the terms in which it has been raised is not fact.

I now ask: Is it a fact that the Director-General of Social Security is being transferred to another position? Is that position within the Department of the Capital Territory? I further ask: If it is a fact that the Director-General is being transferred, will the Minister advise the Senate of the reasons for the transfer?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am not able to make a statement on this matter at the present time. If I am able to make a statement at a later stage, I will be happy to provide the information that has been requested.

page 128

QUESTION

MARY KATHLEEN URANIUM LTD

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I understand that on 3 February 1976 the Government announced its intention to sell its 41.6 per cent interest in Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd. I ask: Has the Government sold its interest? If so, how were the shares disposed of and who bought them?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will have to check that information for the honourable senator. To the best of my recollection the shareholding has not been sold. If it has been sold I will obtain the details for the honourable senator.

page 128

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HEALTH

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, by referring her to a reply she gave to my colleague, Senator O’Byrne, yesterday. The Minister stated:

Unauthorised expenditure of $55,000 by the Service had been the cause of some problems.

Is the Minister aware that the expenditure had been authorised by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs when a delegation from the Medical Service met the Minister in Canberra on 21 September 1976? Is the Minister aware also that the Minister and departmental officers continued to support the expenditure of the sum referred to on renovations to the Medical Centre until 24 June 1977? Will the Minister now take the appropriate action to correct the statement that she made on 16 August 1977?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I was drawing on a brief that had been given to me by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs when I answered the question that was directed to me yesterday concerning the Aboriginal Medical Service at Redfern. The information, as I stated it at that time, was that unauthorised expenditure of $55,000 by the Service had been the cause of some its problems. I will now draw the attention of the Minister to the matters that have been raised today by the honourable senator to see whether any clarification of the statement that I made yesterday is necessary. If so, I will be prepared to clarify it for him and for the Senate. As I understand it, there were difficulties in the Supply period for the Aboriginal Medical Service at Redfern. As I said yesterday, its application for finance for this year was received only on 7 July. Funds were available for it and there was no intention that funds would not be forthcoming in this coming year.

page 129

QUESTION

INQUIRIES BY INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Are reports accurate which suggest that the Government is to instruct the Industries Assistance Commission that in future inquiries into industry protection the effect on employment is to be given prime consideration? If such reports are accurate, when and how is the IAC to be instructed? What will the criteria be in order to protect the employment of Australian workers in industries such as the textiles, clothing, footwear and electronics industries?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Some time ago the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who has responsibility for this area, wrote to the Industries Assistance Commission, saying that the Government would like it to consider seriously, in any matter referred to it, the effect on the employment of people in the industry and in Australia of any recommendations it saw fit to make. The Government has again reminded the IAC of the importance of that aspect. I imagine that a statement on that matter will be made tonight, if it is able to be delivered in the time that we have available. If it is not made tonight it will be made tomorrow. I refer the honourable senator to the White Paper on manufacturing which stresses the importance of the IAC having regard to any employment consequences of any recommendation it makes.

page 129

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION PROGRAM

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the answer which he put down in the Senate yesterday which followed a question I asked in the Senate on 3 June 1977. 1 asked at that time:

Will the Minister draw this matter-

This matter being a misreporting of fact by the Australian Broadcasting Commission - to the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and seek an explanation as to the circumstances in which a mis-statement of fact is regarded by the Commission as a technicality.

The answer obtained yesterday states:

The Chairman of the ABC has expressed regret on behalf of the Commission regarding the statement made . . .

That is no answer to the question. I again ask the Minister: Will he draw the matter to the attention of the ABC and seek an explanation in the terms sought on 3 June?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware that the answer given by the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an expression of regret and does not relate itself to an explanation of the circumstances. I will ask my colleague in another place to approach the Australian Broadcasting Commission and seek an explicit reply in the terms of Senator Chaney ‘s question.

page 129

QUESTION

CASUARINA HOSPITAL

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: Is it a fact that when the Casuarina Hospital is opened two floors of the building will be used as office accommodation by other government departments in Darwin? If this is a fact, will the Minister indicate whether such utilisation is a result of a shortage of hospital staff to work the floors, an acute shortage of office accommodation in Darwin or a shortage of patients?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will obtain the information requested by the honourable senator from the Minister for Health as early as possible.

page 129

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator McINTOSH:

-Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of articles by Mr Richard Carleton, who has recently visited East Timor, which confirm details of atrocities by Indonesion armed forces? Does the Government intend to interview Mr Carleton concerning his statement? In view of the mounting evidence of massive atrocities by Indonesians in East Timor, will the Government now attempt to assist the International Red Cross to get into East Timor and renew calls for immediate withdrawal of Indonesian troops?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I ask the honourable senator to place his question on notice.

page 129

QUESTION

ELECTORATE OF WANNON: TELEVISION FACILITIES

Senator BUTTON:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications: Is it a fact that the Government has decided to spend $2m to upgrade television facilities in the Prime Minister’s Victorian electorate of Wannon? I also ask: Is it a fact that the Broadcasting Control Board listed 20 areas which it regarded as being of high priority for the upgrading of television reception and that the area in Wannon was not amongst those top 20 in terms of need? I further ask the Minister: Has the Department been given instructions that this matter is to be proceeded with as a matter of priority? If this is so, what novel explanation is available for this instruction?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Since the information obviously could not be available for me at first hand, I ask the honourable senator to put the question on notice.

page 130

QUESTION

PAKISTAN

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

– On 24 May Senator Missen asked me a question about political prisoners in Pakistan. I said that I would seek information for him. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) has now provided me with the following answer. The Australian Government is aware of the recently published report of Amnesty International which expressed concern over the treatment of political opponents of the Government in Pakistan. As a matter of principle, the Government believes that political prisoners in any country should be brought to trial with as little delay as possible. The Government’s concern at the large number of political detainees held in many countries throughout the world has frequently been made known in the Parliament and will continue to be so.

The present political situation in Pakistan makes it difficult to know exactly what developments have occurred recently relating to political prisoners. The present Martial Law Administration led by General Zia al Haq removed Prime Minister Bhutto from office on 5 July and plans to transfer power back to the civilian authorities by way of a national election on 18 October. The Martial Law Administration initially placed a number of political leaders under temporary detention but has since released all of them. A number of political prisoners, detained by Mr Bhutto’s Government, have also been released by the Martial Law Administration, but we do not know how many. All political activity is at present subject to controls under martial law.

page 130

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY BUDGET

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

– I seek leave to give a response to a question asked at question time this day.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WEBSTER:

-On behalf of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) I give the following response to a question asked by Senator Kilgariff earlier today. The published estimates of revenue from the supply of services by the Department of the Northern Territory show that actual collections in 1976-77 were $30,383,589, while estimated collections in 1977-78 total $51,201,000. The total estimated increase is therefore just under $21m and is made up of 2 components. The first of these is derived from the estimated growth in demand for all services supplied by the Department of the Northern Territory at current rates of tariffs and fees and totals $15m. The second component is an estimated general revenue increase of $6m which has been budgeted for by the Government but as explained by the Minister for the Northern Territory in his public statement issued immediately after the Budget was brought down last night specific increases in this context will be determined by the Northern Territory Executive and be subject to approval by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

page 130

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 17 August 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 take positive steps to improve employment and its discriminatory actions against the unemployed. ‘

Yours faithfully, DONALD JAMES GRIMES

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:

That unemployment and the failure to improve the employment situation in this country is a matter of great importance in all our community should be self-evident. It should be self-evident to everyone in this House. From the attitude of

Government supporters both in this place and in another place it seems that this is not so. Hence the Opposition has moved this motion today. The spectre of unemployment in this country is frightening not only because of the number of people unemployed, which now totals according to the Government’s figures 340 000 people in the community, but also because of the unremitting increase in the figures, the nature of the people who are unemployed and their distribution throughout the community. It is worth noting, I believe, that the attitude of prominent government members often changed with time and their position in the House. In September 1974 the shadow Minister for Labour, the Honourable John Malcolm Fraser, said:

The Government should pay the minimum wage if the number of unemployed exceeds 250,000. By that time it will be almost impossible for these people to get a job.

I believe it is interesting to compare that statement with his statements as Prime Minister and with the statements of his Ministers and supporters in this place.

We have a severe unemployment problem across the nation. In some areas it is more severe than in others. Aboriginal unemployment, of course, is a national disgrace. In toto amongst Aboriginals the unemployment rate exceeds 50 per cent. The predominance of youth amongst our unemployed is a new phenomenon. Youththat is people under 21, now comprise 50 per cent of the unemployed in this country. A further factor not seen in the unemployment figures is the so-called hidden unemployed-the large numbers of married women who have lost their jobs in the last two years due to the continuing downfall in employment opportunities in this country. We have a regional bias in unemployment. We have areas of manufacturing in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia with quite hair raising levels of unemployment. All rural areas in this country have high levels of unemployment. In all these areas the proportion of unemployed who are under 2 1 or 25 is very high. In Newcastle there are 1 50 unemployed youths for every job opportunity. Even more difficult is the fact that the duration that people are unemployed has increased and now averages over 1 8 weeks. It continues to increase, as it did in the past. Large numbers of people in this country face long term idleness. The young unemployed particularly face the associated social problems of an increased incidence of crime, vandalism, drug abuse, marital breakdown and suicide. The hopelessness which follows this long term idleness leads to lack of motivation for work which is a feature of all unemployed in the community.

To this national disgrace is added the Government ‘s lack of action and the Government’s lack of willingness to do anything about the unemployed. All countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with varying degrees of the same problem, are taking steps actively to increase employment, to create jobs, to provide positive assistance for those who are unemployed and to provide positive assistance to supply jobs. The present Government adds small amounts of funds to retraining and support schemes to benefit a few, but it persistently refuses to consider job improvement, job creating activities, either by economic measures or by direct government action to increase the number of jobs available in the community.

The Budget brought down last night does nothing to improve the hopes of the unemployed. Commentators, editorialists, economists, the President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce do not expect unemployment to improve. Even the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), who used much more sober language this year than he did last year, when speaking about unemployment said that his activities should broadly take up the growth in the work force but perhaps not much more than that. In view of the accuracy of his predictions last year there is no hope for the unemployed. Anyone who heard the program AM this morning would have heard the President of the Small Businesses Association, who sounded as though he was in grave danger of having a stroke, judging by the language he used and the manner in which he described last night’s Budget.

The Government has obviously confirmed its intention to use unemployment as an economic tool to beat inflation in a way that no other country is doing. The unemployed seem to be statistics to play with or perhaps a club with which to attack the trade unions in this country. Added to this, the past, present and future actions of the Government as forecast in the Budget last night are aimed at further attacking the unemployed, further increasing their hardship and further making them more disadvantaged in the community. The Government began its divisive attack against the unemployed before it took office. There is no need for me to repeat, as has been repeated in this House many times, the story of the continual attack in this community on the so-called dole bludgers, with all its division and all the difficulties it has created. Ministers and members in this House and in the other place have proclaimed that unemployment is a myth. One can say only that that is some myth, with 340 000 unemployed arid 250 000 on unemployment benefits, which is an increase of 70 000 since the present Government took office. At the same time it is worth noting that in the last 1 8 months the number of people employed in the manufacturing and construction industries in this country has decreased by some 100 000. New depths have been reached in the last few days by the member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) who attacks Aboriginals whom he says are overfed and overprotected. It is interesting to note that at the time this gentleman made this statement figures showing the fearful malnutrition and ill health of Aboriginals in this country were released.

The Government introduced taxation of unemployment benefits. It further added to the burden of the unemployed by taxing not only the benefits but also the dependent children’s allowances which unemployment beneficiaries receive. No pensioner who receives dependent children’s allowances has those allowances taxed, except the unemployed in this community. This was clearly a discriminatory act against the unemployed, those out of work through no fault of their own. Work tests were tightened. School leavers were excluded from eligibility for unemployment benefits. Six weeks’ waiting time was introduced for the so-called voluntary unemployed. Despite these measures unemployment increased by 70 000 during this period and continues to increase. According to the predictions of everybody, including the Treasurer, it looks likely to increase in the future. The Government has introduced a measure which will increase the hardship of the unemployed, increase confusion for both the beneficiaries of unemployment benefits and the public servants who have to handle these benefits. In justification for this change the Government puts forward arguments that are manifestly dishonest and deceitful. The Government intends to change the system of unemployment benefit payments to two weeks in arrears instead of in advance and it is doing this without removing the present seven days’ waiting period for unemployed in the community and without enabling the Department of Social Security, by increasing staff, to handle the sorts of changes that will be necessary.

Senator Wright:

– Wages are not paid in advance to workers.

Senator GRIMES:

-Perhaps if you will let me develop the argument a little bit you will see that I do not intend to take the line that you obviously and mistakenly think I am. In future new claimants will have to wait at least 1 5 days before receiving any benefits. In fact they will have to wait almost certainly 1 8 days or more. An overburdened staff in the Department will have to cope with a new system. As the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) said in answer to a question today, for a considerable time it will have to cope with two systems that run in parallel. There is at present considerable confusion and delay in the Department and in the Commonwealth Employment Service in the handling of unemployment benefits and sickness benefits. Things have become so bad that for the first time in the history of the Public Service members of the Department have put on work bans and overtime bans and have refused to handle inquiries from members of Parliament and have refused to collect statistics. At the moment we cannot get the exact number of people on unemployment benefits in this country because members of the staff are refusing to collect statistics. In Melbourne there was the lovely spectacle of fist fights in the Department of Social Security because of unemployment benefits. This is because of the present frustration, and to that is to be added the frustration that will be caused by this change.

The Government uses two main arguments in justification of the change. Firstly, without quantifying the sum, the Government claims that a large sum will be saved by avoiding overpayment of benefit. No figure on how much this will be seems to be given anywhere in the Budget Papers or the Minister’s speech. The information is that the saving will be some $1.8m in a full year. The second argument that the Government uses is manifestly dishonest. The Treasurer used it in his speech last night. It is the argument that this change is a result of the Myers report recommendation; that somehow this change has the approval of Dr Myers in his report on the unemployment benefit system. Dr Myers did recommend a system of payment fortnightly in arrears, but in his recommendations he was very careful to point out that if this were done in isolation, without at least removal of the 7-day waiting period, hardship and injustice would result. I quote from paragraph 4. 1 1 .7 on page 2 1 :

Indeed, the two measures fit hand in glove - the two measures being fortnightly payment in arrears and removal of the 7-day waiting time- as fortnightly payment in arrears without abolition of the waiting period would cause hardship in the period before the first cheque was received.

He also recommended a series of streamlining procedures to improve the administration of benefits in the Department and to improve the assistance available to the unemployed. He recommended changes similar to those set out in the Norgard report on the Commonwealth Employment Service. He recommended abolition of the 7-day waiting period, as did Professor Henderson and the Reverend Mr Martin of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and as has everyone in the welfare field who has had anything to do with unemployment beneficiaries. Dr Myers also recommended a change in the roles of the CES and the Department of Social Security so that the CES could be an employment service fitting people to the right jobs, counselling people about employment and how to get jobs and improving their prospects of getting jobs. The Government has taken one recommendation out of his report in complete isolation, and in doing so it has placed itself in serious danger of setting up false economies in the system and setting up more confusion than exists at present.

It is worth remembering that within seven days of the Myers report coming down the Government announced that it could not accept the report because it would cost too much money to implement the recommendations. This statement was contradicted immediately by Dr Myers. He asked for figures to back up the Government’s statement. They have not been forthcoming. Dr Myers pointed out that there was a difficulty, which Senator Wright will be pleased to know the Opposition acknowledges, in that the present payment system is not related to the period about which the beneficiary has declared his circumstances. In fact, in order to have prompt payment to people who qualify for unemployment benefit, the waiting period must go. If it does not go the present system of advance payment should remain. People should be able to claim the benefit as soon as they become unemployed. Those who can establish that they need an earlier payment than payment in arrears should have the option of a cheque for one week’s benefit in hand, with the next payment being for one week. Further payments could then be made fortnightly without difficulties.

One knows that the system which is being proposed is causing concern in the welfare area and in the Department of Social Security itself. As with so many other Government measures, the new system will result in more people being thrown on to the care of the voluntary welfare agencies, especially in the first and second weeks of their unemployment. These agencies are having enough difficulties at the moment because of our difficult economic circumstances. To suggest, as the Minister does, that the best way for people to get over their difficulties in the first week is to avail themselves of the special benefit procedure, I believe, is to be completely heartless and without concern for the very people who will need help. The special benefit procedure is very difficult. It causes division among beneficiaries. The harshness of it can be seen in the manner in which it was applied to unemployed school leavers. Even an unemployed school leaver with a mother on a widow’s pension was unable to get special benefit. That person was not considered to be in any great distress.

According to Dr Myers, it would take 15 days for the first cheque to be received under a new setup, but he was talking about his complete system. He was talking about the various reforms which he advocates in both the Department of Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Service. I understand that officers of the Department of Social Security believe that no payment is possible within 18 days of a claim being lodged for unemployment benefit. Many recommendations of the Myers report and the Norgard report are essential to an efficient transformation from a system of payment in advance to a system of payment in arrears. Forms will have to be redesigned to establish the continuing eligibility. Information regarding the procedural arrangements must be given not only to departmental officers but also to all the claimants. It will have to be given in foreign languages. The already inadequate accommodation at Social Security offices will have to be upgraded. More counselling will be necessary.

There is no indication in the Treasurer’s speech or in the Minister’s statement that the Government realises that unless it trains and attracts sufficient staff to ensure that there will be a swift turn-around of payments to beneficiaries the system will fall down. If there is a delay in the setting up of a new system or in the processing of some income statements, sometimes complete pay-runs will be missed, irregularities of payment will occur and there will be a bankup of frustrated unemployed who have not received their payments. The counters will be full as they are now and the phones will be blocked as they are so often now because at present the Department of Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Service are on a staffing level sufficient to cope with about 100 000 unemployed, not the 340 000 that we have now. Dr Myers in his report pointed out that the overpayments problem- the $1.6m that the Government is so concerned about- was related most commonly to staff difficulties and the scarcity of staff. It was related also to the overcentralisation of the present system. In fact, offices which were decentralised had a better record than the large centralised offices of Sydney and Melbourne. The Government gives no indication in the Treasury Papers that it is willing to put money into decentralised offices. In fact it has stopped the system of decentralisation which the Labor Government was encouraging.

It will be no good if the Government skimps over the administrative changes that will be necessary to put this change into operation efficiently, because it will create confusion and frustration and end up penalising the unemployed, who are most disadvantaged. The people who are most likely to become unemployed are the unskilled workers and the workers on very low incomes. Frequently low income earners literally live from week to week. They have literally no savings. Now they will have to go 15 to 18 days without payment of unemployment benefit unless they can obtain assistance through the special benefit system. They will have this special benefit thrown up to them as a sop. Applying for special benefit is a very difficult operation and success would involve a great change in the present system, which obviously is not coming. The voluntary organisations, such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence in Melbourne and the Mathew Talbot Hostel in Sydney, will have further increasing numbers to care for under this system.

The second justification which is given in the Treasury statements is that this measure will save the Government $60m in Government expenditure. The sentences are so juxtaposed as to give the impression that this will be the saving of overpayments. I have repeated that the overpayments count for about $ 1.6m. The $60m saving referred to has nothing to do with overpayments. It is merely due to the fact that for 2 weeks at least there will be a delay in the final payments at the end of this financial year, and 60m will be transferred from this year’s payments to next year’s payments- a transfer which will not assist the taxpayer, a transfer that will not assist the Government, a transfer which will merely annoy and cause distress for an infinitesimal number of people compared to the whole state.

In his Speech last night the Treasurer gave very little hope for the unemployed in this community. The commentators who viewed the Treasurer’s Speech last night gave no hope for the unemployed in this country. No responsible observer of the Budget, whether in business, in the unions, in the newspapers or anywhere else, gives any hope for an increase in employment in this country next year which will make any difference to the number of unemployed in this country next year. The Treasurer claimed that his budgetary strategy was one to cause increase in disposable incomes in the second half of this financial year which would somehow lead to a consumer recovery. The commentator sent by the Taxation Institute of Australia to the Australian Broadcasting Commission last night to observe and comment on the Budget said that those who gain least are the real consumers of this country- those on about average weekly earnings, those on just below average weekly earnings and those on just above average weekly earnings. Their tax gain will be less than $2 a week- from $1.20 a week to $1.60 a week- and this will be more than counteracted by the increased transport costs adding to the price of goods and the increased cost of petrol in the cars they drive.

If we cannot expect recovery from this quarter we cannot expect recovery from any other quarter, and if we do not get recovery we will not get an increase in employment. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who on the most conservative estimate will save $80 a week in tax from the tax changes, is not sufficiently wealthy to cause a consumer led recovery in the community by himself. Business does not expect recovery. Manufacturers do not expect recovery. The unemployed can see no light ahead. At the same time the Government increases the difficulties and the hardships of the unemployed in the community, as it has done consistently since it came into power. This is obviously a matter of considerable urgency. This is obviously a matter of considerable importance to the whole community. Speakers after me will talk about the methods which can be used- methods which are not inflationary- to increase the number of employed in the community. Commentators all over the country are wondering what the Government is about and why the Government is so unconcerned about the unemployed in the community.

It is callous and it is indifferent for people in government in this country to show such little concern for the unemployed and to use unemployment as an economic tool. The Government in this country today shows its callousness and great unconcern, as it has done since it has been in power, by making things more difficult for those who are unemployed, by making benefits harder to get, by making application for benefits difficult, by failing to increase the allowances for dependants of people who are unemployed and by now introducing, half-cocked, a system of reform which, with all the other suggestions of Dr Myers and Mr Norgard, may be a very good system but the Government is pulling out that reform in isolation, an act which can only make life difficult not only for the unemployed but also for the people in the Department of Social Security, particularly those clerks in the office who answer the telephones and who will have to handle the great confusion which will inevitably arise. The Opposition suggests that, rather than attack the unemployed, and rather than make life difficult for the unemployed as the Government has done, the Government should take positive steps, as every other government in the world is doing, to create jobs, to stimulate the economy sufficiently, to take up sufficient of those unemployed and to create an economic recovery, which will mean that once again we can return to a sensible situation in this country without the difficulties we have at present.

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

-For the last 25-odd minutes the Senate has been listening to a speech by Senator Grimes allegedly on a matter of urgency. In reality it was a speech that roamed over the Budget, taxation reform, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the problems in social security. One really wonders where the urgency was. I think that it would have been far better if it had been confined to the general Budget debate, but that is the Opposition’s privilege. Senator Grimes started his speech with a quotation from the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I suppose that that really is not very relevant to unemployment. Let me quote two Ministers of the Whitlam Government. These two quotations, for which I call on my memory, really highlight the causes of the present unemployment. The first one was by Mr Clyde Cameron. I remember him saying when he was Minister for Labour that if unemployment ever reached 250 000 he would resign. Those of us who were here then recall that the figure passed 250 000 but he did not resign. He found some reason for not resigning. It was not until he was reluctantly dragged screaming from the tart shop one day that he was replaced by another Minister. He knew when he made his offer to resign that unemployment was increasing, and it was well past the figure of 250 000 before he was translated into the Science portfolio. There is one of the underlying causes of the present unemployment, brought about by the mismanagement of the previous Government.

The other quotation- again I call on my memory- is from the first of the Australian

Labor Party Treasurers. I forget how many Treasurers Labor had. It had real Treasurers, part-Treasurers, half-Treasurers and all sorts of Treasurers. Labor even had Khemlani working for it at one stage. It was Mr Crean who when he was Treasurer said that everybody ought to remember that each man ‘s pay rise was at the expense of another man’s job. Those two factors are really what the present unemployment is all about. No matter how Senator Grimes may like to go on, the fundamental cause of unemployment in Australia has been excessive wage increases. There is no doubt about that. Whether anybody likes it or not, ultimately a man ‘s labour is a commodity like any other commodity. Honourable senators opposite say that a man has the right to strike, that he has the right to withdraw his labour, that labour is something one sells on the market. That is what the Opposition has argued for years. When honourable senators talk about a man’s right to strike they say that he has the right to withdraw that commodity. I say that labour is a commodity and it is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If the price of labour is increased too much, other things being equal the demand for it will fall off because buyers turn to substitutes or they buy less. That is a simple fact.

What the Opposition will not get through its head is that for most of the post-war period in this country there was very high employment associated with a buoyant demand for goods and services. In that sort of situation- the country was under a Liberal and National Country Party Government for 23 years- employers usually were able to pass on wage increases in the form of higher prices for the goods and services they produced. The current environment of higher unemployment is associated with a general slack in demand for goods and services and with highly competitive selling conditions. In the present circumstances the average employer is no longer able to pass on the cost of his labour increases. What does he do? He sheds labour. He looks for cheaper labour, substitute labour, or goes through his operation to see whether he has some fat he can cut out. Whether the trade unions like it or not, what Treasurer Crean of the Labor Government said in early 1973 or 1974 was true. It was true then, it is true now and it will always be true.

If the Labor Party was really concerned about unemployment, one would think that it would be using its influence with the trade union movement to have the movement moderate its demands. I suppose the real tragedy in this country is that the Labor Party has no influence with the trade union movement. Rather, the boot is on the other foot. The real tragedy in this country is that we have a person allegedly looking after the interest of the trade union movement while wearing one hat and seeking to further his own political ambitions while wearing another hat. The unemployed, the trade union movement and the Labor Party have no idea where they are going. Until the trade union movement ceases making excessive claims for wage increases and until the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ceases granting those increases, the basic cause of unemployment in Australia will persist.

One of the other great causes of unemployment in this country was another action of the Whitlam Government. Honourable senators will recall that all of a sudden that Government slashed tariffs across the board by 25 per cent. What happened then? Manufacturers in Australia exported jobs. The products that they had been making in Australia were made overseas and were brought in under the low tariff. That was a stroke of economic genius! The Labor Party put out of work 100 000 textile workers and 30 000 bootmakers.

Senator Young:

– All labour-intensive industries.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, they are all labourintensive industries. What about unemployment in Geelong? Why do honourable senators opposite think that the previous Speaker of the House of Representatives, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), almost lost his seat at the last election? Corio used to be a safe Labor Party seat. Why did it almost turn out to be a disaster for the Labor Party at the last election? It was almost a disaster because of the great unemployment brought about in the textile industries in the electorate of Corio. What happened in Tasmania at the Bass by-election? Who put all the people out of work in the electorate of Bass, which is in a State in which the Labor Party used to be able to boast that it had five members of the House of Representatives? How many members from that State do they have now? Why? Due to the lunatic tariff policies of the Whitlam Government, which put many people out of work.

Senator Grimes:

– Are you going to put up tariffs?

Senator WITHERS:

-Now Senator Grimes, who is from Tasmania, sheds crocodile tears and talks about what this Government ought to do and ought not to do. He complains because the Government taxes unemployment benefits. Does he remember the days when one could become a part-time worker at a meatworks or somewhere else, make a lot of money for six months and then lie on the beach at Bondi for the next six months, receive unemployment benefits but pay tax only on the income earned during the first six months? Does he think it is unjust that unemployment benefits are added -

Senator Mulvihill:

– What do the crooked mining company directors do?

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Mulvihill talks about crooked mining company directors. I remind him of the Painters and Dockers Union which put people in cement overcoats. I remind him of the maritime unions. What about the report of Mr Justice Sweeney concerning the extortions taking place on the waterfront by the maritime unions? That is a greater rip-off than the Mafia ever indulged in on the waterfront in New York. Mr Justice Sweeney found that rip-offs, blackmail and skulduggery exist. The members of those unions are friends and supporters of Opposition senators. They are the people who supply funds for the Opposition’s election purposes.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about the VC mining company?

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Mulvihill, I hope you did not get your election funds from the maritime unions. I hope you would not do that.

Senator Grimes:

– Are you going to tell us about Mr Sinclair’s funeral company?

Senator WITHERS:

-I thought we were talking about unemployment. I suppose that if one was going to talk about the great unemployed we probably would be talking about the Opposition because it would be the most unemployed group of people I have met for a long time. All the Opposition does is hang around digging up a little bit of dirt here and a little bit of dirt there. We are supposed to be talking about the problems of unemployment. Senator Grimes said that this Government is a failure because it has not established some of the great schemes he advocated to alleviate the problem of unemployment. I remember that the previous Labor Government established the RED scheme- initials; not the colour red. the famous Regional Employment Development scheme was going to solve unemployment in Australia. It was such a disaster that the Labor Party abandoned it. Yet, it is talking about instituting schemes such as the RED scheme again. Senator Grimes said that many countries have great schemes such as the RED scheme. Let us look at the world record of unemployment. I am informed that Canada in May 1977 had 7.7 per cent unemployed; in the same month the United States had 6.4 per cent unemployed; Australia had 5. 1 per cent; Germany had 4. 1 per cent; Italy had 6.8 per cent; and the U.K. had 5.6 per cent.

Senator McLaren:

– What was the highest figure under the Labor Government from 1 972 to 1975? Give us a comparison.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator McClaren can make a speech if he likes.

Senator McLaren:

– You are distorting the figures.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator McLaren evidently is judged by the Opposition to have such a capacity to make a brilliant contribution to this debate that he is not listed as a speaker. He is trying to make a speech -

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order. I ask the Minister to apologise for making that remark.

Senator WITHERS:

-I apologise to Senator Georges for making that remark. Senator Grimes went on to say what ought to be done to help those who are disadvantaged. I should like to look at the record of this Government in this field. The basic purpose of the much maligned Commonwealth Employment Service- it is maligned by a number of people in the communityis to find jobs for people and find people for jobs. It ought not to be forgotten that last year the CES placed 467 000 people in employment. Senator Grimes smiles; does he not believe those figures? Senator Grimes also talked about those who do not have the capacity to obtain work because they do not have any skills.

Senator Grimes:

– Are you saying that about 340 000 unemployed people in this country?

Senator WITHERS:

-No, you said that, Senator Grimes.

Senator Grimes:

– No, I did not say that.

Senator WITHERS:

-You said that they are the disadvantaged in the community.

Senator Grimes:

– You are handling the truth with your usual care.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Grimes is objecting to being taken up -

Senator Grimes:

– I object to your lies.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Grimes said that there are a number of unemployed people who do not have the capacity to get jobs because they are unskilled.

Senator Grimes:

– I said that they are the most likely to be unemployed.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Grimes knows that they form the bulk of the present unemployed.

Senator Grimes:

-The bulk of that 340 000?

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes. They tend to be unskilled, as I understand the statistics. I often wonder whether that is not due to the famous education system we have in Australia. We are aware of the situation. There is a scheme known as the National Employment and Training scheme. At the end of June 1977 there were 1 9 300 people in training under this scheme.

Senator O’Byrne:

-What for?

Senator WITHERS:

-In 1976, 40 000 people were assisted. If Senator O ‘Byrne went away to get some information about this he would ascertain that 80 per cent of the people who passed through the NEAT scheme obtained employment and kept it. His interjection was not that clever. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has announced the introduction of the Special Youth Employment Training Program which will extend to people under the age of twenty-five. In the first 9 months of that scheme 1 5 000 persons were assisted.

Senator Georges:

– It is not a hot scheme, you know.

Senator WITHERS:

-Honourable senators opposite knock it. There is also the CRAFT scheme- the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-Time Training scheme. As I understand it, last year that scheme assisted 41 600 persons to improve their employment opportunities. Under the relocation assistance scheme 400 persons were assisted. As to apprenticeships, because of the reaction to what is generally known as CRAFT, as I understand the figures, there are now 1 1 589 more apprentices in New South Wales; 13 441 in Victoria; 5626 in Queensland; 3316 in South Australia; 4706 in Western Australia; 1428 in Tasmania; 1106 in the Australian Capital Territory; and 365 in the Northern Territory. That is something to be sneered at, according to the Opposition. That is something about which it is said this Government is doing nothing. I remind the Senate of the famous statement by Mr Clyde Cameron. It was reported both in the Australian and in the Daily Telegraph of 14 August 1974. He said: ‘I would rather be out of office than see the -

Senator Georges:

– You cannot read it.

Senator WITHERS:

-I will read the girl’s writing. It reads: ‘I would rather be out of office than see the . . . result in more than onequarters of a million unemployed’. What did he do about it when he was a Minister? He did nothing. Members of the Labor Party just sat around and waited for him to be sacked. What did Mr Crean say? I think I can read the writing this time. He said: ‘One man’s larger pay packet is another man’s job’. That was in a speech to the Dry Cleaning and Laundry and Linen Supply Convention.

Senator Bishop:

– You have made better ones than that.

Senator WITHERS:

-That was before we took members of the Labor Party to the cleaners. He had gone voluntarily. We took them to the cleaners all right. They deserved it too. They really deserved it. That was all they did deserve. That seems to be a full, proper and sufficient answer to the allegations levelled by Senator Grimes.

Senator Georges:

– You have another 10 minutes.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not want to take the full half hour because I can say what I want to say much more quickly and succinctly than some other people. I come back to the point on which I started, and that is why I again refer to those two quotations. There is no doubt at all that in the present situation employers will not put on more labour while it is so expensive; either they will use the technique of overtime or they will replace workers with machines.

Senator Grimes:

– You are a Luddite now.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, I am not a Luddite. In fact, I thought all the anti-uranium people on the other side were flat-earthers and Luddites. They have about the same mental approach to modern technology. That is one of the causes of the present level of unemployment. The more honourable senators opposite walk around preaching their gloom the longer the unemployment is going to last. The Labor Party, of course, has thrived on gloom for years. Labor Party members hate to be a happy party. They like everybody to be sunk in misery, with no prospect, no optimism and no faith in this countryno nothing. I believe and my colleagues believe, as we have great cause to believe, that as a result of the policies pursued by the Government since it came into office and as a result of the Budget which was put down yesterday by Mr Lynch this country does have a great future.

Senator Primmer:

– Hope springs eternal.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is right, and I believe it. I will always believe it as long as we are in office and honourable senators opposite are not. The moment they come back into office I may well be the last businessman to leave this country and turn out the lights.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Senate has just listened to a speech by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers)- the counterpart in this place of the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the man in this place who on three occasions forced the Labor Government out of office. The honourable senator used every tactic in the parliamentary handbook to make sure that all sorts of actions were taken against the Labor Government, which at that time was confronted by general world inflation. He never gave the Labor Government a chance. He took every opportunity and used every small trick to get the Labor Government out of office. Why? It was because Senator Withers, his fellow shadow Ministers and the Prime Minister stated that they were the only people who could get the economy back into shape. What did they promise?

Senator Walters:

– Hear, hear!

Senator BISHOP:

-Why should the honourable senator say ‘Hear, hear’? Her party made a howling mess of it- so much so that today Senator Withers does not even acknowledge the importance of the urgency motion which has been put forward so adequately and efficiently by Senator Grimes and which reads:

The Government’s failure to take positive steps to improve employment and its discriminatory actions against the unemployed.

That has been established. It is clear. After 22 months in office this Government has had plenty of time to correct the economy. It has had plenty of time to find jobs, as the present Government promised it would do. After two Budgets nothing is said about the economy strengthening or about success in fighting unemployment. On 22 November 1975 Malcolm Fraser said- and it was echoed in this place, as we all remember quite well:

A government which understands and can manage the Australian economy is essential to Australia ‘s prosperity and to the revival of business confidence.

Where is the business confidence today? Listening to the statements which Senator Grimes made and the statements in the Press from manufacturing industry and from the man the Government has just knighted, the head of the Ford enterprise, who said that there is nothing for manufacturing industry in the Budget. There is no promise to solve the unemployment problem. The man who wanted to be Prime Minister said this:

Only under a Liberal-National Country Party Government will there be jobs for all who want to work.

It is not a joke? Then Mr Street added his words, and in the meantime they have tried to say that the unemployment developments have not been as definite as the Labor Party said they would be. In 1975 Mr Street said:

I am hopeful that the job opportunities will start to increase early in the life of the new Government, but it will probably take about 6 months for this to happen.

Everybody hoped that in the Budget last night some measure of attention would have been given to the sort of projects which ought to be started and to a revival of the building programs which the Labor Party started in order to encourage employment opportunities. When this Government made cutbacks in every area- not only in the areas of its own responsibility but also in areas which are the responsibility of statutory corporations- those cutbacks influenced State projects which had been assisted by the Labor Government and, of course, influenced employment opportunities. There has been a flow-on of those cutbacks.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– To private enterprise.

Senator BISHOP:

– As Senator Brown points out, there has been a flow-on of those cutbacks to private industry. The result was that there was no demand for goods. The Leader of the Government in this place talks nonsense when he talks about lowering wages. If his argument is right, then the low wage states of India, the Philippines, Indonesia and a mass of other countries would all be prosperous. The fact is that modern experience tells us that the more we can keep people in employment and the more we can encourage consumer demand the better chance there is of providing work opportunities for everybody. So there is a need, as the Labor Party has said, to examine the promises of these people who put Labor out of office because it was said that we could not manage the economy. Of course, that statement was a complete fraud, as everybody knows. It is true to say today that not only can this Government not do it but in fact its Ministers come into the Parliament and refuse to answer questions about how it will get the economy going. The future looks brighter, they say. They say that they will train people and that they are training more apprentices. The Government is training people in community welfare schemes. It has all sorts of fancy schemes but it does not have any jobs. Last night with regard to training programs Senator Cotton read this statement:

The Government acknowledges the seriousness of the present unemployment, especially among young people.

Senator Grimes pointed out the great problems that exist, particularly with regard to young people. Half the unemployed are young people under 25 years of age who have never had an opportunity to get a secure job. In addition, the Government is making the pool greater by the imposition of staff ceiling levels on Government departments and statutory authorities. Senator Cotton said:

For these reasons the Government attaches special importance to its labour market training program.

What is the labour market? There are no jobs. Of course, labour training programs are good in a time of full employment. I support all the measures that are presently being tried but, after all, they are only extensions of Labor thinking. However, they are no solution. What must be done is to create work that can be done to assist industry and the States, not to start these nonsense schemes. I refer, for example, to the Community Youth Support Scheme -

Senator Primmer:

– Nonsense?

Senator BISHOP:

– They are nonsense in the sense that they are not putting people into paid jobs. It may be a good idea to keep people off the streets but it is no solution.

Senator Walters:

– Training is no solution?

Senator BISHOP:

-The Government ought to be finding jobs for those people. There are jobs in the Public Service. Skilled men are required in the Public Service and in most of the statutory authorities but they cannot take on skilled men who are unemployed because of the staff ceiling policy of the Government which has been applauded by Government senators. There have been 12 500 people sacked from the Commonwealth Public Service and more are to go. Because of staff ceilings the railways industry cannot take on skilled workers to repair railway tracks. This would be productive work which would improve the economy. Then, the Government introduces a Community Youth Support Scheme- this is where I was interrupted. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) stated that this scheme would improve the ability of young people to apply for jobs and to find employment.

Curently 1 16 projects are in operation involving a lot of young people. The Opposition wants to see these young people in jobs. We want to see jobs created. Everyone inside and outside this place, knows that the huge cut backs in expenditure by this Government to reduce the deficit meant, in fact, that every important, constructive project in Australia was either slowed down or stopped. Not only was the Commonwealth unable to employ people but also, as I have said, many of the statutory authorities which could presently be employing people cannot do so because the Government has stopped them from doing so. It will continue to do so. The Budget Speech stated 12 500 fewer people are employed in the Public Service and there will be fewer tomorrow. What has been gained by this? All that has been gained is general disagreement and resistance from the trade unions and the Public Service. As Senator Grimes mentioned there is also a lack of assistance in social welfare schemes as a result of staff ceilings. That is known from evidence given at Estimates Committees. It is known that almost every department has been embarrassed by these staff ceilings. Many of them cannot do their job properly. Evidence is available to support that. It has been reported here yet the Government still claims that it is necessary.

Twelve months ago it was claimed that service could not be obtained from the Commonwealth Employment Service because of a lack of staff. What happened? After 12 months it came out that the Opposition was right and 300 more people were appointed to the staff of the Commonwealth Employment Service. As I have said, after nearly 2 years and after promises to get the economy going, professional people have no business confidence. There is more unemployment. Unemployment continues to grow quarter by quarter and no doubt it will continue to do so. Apparently it is accepted by the Government that there could be an unemployment rate of 7 per cent by early next year. In his statement concerning the last unemployment figure in July, Mr Street reported:

At end of July there were 337 391 unemployed persons registered with the CES or 5.4 per cent of the estimated labour force of 6.2 million.

That is a lot but Mr Street talks about the Labor Government. After nearly 2 years in office the Government is still blaming Labor for unemployment. Unemployment has more than doubled since the Labor Government was in office.

Senator Walters:
Senator BISHOP:

-I ask Senator Walters to listen for 5 minutes. This is the statement of the Minister. Mr Street said:

This compares with 270 286 or 4.5 per cent of the labour force as at end-July 1976 . . .

The figure was less in 1975. My time is limited. I do not intend to stop and listen to honourable senators on the other side of the chamber who seek to interject. I have less than half the time allotted to your leader in which to speak. The fact is- it cannot be counteracted- that in every department services have been hamstrung and industrial trouble has been created by staff ceilings. The Government could employ skilled people in many of these areas but it will not do so because it believes some fiction about the deficit. It believes that the deficit must be reduced by reducing workers’ wages. That is its only solution. In the United Kingdom people like honourable senator’s opposite have been putting forward this nonsense for two years. What was the result of a recent survey in the United Kingdom when a team of German experts and businessmen were invited to the United Kingdom by the government and the people to see what was wrong with the British economy. People over there blame the British worker in the same way as Government supporters blame the Australian worker. The Guardian of Monday, 1 August had this to say:

Germans blame the British manager. West German businessmen working in Britain put the blame for our economic problems on British management, not the British workman, according to an article yesterday in the news magazine Der Spiegel.

The facts are clear. The Government’s solution to the unemployment situation is to break the promises that it gave on the election eve to agree to full wage indexation. In addition, the Government says that wages must be reduced. It says that there is more industrial disputation than at any time. As the Australian Council of Trade Unions representative pointed out to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, that is quite untrue. The Government is using these devices to try to confuse the Australian electors in the same way as it confused the electorate on the eve of the election that defeated the Labor Government. The Government will not answer the pleas that have been made by State governments. It is true that the performance of the Labor Government in industrial disputes is better than that of this Government. It is true that the States with Labor governments have a better record of industrial peace than States with Liberal governments. The Government cannot put its finger on any of these things in a realistic way.

I put it to the Government, as Senator Grimes has pointed out, that many of the people who come to this country have great disabilities under present circumstances. The Government is making that situation harder for them. It is not making it easier for the unemployed person to get a job. It is not training people for jobs. It is training people but there are no jobs. It is making it more difficult for people who are displaced. Over the years the numbers of people unemployed have increased. The number of months for which unemployed people have been unemployed has increased. It is now evident that the trend which occurred early this year meant that people who were unemployed for 6 months represented 80 per cent of those who were registered as unemployed. The Opposition wants to draw to the attention of the Government the need for an important revision of the works program, a revision of assistance to the States. Not only has the Government caused these troubles in the Federal area, but also it has caused the States to have a recession which has meant that people cannot be employed in the way they should be employed.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to oppose the motion before us which alleges that the following is a matter of urgency:

The Government’s failure to take positive steps to improve employment and its discriminatory actions against the unemployed.

This discussion could really only be of value if, in the course of it, we were able to determine the causes of the problems that confront us and then determine to overcome them. If we spend only an hour or two in bemoaning a circumstance, in producing, as I believe Senator Grimes did, a doleful story and in inferring that Australia and Australians are totally incapable of getting out of the problems which he and his Government over three years of socialist experiment evolved for them, then our whole contribution will be merely to emphasise the problems that confront this country- to emphasise unemployment, to emphasise the disasters that are built around an unemployment-inflation situation.

I take a moment to mention one or two of the things that have been said in the debate. Senator Bishop referred to the need to assist the States in the circumstances in which this country finds itself. Good heavens, the States are wealthier now than they have even been in the history of this country. If they have the capacity to do things that will solve some of the problems that confront the country, certainly that capacity is not related to their financial ability to do those things, but rather to their determination to recognise them and to carry them out. I further remind Senator Bishop- I am sure he is well aware of this-that Mr Callaghan, the British Labour Prime Minister, said not very long ago that as a government you cannot spend your way out of inflation and unemployment. As a government, you have to establish the sorts of circumstances that will bring a measure of initiative and confidence into commercial and industrial operations, a measure great enough to seek to employ all those who are capable of being employed in a society. That is the job of a government and it is not possible, as some socialists around the world have suggested, to just spend your way out of problems of inflation and unemployment.

Senator Grimes spent quite a deal of time talking about the disaster of the suggestion that the payment of unemployment benefit should be a payment fortnightly in arrears. Senator Wright quite clearly and quite properly pointed out that that is the normal way of receiving payment for anything. Senator Grimes referred to unemployment as a national disgrace. Well he should know, because he contributed quite successfully to the establishment of unemployment in this country. He said further that unemployment benefits should not be taxed, but surely if unemployment benefits, along with the moneys that a person earns in the course of a year, happened to form part of a taxable income it is reasonable that they should be taxed. Why should they not be taxed? They are contributed by every taxpayer in Australia in the first place. We say that in a just circumstance of unemployment of course they should be paid to the people who are eligible to receive them. But if they form part of a total taxable income, then they should be taxed like any other such income.

I refer again to the words pf the first part of the motion that is before us:

The Government’s failure to take positive steps to improve employment . . .

There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr E. G. Whitlam, in his three years of office took very positive steps to establish unemployment. He has certainly done a fine job in leaving to Australians a legacy which is going to be, is proving to be and which everybody accepted would be an extraordinarily difficult legacy to overcome. He was eminently successful in producing unemployment and inflation. Indeed, in the three years in which he was in office, from 1972 to 1975, he saw an average annual increase in the level of unemployment in excess of one per cent. It increased from 2 per cent or just over that figure to well in excess of 5 per cent in a threeyear period. Incidentally, in the first year of the Fraser Government-and this is nothing to be enormously proud of in the total- the increase in unemployment was 0.2 per cent, which is less than one-fifth of the average annual increase in unemployment during the years of Mr Whitlam ‘s Government. Those years also saw an increase in average wages and salaries of 15 per cent, 28 per cent and 1 3 per cent.

Here is the other point that is of extreme importance: In those three years we saw increases in government expenditure of 23 per cent, 33 per cent and 38 per cent. Is it any wonder that on coming to office we were confronted with unemployment and inflation immeasurably high in terms of Australian economic history. Labor’s only recourse to that problem, as our leader clearly stated, was the establishment of the Regional Employment Development scheme- a scheme which left many somewhat futile objects throughout the community and which was so disastrously expensive that it was abandoned by its instigators. The solution to the problem of employment in Australia surely lies- this Government is aware of it and I believe that more and more people in Australia are becoming aware of it- in the establishment of circumstances whereby this economy develops to the degree that its commercial and industrial enterprises once again know stability, once again know incentive, once again know that there will be a reward for initiative and once again know that profit is available. In those circumstances and in those circumstances alone are we going to solve the unemployment problem that confronts us today. Of course we are aware of it; the whole community is aware of it. The important thing is that the community should be listening to this debate, should be reading of matters in the Press and should be discussing amongst themselves and analysing the causes of the problem because they are pretty clear and pretty easy to identify. Having identified them, they have to make a determination that they are going to solve them, because in a democracy any legislation is about as good as the strength of the will of the people to make it work. Hopefully Australians are beginning to reach the point where they are determined to make it work.

I remind the Senate that in the financial year ending 30 June 1977 real wages actually increased. People could buy more at the end of that year than they could at the beginning. But real wages had risen to such an extent that they had put vast numbers of jobs in jeopardy. The thing which Australians and most of all the trade union leadership, the leaders of industry, the Government and the Opposition have to recognise is that that is the basic cause of the problems that confront us. The guilt for the situation that confronts us in Australia probably lies predominantly with the radical element of trade union leadership. It has sought successfully, over 3 years of weak socialist government, to price Australians out of the work force and out of competition around the world. All it succeeded in doing was to export job opportunities from this country; to switch the emphasis from labour intensive to capital intensive operations. That very switch of emphasis makes re-employment and overcoming the problems that confront us infinitely more difficult. It is about time Australians en masse recognised that these circumstances confront them with an enormous problem to which there is no easy or quick solution. There has been a tendency and will continue to be a tendency to use sophisticated machinery, to use computerisation and to do all those things which minimise the use of labour. In the circumstances that confront this country today that is a disastrous position.

I refer to the final part of the motion that is before us this afternoon which alleges that the Government is discriminating against the unemployed, lt is pretty childish and stupid to assume that any government of any colour would set out to discriminate against the unemployed. The people in this Government, like the people in the Opposition, are adults. They are not likely to set out to discriminate against the unemployed. The Leader of the Government (Senator Withers) in this chamber this afternoon referred to programs related to the Commonwealth Employment Service right through to the added areas of apprenticeship and various youth training schemes which are now applicable to people up to the age of 25. He outlined the many serious and effective contributions to overcoming the unemployment problem of this country, particularly in the youth area, in which this Government has been involved. The contributions are significant indeed. They cover something like 40 000 to 50 000 people in all. In apprenticeships alone the rise in the last 12 months has been in excess of 10 per cent.

Let me remind the Senate that this Budget includes no less than $787m for unemployment and sickness benefits. That is a massive amount of money.

Senator Grimes:

– Because there are so many unemployed.

Senator SCOTT:

– It is to meet circumstances to which the honourable senator amongst others contributed. We have shown a measure of responsibility as well as a capacity to identify the size of that disaster. An amount of $787m has been allocated to unemployment and sickness benefits. We have sought, and are seeking to ensure that these benefits go to the genuinely needy. Not only will the benefits be more effective from the point of view of the unemployed people themselves but also they will represent a realistic attitude from the point of view of the taxpayer.

Time presses. Let me close by saying, as I said earlier today, that the solution to unemployment and inflation in this country lies in the capacity and the determination of people to analyse what it is all about. Australians have recognised that. The Budget, through tax cuts and other incentives, is providing the background that eventually will be the solid and ultimate solution to the unemployment problem in this country.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The Government will regret the day it brought down this Budget. It is fairly obvious that the enthusiasm of last night has dimmed somewhat today. It was fairly evident at question time that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) who represents the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in this place could not answer questions concerning the Budget nor could the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) who was questioned subsequently. In fact the speech of the Leader of the Government today indicates that he is unable to present the case in support of the Government’s Budget proposals and particularly the Budget proposals which endeavour to do something about unemployment. The Treasurer admitted a few minutes ago before the National Press Club that the figures in the Budget are somewhat rubbery. Indeed, they are very rubbery. The whole of the Budget propositions are rubbery. They will get the results that the Government deserves. Our point is that the electorate does not deserve the consequences of this Budget.

Nothing positive has been done in this Budget which will relieve the problems of the unemployed in this country. I agree with one thing and one thing only which was presented last night. Unemployment is now very much a social and human problem. The Budget which was delivered last night inhumanly neglects the growing problem of unemployment. In fact it is discriminatory. Let me give an example. It places $3,500 in the pocket of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) through taxation changes but offers nothing for the increasing number of Australians who are unemployed. This is the point we are making today. The urgency motion today has been moved to highlight immediately what the Budget proposes. As far as the unemployed are concerned- that is the matter we are debatingwe are dealing with an inhuman Budget. No job creation schemes are contained in the Budget. There are no real incentives to companies to employ. There are no public works schemes. I repeat: There are no public works schemes. The emphasis is on stimulating the private sector, placing the whole onus for the recovery of our economy on the private sector and neglecting the fact that we are a mixed economy and that the private sector has to be assisted and stimulated by expenditure in public areas. That is what the Government is neglecting. Upon that philosophy it will fail. Every action taken based upon that philosophy will lead to failure.

If this were just a matter of statistics we would not worry so much. It is a matter of consequence and a matter of humanity. Many thousands of Australians are unemployed and will continue to be unemployed. Their numbers will increase. The Government must accept responsibility. It must not rest upon the Budget that it presented last night. The Budget ignores the viable propositions put forward last week by the Australian Labor Party for major spending on programs to create work. Instead it offers only a paltry $23m extra on training schemes. This is a drop in the ocean compared with what is required to get people back to work. Rather, this Government proposes a continued decline in employment. That is deliberate. Senator Scott said that we accused the Government of discrimination against the unemployed. He said, in effect, that this was a deliberate charge against the Government. We put it differently. By its attempts to bring inflation under control and reduce the real value of wages by using the unemployed, the Government is discriminating against the unemployed. The Government’s use of the unemployed to recover the economic situation is in my mind discriminatory and, again I use the word, inhuman.

The Government proposes a continued decline in employment. Under this restrictive Budget it is certain that more than 400 000 Australians will be unemployed early in 1 978. That is the continuing trend. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for 1976 show that 12 per cent of the work force was unemployed at some point during the year. That makes the situation even worse. Twelve per cent of the work force throughout the country will be affected by unemployment. Forget about the 5 per cent and the 5.5 per cent; look at the real figure. Twelve per cent of Australians will be affected by unemployment in a single year; that is 700 000 families in Australia will be touched by the tragedy of unemployment. We must face up to that situation. That is why we say that the matter is urgent. That is the reason for the urgency debate. Let me make the gentle comment in passing, without being overly insulting, that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), who is responsible for much of what has to be done in the area of unemployment, should be speaking in this debate. Unfortunately she is not present. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has taken up the defence, possibly on her behalf. I believe that she deserved a better defence than she was given this afternoon.

Senator Withers:

– The motion was so sloppily drawn that we did not know at whom it was directed.

Senator GEORGES:

– The Ministers have shown today that they are incapable of understanding the Budget. I can understand why they do not understand our proposition. The community knows exactly what we are talking about and that the matter is extremely urgent. The Budget certainly will push up the percentage of unemployed in 1977-78, thus increasing the community’s insecurity and despair. It is ironic that, with unemployment reaching a total of 337 391 persons in July 1977, this Government prefers to ignore the problem or, should I put it more kindly, substantially to ignore the problem. This amounts to the greatest denial of government responsibility in my experience. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), when releasing the July unemployment figures, said:

There was no clearly evident trend in the labour market during July.

What a denial of fact that is. What a cover-up of an escalating emergency in the community. When unemployment increases by 4598 in July he can say only that there was no clearly evident trend. I believe that that is a cover-up. It is a cover-up by the Government and an evasion by the Government of its responsibility. Unemployment has deepened and is increasing at a greater rate in Australia than in any other comparable country. I heard the figures quoted by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but he did not go right down the list to include the Scandinavian countries. By comparison, unemployment is increasing at a greater rate in this country than it any other country. Whilst the recession deepens the Treasurer says- I use his wordsthat a slower volume of growth is necessary. The plight of the unemployed is sidestepped.

Handouts for the oil companies and to persons with above average weekly earnings were evident last night. I declare that the priorities of this Government are quite wrong. Unemployment is chronic and must be tackled by any government that is concerned with the plight of its people. Let me take the case of Queensland to show that the situation is chronic. The problem faces not only Queensland but also the rest of Australia. In July 1977 unemployment in Queensland reached 49 8 1 7 people or 5.64 per cent of the work force. This is above the national average of 5.44 per cent. This is an increase since June 1977 of 1237 persons. In June 1976, 38 586 persons were registered as unemployed, which was 4.5 per cent of the work force. So one can see the increase. In the period June to July 1976 there was a drop in the level of unemployment in Queensland. I think the message is clear. Unemployment in real terms is on the increase. It is certain that in January and February 1978 it will exceed the post-war record which was established by this Government in the same period this year. So Queenslanders can be apprehensive.

Let me give an indication of how bad things are in Queensland. At the principal employment office in Brisbane 981 people were registered as unemployed, at Alderley 609, at Annerley 1503, at Brisbane 1633, at Chermside 1282, at Fortitude Valley 2388, at Inala 1244, at Indooroopilly 817, at Mount Gravatt 1537, at Nundah 1419, at Redcliffe 1070, at West End 1043, at Woodridge 990, at Woolloongabba 2994 and at Wynnum 1744. The metropolitan total was 21 254. Unfilled vacancies numbered 802- one vacancy for every 30 people unemployed. The Leader of the Government tells me, or endeavours to tell me, that the matter is not urgent. Consider also that the greatest number of unemployed are young people. I would like to say a word of commendation about the Community Youth Support scheme. I speak in support of those people who are working on a very miserable budget and endeavouring to provide some comfort and assistance to young people in Brisbane, at a variety of centres. To this point they have been undersupported financially but have provided community centres in the various suburbs to allow young people to escape from their despair. I give great credit to the people who run these community centres. The young social workers attached to these community centres deserve our commendation. The Government should proceed to support these centres but should realise fully that they do not help the unemployed in finding jobs. They merely assist these young people to get into communication with people in the same position as themselves.

I refer to another support scheme which the Government has introduced but which, to my mind, is a complete failure and is providing cheap labour to failing industries. That is all it does. There is very little training component in a scheme which subsidises an employer to the extent of $60 to employ a young person. What has happened and what was bound to happen is that employers, some of necessity, have abused the scheme. There is very little training in the scheme itself. The abuse is widespread. Even in the country areas, which the National Country Party represents, there is a misuse of the scheme. Young people are taken on under this scheme as jilleroos and in other rural occupations, and they are receiving no training at all. In one case which has come to my attention a person sent out under the training scheme acted as a housekeeper and saddled a horse on only two occasions in three months. That is the abuse of the scheme, and it is widespread. The Government should have a good look at the scheme because all it does is institutionalise short term employment- dead end jobs. It has the opposite effect to that intended. It is demoralising to the young person who is employed under those conditions and who knows that the employer pays only $11 towards his keep. At the end of 6 months he is bound to find himself on the scrap heap. The Government should look at the scheme again and not boast about the $50,000 -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bonnor)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-To use Senator Georges’ own words, we have just heard from him a rubbery speech. It was rubbery because it stretched our credibility. He said a lot about unemployment. To listen to him, one would think that he did not understand what is causing unemployment. Indeed, to listen to the whole Opposition, one would think that it did not understand what is causing unemployment. Let me put it in one word. It is inflation. It is inflation resulting from actions of the Opposition when in Government. This Government has been trying desperately ever since it came to office to reduce that inflation. It is now getting on top of it, but it has taken a long toll.

Senator Georges:

– It will take longer.

Senator LEWIS:

– Certainly it will take longer. Just in case members of the Opposition do not believe me, I ask them to listen to what the British Prime Minister said at the Labour Party conference in September 1976. He said:

We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option not longer exists, and that in so far as it ever did exist, it worked by injecting inflation into the economy.

If only the Opposition would appreciate that. High and rising wages and prices have caused businessmen to cut back, to protect themselves. They have adopted all sorts of labour-saving devices. They have reduced the number of fulltime employees, used part-time employees where necessary, and not replaced or have retrenched employees. We cannot blame the businesmen for adopting this attitude. It is up to them to maintain the profitability of their organisations, and this is how they have had to do it. At one time one would have wondered whether members of the Opposition had ever spoken to any of these businessmen. I now believe that honourable senators opposite know what they are doing. They propose massive increases in government expenditure. They know the consequence of that would be further inflation. We are living in a free enterprise system and the solution to unemployment is to encourage expansion -

Senator O’Byrne:

– You are becoming a National Socialist.

Senator LEWIS:

– This is not a socialist economy; it is a free enterprise economy. The Government is endeavouring to reduce inflation and to give businessmen an opportunity to expand and to create more employment opportunities. On the other hand the Opposition believes in preaching proposals which would bring forward nothing more than inflation. At the same time it also preaches gloom, doom and despair. Of course we know that members of the Opposition have a vested interest in unemployment. They are aware that the best way they can achieve their aims is to talk gloom, doom and despair. They talk about unemployment and preach solutions which could not work and which they know could not work.

Of course there is another element in our community with a vested interest in unemployment and gloom, doom and despair. I refer to the extreme left wing element in the trade union movement. I am not talking about the ordinary unionists nor their officials; I am talking about a small group of extremists.

Senator Georges:

– You are talking about Pommies, are you not?

Senator LEWIS:

-In my opinion they are using people to gain political ends. I am not talking about Pommy union officials; the ones I am talking about are home-grown. The aim of these people is to overthrow our system of government. I will give some examples. One is the green bans that were introduced by the New South

Wales branch of the Builders Labourers Federation led by two communists, Jack Mundey and Joe Owens. Another is the Newport ban originally introduced by Norm Gallagher, the Peking-line communist secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation in Victoria and continued by the Victorian Secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, Halfpenny, who needs no introduction to the people of Australia. The overseas trade bans are enforced by the Seamen’s Union of Australia, whose Federal Secretary is the notorious Eliot V. Elliott. Of course we know what he does. He is quoted in the book Inside Australia’s 100 Top Unions as saying:

I believe in the overthrow of capitalism and I’m doing everything I can to weaken it.

We ought to shout that from the rooftops. We ought to make it perfectly clear to everyone in Australia that this person is trying to destroy our system. The people of Australia are aware of what these extremists are doing, and I hope they are endeavouring to isolate them. Let me mention the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation in which the Workers Student Alliance is so strong. Honourable senators will recall that earlier this year General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd offered to its employees in certain circumstances the option of having 4 days employment per week or having 800 people sacked. What happened? The union officials immediately replied: ‘We won’t accept the offer of 4 days employment’. In other words, the union officials admitted that they wanted their own members sacked. Look at the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, which is causing so much trouble to the beef producers.

Senator Georges:

– How is it causing trouble?

Senator LEWIS:

-I will tell the honourable senator how it is causing trouble to the beef producers. It is stopping the sale overseas of live carcasses. I refer to an article in the Primary Industry Survey by Mr H. S. Conkey, Managing Director of Conkey and Sons Ltd. He gives some figures on the effect of loss of production in his company caused by strikes and work restrictions on the slaughter floor during the 12 months ended December 1976. He discloses that the number of cattle and sheep submitted for slaughter and the actual kill were very substantially less and that as a consequence the slaughtermen lost approximately $3,135 each in wages and the labourers on the slaughter floor each lost $3,477 in wages. That is the sort of action that this industry is involved in. In addition Mr Conkey assures us in the article that had his company been sure that all livestock submitted would be killed it would have employed at least 100 additional people. Can anyone say that the officials in that union do not have a vested interest in unemployment? I say to the Senate that these people are interested only in chaos and anarchy. Unemployment forms one of their main planks.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) has referred to some of the Government’s initiatives. In particular I refer to the initiative whereby unemployment benefits have been indexed. This is a very substantial benefit granted by the Government.

The Budget produced last night is a good Budget. It is sound; it is sensible. It offers initiatives to people who are prepared to work, but at the same time it attacks inflation, it cuts back the deficit, it reduces the Government’s own expenditure and certainly it will lead to a recovery in the economy. It is the recovery in the economy which is important to job creation. The creation of jobs will come from an economic recovery whereby the business community will be able to expand and work will become available. That is the object of this Government. It is a perfectly good object and a sound object. In the light of these comments, I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the motion be agreed to.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 32

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 5.48 to 8 p.m.

page 147

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972I present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 31 December 1976.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 147

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present two papers, one prepared by the Australian Postal Commission and the other by the Australian Telecommunications Commission, and both entitled ‘Service and Business Outlook for 1 977-78 ‘.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 147

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND TASMANIA

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

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

page 147

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– For the informaion of honourable senators I present the interim reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on plywood and veneer- thick plywood; children’s knitted tracksuits, playsuits, rompersuits and like garments, tariff quotas; and short term assistance for room air-conditioners.

page 147

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on carpets and related correspondence; ceramic floor and wall tiles; and vices.

page 148

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Report of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I present the report of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BONNER (Queensland )-by leave- I move:

On the second occasion in the space of 12 months, it is my privilege to rise and present to the Senate a far reaching and searching report on the important issues affecting my people- the Aborigines of Australia. It is indeed a pleasure, as the lone Aboriginal Federal member of Parliament to table before honourable senators the report of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights- a committee which I had the honour to chair for most of its inquiries and deliberations.

Whilst I present this report, which is that of the majority of” the Committee, and naturally I am bound by it- I feel that I would be remiss and failing in my duty towards my people if I did not express my disappointment that the Government saw fit to abdicate its total responsibility to the Aboriginal people and to condone the proposed introduction of complementary legislation dealing with Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I say that the Government has avoided an area of responsibility given to it by the people of Australia in the referendum of 1 967. This is my sole criticism of an otherwise long, arduous and fruitful inquiry into a question which has vexed my people for nigh on 200 years- that is, the ownership of their traditional lands.

An Aborigine’s affinity with the land has no comparable conception to the white Australians, who look upon land in a materialistic manneras something to be enjoyed to the exclusion of others, to be guarded against and walled off from all others and to be viewed purely as an item of social wealth and standing within the community. The British concept, that a man’s home is his castle and no man dare take it from him, is in complete contrast, I believe, to the meaning which my people have always had concerning their beloved earth. Land, to the Aborigine, is the whole of his being, the place of the spirits, the churches and the home and source of life itself. It is the place where human spirits dwell before birth and after death. Ultimately it is the extension of our souls.

I feel that all members of the Committee were affected and moved by this strange and mystical love of my people for their land. As the hearings progressed they too became more aware of the uniqueness and fierceness of this great love that my people have for their land. After it was established in December 1976, the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory held 1 1 days of public hearings- eight in the Northern Territory and three in Canberra. Evidence was taken from 65 persons. Towards the end of the inquiry the Committee divided into sub-committees for visits to 16 Aboriginal communities for discussions with Aboriginal leaders on the subject matter of the inquiry.

In clause (A) of its terms of reference the Committee was requested to examine and report on the provisions of the Land Rights Act relating to the identification of traditional owners of Aboriginal land and the means of establishing the views of Aboriginal traditional owners to the satisfaction of the relevant land councils.

I deal now with the identification of traditional owners. Evidence put to the Committee indicated that tribal people generally knew who were the traditional owners of the land and that disputes about ownership of land were rare indeed. Because of this and other evidence placed before it, the Committee concluded that the methods adopted to date by both land councils are appropriate in order to identify the Aboriginal traditional owners. However, both land councils expressed concern at the pressure by various interests to identify traditional owners. The Committee believes that as a result of this pressure there is a risk that identification may not be as thorough as is considered necessary. The Committee stresses that part of the Government’s on-going responsibility is to ensure that the land councils and the agencies involved in the identification process have adequate time and resources to carry out the necessary procedures for identification.

The Committee concluded that generally the procedures of consultation with traditional owners adopted by the land councils are appropriate. However, the Committee found that in some instances the communication of land council decisions was ineffective, particularly where a delegate may not have the necessary clarity of explanation. The Committee considers that trained Aboriginal officers of the land councils should be made available to explain any intended action of the councils to Aboriginal groups or to traditional owners.

I turn now to the Northern Territory legislation. In clause (B) of its terms of reference the Committee was requested to report on the adequacy of provisions of the law 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. Under the Land Rights Act the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory is empowered to make ordinances in respect of these matters, hence the reciprocal legislation. In accordance with this power the Aboriginal Lands and Sacred Sites Bill was introduced into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 3 March 1977. This Bill which relates to the protection of sites of significance, entry to Aboriginal land and entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land, lapsed on the dissolution of the previous Assembly. The wildlife conservation aspect is covered in the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Ordinance which was assented to on 26 May 1977.

The Committee considers that the main deficiency in the Aboriginal Lands and Sacred Sites Bill was that the role of the Land Councils was reduced and as such did not accord with Federal Government policy. The Committee also considers that some of the provisions of the Bill were complex and confusing and could lead to uncertainty and delay in administration and enforcement. Many problems associated with the reciprocal legislation would have been overcome if close and meaningful consultation had been undertaken in the first instance by all parties concerned and because of this the Committee has concluded that such consultation should take place before the reciprocal legislation is reintroduced into the new Assembly.

The Committee believes that in relation to entry to Aboriginal land the Northern Territory legislation should contain the following provisions: Power to delegate by the Land Councils; permits to include conditions laid down by traditional owners; conditions to include that a person should leave the land if requested by the traditional owners; power to revoke permit with penalty for non-compliance; the right for a community occupying land not occupied by the traditional owners to issue permits to allow visits to that community; the traditional owner to have power to delegate; the traditional owner to give permission to enter his land in circumstances where it is not practicable to obtain permits from a Land Council; and that officials, politicians and police should notify in advance their intention to enter Aboriginal land.

In respect of sacred sites the Committee believes that the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act should be examined and where appropriate its provisions adopted. In particular any legislation should make provision for the initiative for the protection of sacred sites to rest with the Aboriginals themselves. A statutory authority with Land Council representation should be established and be responsible for coordination of requests for protection, the initiation of prosecution and establishing the most appropriate method of protection in each circumstance. Sign posting and fencing should be avoided where possible. Is should be mandatory for prior adequate consultation to be held between organisations and individuals and the relevant Land Council. If there is any proposed activity that requires earth works or clearing the maximum penalty for desecration should be imposed and the onus of proof to establish that the desecration was not wilful should rest with the defendant.

In relation to wildlife conservation, while the Committee concludes that the provisions of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Ordinance are generally adequate some amendments are needed to make provision for the Wildlife Commission to negotiate and conclude agreements with the relevant Land Councils to protect fauna and to ensure that Aboriginals have a right to kill wildlife for food and ceremonial purposes in cases where there is no agreement with the Commission.

In respect of entry to seas adjacent to Aboriginal land, the strong views expressed to the Committee give credence to the suggestion that control of the seas by Aboriginals could give rise to ill feelings between the Aboriginal and nonAboriginal communities. As far as nonAborigines were concerned there was ample evidence that there was substantial recreational use of the waters in the large centres of nonAboriginal population, such as Gove. Barramundi fishing is taking place within 2 kilometres of Aboriginal land or land under Aboriginal claim. The Committee notes that the Land Rights Act was drawn up so as to preserve existing rights. The provisions relating to mining are the most obvious example of this. The Committee is aware of the strong desire by Aboriginals to obtain rights over the 2 kilometres area. These expectations were raised in the Aboriginal community following recommendations by the

Woodward Commission. The Committee believes that the non-fulfilment of these expectations could also have serious repercussions. The Committee is of the view that sacred sites within the sea should be protected. The Committee has endeavoured to formulate a proposal which takes account of the various points of view presented to it and the needs of the whole community. It therefore proposes that Northern Territory legislation should make provision for the following:

  1. The right of Aboriginals to enter and use the resources of all waters adjoining and within 2 kilometres of the land in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. This right is to include the closing of areas of the sea which are of significance to Aboriginal communities either for traditional use, enjoyment of the waters or for the creation of buffer zones;
  2. the adjoining areas in substantial nonAboriginal centres of population to be opened for recreational use;
  3. the rights of existing commercial fishing licences to be retained and that new fishing licences be issued only after consultation between the Fisheries Branch of the Department of the Northern Territory and the relevant Land Council; and
  4. the Aboriginal Land Commissioner to arbitrate in cases where disagreements arise between non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal interests over the use of the seas 2 kilometres from Aboriginal land.

The majority of the Committee believes that the Parliament should maintain a continuing oversight of the administration of the Land Rights Act to ensure that the letter and spirit of the Act has been observed. The report accordingly recommends that the Parliament establish a committee to inquire further into the operation of the Lands Rights Act. In conclusion I should like to make some brief comments on the dissenting report by the honourable Gordon Bryant and the honourable Les Johnson. I refer specifically to paragraph 8 of that dissenting report and I will read it if I may. It reads:

  1. that due to the restraints in time a properly prepared final draft or the Report has not been circulated to members for their considered response before presentation to the Parliament;

I would be very disturbed indeed- I am sure I speak for all Committee members- should that comment be taken in any way to be a criticism of the secretary and the officers who worked with the Committee. I want to say on behalf of the

Committee and myself in particular a very sincere thank you and to express a heartfelt gratitude to the secretary and all the members of the staff who assisted during the length of this inquiry. They worked arduously. They worked, I believe, far and beyond the call of duty. I believe that there are occasions when the secretarys’ work is sometimes impeded and made very hard by members of committees. Men like me and I suppose women in the Parliament sometimes can be most frustrating to a committee secretariat. I believe than any praise that we can heap upon the secretariat is well warranted. I thank the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I support the motion moved by Senator Bonner proposing that the Senate take note of the report of the Joint Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory. I apologise for my inability to express in flowery langauge the mythology surrounding the belief of Aborigines that land is an extension of their soul. I am not capable of using the phraseology which Senator Bonner used but I do recognise that to Aborigines land has a greater significance than its commercial value has to Europeans. I support the criticism contained in the dissenting report relating to the report not being seen. I do not think that it was ever the intention of those who put their names to the dissenting report to imply that this was the fault of the officers of the Committee. Although I have not seen a copy of the report I accept as a result of my confidence in the officers of the Committee that it is in accordance with what was decided at the final meeting of the Committee. However, as I have been informed only on the telephone of the contents of the dissenting report, I question my ability to comment on it.

The reasons for dissent as expressed in the dissenting report were the result of many factors. Firstly, there was a time limit placed on the presentation of the Committee’s report. Secondly, the Committee’s work was interrupted by the prorogation of Parliament to enable the Queen to open the new season of the Parliament and the Committee had to be re-appointed. Thirdly, because the reference given to the Committee was so wide, it was thought advisable for the Committee to visit Aboriginal communities. This necessitated touring to the remote corners of the Northern Territory. For a long time now following my initiation into the committee system, I have been concerned about committees of the Senate. I have spent a lot of time serving on them. I have done my best to assist in the preparation of reports. But I find that, although the reports contains so many recommendations, that is the end of the matter. No one then takes any notice of the report. This was the case with the report of the Senate Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. This was also the case with the report on Aborigines in the southwest of Western Australia. That report contained some 35 recommendations. We cannot point to one of those recommendations having been implemented by the Government. I have often been inclined to wonder whether the appointment of committees has not been for the purpose of excusing the Government for not doing something about a very important issue.

This was my first experience as a member of a joint committee of both Houses. It will be my last experience. I found that members of the other House are so busy- that is realistically the positionthat although this Committee comprised 14 members and senators the Committee had to divide itself into sub-committees in order constitutionally to hold meetings because it was rarely that we could get a quorum to enable a meeting of the full Committee. I do not think that this is good enough when dealing with questions concerning the Aboriginal people. The matter before the Committee was an important one. The Committee met finally for 2 days in Canberra for the purpose of finalising its report. It had before it a suggested report from the Chairman. After consideration of that report by the whole Committee, the report was changed so much that no one could keep track of what was to appear in the final report. I still do not know, although I was a member of the Committee, what the final report says. However, I accept what Senator Bonner has said about the findings of the Committee being accurately stated in the report.

During the course of finalising the report, two members of the Committee indicated that they wanted to submit a dissenting report. One member wished to express some criticism, as Senator Bonner has done today, of the Government for not accepting its responsibility. Instead of legislating on the whole question of land rights in accordance with the powers which the referendum gave it, this Federal Government is handing some of this responsibility to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. It was pointed out that the ambit of the Committee was restricted and that the Act provided that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly should enact supplementary legislation in respect of four questions. The Committee had the power to determine only whether the legislation of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was sufficient to meet the intentions of the Aboriginal

Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill. That was a view which was to be placed in the dissenting report but from what I am told I believe that it does not appear.

The other matter referred to in the dissenting report is the strong belief that Aborigines should have control over seas adjoining Aboriginal land for a distance of 2 kilometres. As Senator Bonner has said, this was an expectation following the Woodward Commission report. The Aboriginal Land Council had submitted proposals to the Woodward Commission for control over seas adjoining Aboriginal land for a distance of 10 miles. The Commission rejected the claim saying that it could not close the seas to that extent. Mr Justice Woodward thought that there was some justification for a buffer zone in order to ensure privacy for Aboriginal land. The decision on the area of the zone had to be arbitrary. Mr Justice Woodward selected 2 kilometres. A belief built up in the minds of Aboriginals that they had, and should have, an entitlement to a 2 kilometre zone.

The Committee discussed this matter and took a vote on whether it should be 2 kilometres. The Committee comprised one more member from the Government parties than from the Opposition party. The Opposition members who were present at that meeting voted for 2 kilometres. That was in accordance with Australian Labor Party policy which was re-affirmed in Perth recently. Therefore, excluding one member, 50 per cent of the Committee membership was somewhat committed to that proposal. In addition there was one member of the Committee from the Government parties who also supported the proposal. So, although there is a dissenting report signed by two members of the Committee saying that there is justification for granting a 2 kilometre zone to the Aborigines, the impression given is misleading because, if there had been full attendance at that Committee meeting, that would have been the majority decision.

Senator Chaney:

– You should appoint people to comittees who attend the meetings.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I have tried to point out that it is nearly impossible for members who are overloaded with work to attend meetings. I would say that there have been occasions when Senator Chaney has considered the winning of an election in Western Australia more important than Aborigines in the Northern Territory, so I would not be too critical of those who did not attend meetings. I point this out because the Minister could be misled in the belief that with the exception of 2 members the Committee was strongly of the opinion that there should be a 2 kilometre restriction. It is not a fact. The fact is that it is the opinion of the Committee as a whole that it should be 2 kilometres. After the resolution was put and defeated it then became a question of what was best for the purposes of the Aboriginal community and the community of the Northern Territory as a whole. I was a member of a sub-committee which assisted in the actual writing up of the alternative. After being a party to the final words I felt that I could not be a party to the dissenting report. Therefore, my name does not appear on the report.

There are a few points I want to make. The Act places great importance on the Land Councils of the Northern Territory, that is, the two appointed or any future land councils to be appointed. As the Land Councils have the responsibility under section 24 of the Act to compile and maintain a register of the names of persons who, in the opinion of the Council, are traditional owners, they must have a map of the sites. Members of the Committee went to a meeting of the Land Council and to a meeting of the traditional owners from Arnhem Land which was held in Batchelor. Subsequently, we went to the settlements and interviewed the Aboriginal people. The thing that is noticeable is that when tribal Aborigines are in their setting or are together, each one knows who has responsibility for each area of land. There is no dispute over it. Despite the fact that the Land Council employs linguists and anthropologists to go into the question of mapping and of interpreting who has responsibility for areas of land, this information can be found out on any occasion. The Aborigines know who owns the land.

The Commissioner also has the responsibility, under section 15 of the Act, to ascertain whether the Aborigines making the application or any other Aborigines are the traditional owners. He must be certain when an application is made that it is made by the traditional owners. He must possibly be more certain than the Land Council. The Land Council’s job of identifying traditional owners is easy in that traditional owners know who they are. Tribal Aborigines do not lie. When this was pointed out to Mr Justice Ward, who was the tentative Commissioner, he said: ‘Yes, I agree with that. You can accept their word. They simply do not lie.’ Despite the fact that the Commissioner will decide who are the traditional owners on the evidence presented, our system of decision-making requires a whole string of academics. The European legal system necessitates bringing into the field academics for the purpose of convincing the Commissioner that the claim is justified. It is an unfortunate aspect which brings up the whole question of the Land Councils being inundated at the present time with land claims. There is some novelty about , the Land Council which the tribal Aborigines do not fully understand. There is insufficient contact between the two. Whilst the Land Council can be excused at the present time for not having more contact with the tribal Aborigines in the field, it is more qualified than any other section, as it has trained field personnel, who could be Aborigines, for the purpose of going out and explaining the operations of the Land Council and getting the opinion of the tribal people.

With the present staff ceilings and the number of claims that they must process at the moment, the personnel of the Land Council is insufficient. Surprisingly, while an amount of $171,000 was made available in last year’s Budget to support the Land Council, there is nothing in the 1 977-78 Budget for this purpose. It is an impossible position in that whilst there is a committee to investigate what is necessary in this area, the Budget gives no assistance to Land Councils. It is true that with mineral royalties Land Councils would at some time be self supporting and not in need of Government financial assistance. But that situation has not occurred. It must be remembered that the Land Council has only some rights to royalties on Aboriginal land. Despite the fact that the Act designates some land as Aboriginal land, Aboriginal land is defined in the Act as that land to which the Minister has appointed a land trust for the purpose of administration. As the Minister has appointed no land trust, or had not done so until our last hearing, there is at present no Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. Therefore, there is no income from that source to the Land Council.

There is no provision in the present Budget to allow the Land Council to continue to do the work it was doing or to increase the work it was doing. I refer here to the method of identification which members of the Committee thought was quite easy and was being done capably and properly. Aboriginal Land Councils, which seem to have control over Aboriginal land under the Act, cannot do anything on Aboriginal land unless they have discussed it with the residents of the land and are fully convinced that the Aborigines concerned realise what they are talking about. They cannot do anything unless they have the approval and permission of the traditional owners. They must do two things. They must have discussions with the residents and they must have approval from the traditional owners. They must know who the traditional owners are and they must have a method of communication. It is important that the costly operation of discussions between traditional owners and the Land Councils continue. It is ridiculous at this time for personnel limitations to be placed upon the Council. This Government is not doing what it says it is doing for the Aborigines in the granting of land. It is putting many impediments in the way of giving effect to its promise of land rights. It must be remembered that this refers only to Aborigines who have a claim to unalienated Crown land and not private land. The Commissioner must report claims for private land and the Minister will decide on this matter in future legislation.

The Committee had to decide whether the legislation of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was sufficient with regard to the right of entry on Aboriginal lands, the protection of sites of significance, wildlife conservation and the entry onto seas adjoining the Aboriginal land. Our inquiry was concerned with whether the legislation was adequate as it was legislation that had been passed as many ordinances many years ago. Dr Letts, the majority leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- I believe he is now unemployed- on that occasion agreed that the existing Act was unacceptable in any direction. But after our first conference with him he introduced legislation to cover the four points in the form of a Bill before the Assembly which would become an ordinance. I think he was badly advised in regard to the presentation of the Bill. It was widely criticised by most sections of the Northern Territory and particularly by the Aboriginal community. It has no meritorious clauses in it and was the subject of strong condemnation by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who gave evidence before the Committee.

There has been some suggestion that promises to confer with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs were not fulfilled and the legislation was passed without the Department of Aboriginal Affairs being a party to consultations on it.

Senator Kilgariff:

– Whose fault was that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Well, I take it that it was the fault of that now unemployed man in the Northern Territory. The evidence was so strong that Dr Letts admitted under cross-examination that there were vital mistakes in the legislation and therefore vital amendments would have to be made. The amendments could not be made before he felt that it was essential to go to the people in an election for the Northern Territory. What those amendments were to be and whether they would meet the requirements of the Act I do not know, but they are not before the Assembly. I believe that Dr Letts is no longer there for the purpose of introducing his amendments. As a result of the election, there is now the possibility of a majority group in the Assembly who will be more sympathetic to the Aboriginals’ claims than was the previous group which was in control of the Assembly. So that dismisses all the legislation in regard to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory.

The Committee, as indicated by Senator Bonner, has suggested proposals with regard to Northern Territory legislation. If we have Aboriginal ownership of land, then one who should be entitled to go onto the land or the one who should be entitled to give permission to go onto the land must be the owner and must be a traditional Aboriginal. By the very nature of the size of Aboriginal land, the granting of permission to a person, before he leaves the city of Darwin or Alice Springs, to enter Aboriginal land should be delegated to the Aboriginal Land Council. That was acceptable to the Aboriginal communities. Dr Letts had some system in regard to authorising an Aboriginal as the authority. As to what are sites of significance brings up difficulties insofar as some sites of significance in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are so secret and so sacred that the Aboriginals do not want anyone to know of their whereabouts. That means that they cannot agree with the registration of certain sites; they cannot agree to putting up a notice that trespass is prohibited; they cannot agree to putting up a warning to indicate that the land is a sacred site. Therefore, possibly the less said about a sacred site, the better.

The greatest desecration of sites has been carried out by government activity. A bulldozer might be used to get a road through or to start a pine forest or something else. Sites are also being desecrated by tourists. It is thought that those sites which are threatened with desecration should be listed and should be protected by signs or fences or by some other method. Such sites play a part in their ceremonies and their family life. Certain members of the tribe have a responsibility for protecting the sacred sites of the area. That tribal member should be acknowledged as the one with the responsibility to look after certain areas and the authority to order anyone out.

I return to the control of entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land. I think it is very unfortunate that the two kilometres of the sea area adjacent to the land will not be available to Aboriginals. The evidence suggests that it was never intended that if Aboriginals had control of the two kilometres adjoining their coast that area would be closed to white man’s interests, but that permission would have to be given by the Aboriginal community as to what white men would be allowed entry and for what purpose. We were defeated on that question. Senator Bonner’s report has recommended that provision be made for the right of Aboriginals to full use of the sea adjoining their land. If that is accepted, no ordinance of the Northern Territory or action of government can deny them the right to the use of that area. If others are using it and have the right to use it for sport and fishing, then that right has to be considered by the Commissioner, in consultation, if there is an objection to Aboriginals using it. The other point which I think is important is where someone already has a right to commercial fishing in the seas adjoining Aboriginal land. The opinion of the majority of the Committee is that they should not have to sacrifice this commercial right- a right which they already have- but that Aboriginals should have a say in the granting of new licences and whether restrictions should be placed on fishing in that particular area. This is the final decision of the Committee.

I wish to pay a tribute to the Committee. Although perhaps I said some harsh things about members of the Committee at times, I think they worked well. I think they wanted to do the best possible for the Aboriginal community. I pay tribute to the dedication and work of the secretarial staff. I pay particular tribute to Senator Bonner and his capabilities as Chairman and the manner in which he conducted the hearings. Although we had some pulling into line at times, I think everyone enjoyed the exercise under his direction and chairmanship. It was an experience. I only make the plea that this report be not treated as previous reports in that it be thought that the Committee has finished its job and that is to be the end of the matter. I did not support the proposal for the establishment of a permanent committee because I think the Minister would have a responsibility to take notice of the Committee and to police the implementation of the decisions of the Committee. He should not have a committee continually looking over his shoulder. Nevertheless, that was a decision of the majority of the Committee. I go along with and give my endorsement to the report.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

-Unfortunately the program for tonight does not permit us to prolong this debate very much. I want to touch on a couple of points before we close the debate this evening. I refer to the matters raised principally by the previous speaker, Senator Cavanagh. The happy thing, I suppose, is that I agree with his concluding remarks. I join with him in thanking Senator Neville Bonner for his chairmanship of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory and in thanking the Committee Secretariat for its contribution. The couple of points I want to mention before seeking leave to continue my remarks at a later stage are as follows: Firstly, I mention the query about the involvement of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Government decided to allow certain aspects of this legislation to be dealt with by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I for one still believe that that was a sensible decision.

The operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 has to be looked at in the context of an Act which will have a very considerable effect on all people who live in the Northern Territory. There are obviously some very strong views about the operation of that Act in the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities in that Territory. I think the evidence which was brought before the Committee and which showed the very strong views that are held will have a very useful effect within the Northern Territory community. The views have had an airing. The Committee has been able to take them into account. The Assembly itself has had a most valuable exercise in producing a Bill which initially was laid before the Assembly but which the Majority Leader, Dr Goff Letts, now agrees was deficient in a number of particulars. The Assembly has been involved in a way which will enable it to make a substantial contribution to the operation of Aboriginal lands in Australia.

The second point is that the Committee itself has been questioned by Senator Cavanagh. I think the value of the Committee has been proved. If we look at the evidence of Dr Letts we see that he, in the process of this inquiry and the other representations that he has received, has been brought to a different point of view about the way the legislation ought to be framed. I think that fact in itself demonstrates the value of the exercise that has been sponsored by this Parliament. It has resulted in a degree of dialogue between the national Parliament and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- a degree of dialogue that I think was necessary. I think this contributes to a better understanding between the two parliaments and to a better understanding in both parliaments of the problems involved in the Act.

The last point I make relates to the 2-kilometre limit on which Senator Cavanagh touched. He expressed some dissatisfaction with the finding and talked about the voting in the Committee. I simply say to the Senate that this was an area where it was not possible to meet the competing wishes and requirements of the different people who came before the Committee. In fact, the Committee was faced with totally inconsistent demands. On the part of Aborigines there was a request for a 2 -kilometre area of the sea right round Aboriginal land. That request had been founded, I think, on the view put forward by Mr Justice Woodward who considered the original request for a much wider area of the sea. I accept that a large section of the Aboriginal community had come to expect that they would receive 2 kilometres of the sea as part of their Aboriginal lands. This is a very serious matter and something at which the Committee had to look very carefully.

On the other hand the Committee also had to look at the quite obvious community expectation that the right of access to the sea which is enjoyed by Australians everywhere else in Australia should be enjoyed in the Northern Territory as it has been in the past. There was considerable weight of evidence from the nonAboriginal community that people had this expectation that they would be able to enjoy the sea in the way that other Australians do. These people made it quite clear that they regarded this matter as an important part of their ability to lead an enjoyable life in the Northern Territory. The recreational values of the seas were very important to them. I do not believe that a decision to close off what was nearly 80 per cent of the Northern Territory coastline could have been taken without very serious repercussions within the total community of the Northern Territory. So the Committee was faced with a situation where it simply could not meet the competing demands that were placed before it.

I hope that the recommendations we put forward will provide a helpful guide to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in reaching a solution which, firstly, will guarantee to the Aborigines the traditional access that they have had to the seas and which the Commonwealth Act requires should be preserved to them; secondly, will enable the protection of areas which are of special significance, be they sacred sites or areas close to significant Aboriginal communities; and at the same time will result in a preservation of what I would call the normal Australian recreational rights to use the sea for the total community. I think that the Committee, faced with a very difficult choice, has done the best it could to achieve a compromise solution which meets the basic needs of the whole community in the Northern Territory. The matters dealt with in the report are complicated and long. As I say, there are other matters before the Senate tonight which ought to be dealt with. I now seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator Keeffe:

– I seek leave to make a short statement.

Senator Cotton:

– I want to be as helpful and as courteous as I can. This matter has launched into general debate. No notice was given of succeeding speakers. There is no list of speakers. Nobody has any idea what the report is all about. We have launched into the jetstream without any knowledge of what we are engaged in. Whilst there is a great amount of concern and a great amount of hope to understand, it does not help many of us very much if what we have is a series of incidental remarks which nobody knew would be launched upon us.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are cheating. There have been three speakers from that side of the Senate and only one from this side.

Senator Cotton:

- Senator Bonner spoke, Senator Cavanagh spoke and Senator Chaney properly made some remarks and asked leave to continue his remarks at a later stage. Surely it is opportune, therefore, for a debate to take place later. Why do we need to have a further extension of the debate tonight?

Senator Keeffe:

– You are frightened of it. That is the reason. You are scared stiff.

Senator Cotton:

– I was hoping to be helpful. Senator Chaney sought leave to continue his remarks later. That is where the matter rests.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Douglas McClelland, Senator Keeffe is seeking leave to make a statement.

Senator Keeffe:

– I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, you may seek leave after the formalities in respect of Senator Chaney ‘s request have been completed. Is that acceptable to you?

Senator Georges:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will put the matter again. We will not deny Senator Keeffe his opportunity to seek leave to make a statement.

Senator Georges:

– All right; we will withdraw our refusal to grant leave.

Senator Cotton:

– As I understand the matter, Senator Chaney sought leave to continue his remarks later. Is that matter disposed of?

The PRESIDENT:

– I will put it again. Is leave granted?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No, leave is not granted.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted. There has been a dissenting voice.

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is no debate on this motion. I take it that Senator Keeffe will seek leave to make a brief statement. The question is that this debate be now adjourned. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. I think the ayes have it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The noes have it.

Senator Keeffe:

– I want to speak against the resumption of the debate being made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator Cotton:

– On a motion for the adjournment of a debate, Mr President, with respect, there can be no debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is correct. Is a division required?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes.

Question put-

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 22

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

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

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I oppose the motion and as an amendment move:

That all words after ‘order of the day’ be deleted and the words ‘for a later hour this day’ be inserted.

I will state the reasons. This Government consistently tries to suppress discussion on Aboriginal affairs.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Rubbish.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is not rubbish, it is truthful. Tonight we have a debate on one of the most important reports that could come before this Parliament. The Government is trying to bog down debate on the report because the Government does not want it discussed. Earlier tonight an arrangement was made that there would be one speaker for each side. I did not propose to comment, except to ask respectfully that the report be brought on for debate at the earliest possible time.

Senator Cotton:

– I take a point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If you cannot cop it, you should sit down.

Senator Cotton:

– I am trying to be helpful. I shall put the facts as they are presented to me. They are these: There was to be a speech by Senator Bonner. I heard part of it. Senator Cavanagh, we understood, would reply briefly and would seek leave to continue his remarks. He did not do so. This is what I understand was the arrangement.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. A point of order can be taken only if the rules or the Standing Orders are broken and someone is out of order. An honourable senator cannot raise a point of order for the purpose of discussing an arrangement. Whatever the arrangement was, the question is whether Senator Keeffe should be given five minutes to speak to the subject. He has not been given time to speak. He has taken the only alternative available to him. Senator Cotton’s point of order has no substance because Senator Keeffe is not in breach of the Standing Orders. That is the basis on which a point of order can be taken. So there is no substance in the point of order.

Senator Cotton:

– Perhaps I might continue as I began, in the hope that we might be able to get a little clarity and a little understanding. I referred to what I was informed was the arrangement between both sides. It either was or was not an arrangement. It seems to me to be an arrangement. To get the Business of the Senate in the hands of the Government, procedures have been taken. Senator Keeffe can speak now if he wishes. Of course he can. I still want to clear up his point that he had not been fairly treated or that some Standing Order had been breached. That was not the case as presented to me.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

– In view of the Minister’s remarks, I think I ought to clarify the position before I continue with my contribution to the debate on the amendment to the motion moved by the Minister. He would clearly recall that there were three speakers on that side of the House to one speaker on this side df the House. That is a negation of democracy.

Senator Bonner:

– Who were they?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I could name them. Senator Bonner introduced the subject. Senator Cavanagh was the speaker from our side.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– He is not on our side.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If you want to turn this place into a circus do it on that side. We will not do it on this side.

Senator Baume:

– There were only two from our side.

Senator KEEFFE:

– You are the chief clown, so that fits you too. A statement was then made by the Government Whip, and he was followed by the Minister. So that makes three speakers on the Government side when in fact there was one on the Opposition side. Thousands of dollars have been spent on setting up the Committee, on the travel involved and on the publication of the report itself. This is the first time in history that a Senate select committee has introduced a report that does not exist. No member of the Committee, certainly those on the Labor side of the House, has a copy of the report. We heard what Senator Cavanagh said tonight. He never properly saw the final draft. Other Labor members of the Committee tell me they never saw the final draft at all. Senator Bonner, who headed the Committee, is suppressing information that ought to be available to all members of the Committee. I am amazed and ashamed that such a thing should happen.

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The statement made by Senator Keeffe was that the Chairman of the Committee had suppressed information. That is objectionable and I ask Senator Keeffe to withdraw the statement.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr President, I must repeat that this is the first select committee report in history that no member of this Parliament has seen.

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The statement made by Senator Keeffe is an imputation against the Chairman of the Committee which I am sure is objectionable. It should be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is an imputation. Senator Keeffe, you must withdraw.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If there is an imputation I withdraw it. I am saying now that it is the Government’s fault. It has to be an irresponsible government to ask for permission to publish a report that nobody has seen.

Senator Walters:

– Why do you not attend committee meetings?

Senator KEEFFE:

-The last time Senator Walters published a- recipe for apple strudel she never showed us a copy of it either. If members of the Liberal Party have access to the report I hope they will come clean and tell us so. No member of the Labor Party has yet seen it.

Senator Bonner:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. There is an imputation that the Secretary and I as Chairman gave copies of the report to other members of the Liberal Party before it was tabled in this House. That is quite untrue. It is a reflection on both the Secretary and me and I would ask for it to be withdrawn.

Th*. PRESIDENT- You take it is a personal reflection on yourself as Chairman?

Senator Bonner:

– Yes.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I do not want to offend Senator Bonner in any way, but if members of the Liberal Party have not seen the report it makes the situation even worse because no member of the Government has seen it either. It probably means that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) has not seen it. If the Minister has not seen it it is a dereliction of duty on behalf of the Government members of the Committee.

The PRESIDENT:

– Did you withdraw, Senator Keeffe?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I did. I said I did not want to hurt Senator Bonner’s feelings. We had a committee known as the Hay Committee that did a very good job.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to order, Mr President. The motion before the Chair relates to the time to which this debate should be adjourned. I suggest that it is encumbent upon this chamber to require relevance in anything we hear from Senator Keeffe. I submit he should not be permitted to roam over all these matters, scrubby and otherwise. He laughs. He knows that he is just abusing the procedures of the chamber. I submit that if Parliament is to deal with business other than as children it is imperative to insist on relevance.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, on the point of order, the Opposition will not allow Senator Wright to turn this chamber into a bear garden this evening. Senator Cotton, the Minister in charge of the House, moved that the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, I ask that the remark of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be withdrawn.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Senator Keeffe felt that an injustice had been done to him. He is the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I suggest that in the interests of democracy and Parliament itself he is entitled to have his views and the views of the Opposition heard on this matter. He has moved an amendment to the effect that the matter be adjourned to a later hour of the day. At the outset of his remarks he said that in his opinion the matter was one of urgency that should be discussed by the Parliament. He is now engaged in expanding the reasons for the urgency of the matter. He is arguing that the debate be adjourned until a later hour this day and not until the next day of sitting. Therefore, despite all the rhetoric and all the abuse of Senator Wright, I suggest that my colleague, Senator Keeffe, is quite in order expanding his reasons.

The PRESIDENT:

– As Senator Keeffe resumes he will bear in mind that the motion before the Senate is the amendment moved to enable the adjourned debate to be made an order of the day for a later hour this day as against the original motion which proposed that it be the next day of sitting. Senator Keeffe will adhere to the motion.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I respect your view, Mr President.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr President, may I rise on a point of order. I say this with great respect: I am concerned about the conduct of the Senate this evening. Item 7 of the Senate Order of Business states:

Presentation of Papers-

By Ministers

By Senators presenting reports from CommitteesSenator Bonner to present a report from the Joint Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory.

When the Chairman of a committee presents a report to this Senate the Senate is entitled to have before it a copy of that report. To my knowledge, the report in question has not been circulated to each and every member of this Senate. I stand to be corrected, but I have not received a copy. To my knowledge the report has not been presented to the Senate in the normal, regular way. I genuinely believe that the procedure this evening is highly irregular. It is inconsistent with the custom and practice of this Senate, and the debate is completely out of order. I ask you to rule that way. With respect, if you do not, it will mean that at any time a chairman of a committee may ask the Clerk to place on the business paper notice of his intention to submit a report on behalf of the committee when the committee may or may not have agreed to the substance of the report. I repeat that, as I understand it, so long as I have been in this Senate, which is just on 8 years, I have never known there to be a debate on a report from a committee when the Senate has not had the committee’s report before it. Therefore I honestly, sincerely and genuinely submit that this is completely out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Brown, I understand that the report was distributed.

Senator Cotton:

– Maybe I could help. I share the concern of Senator Brown if any irregularity has been caused to the Senate as a body corporate. I am informed that the report has been circulated. It has been placed in honourable senators’ rooms. It was in their hands an hour ago. That is my information. I did not pass the report around myself.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, if the report was distributed to our offices or our boxes after 8 o’clock, when honourable senators were in the chamber, I do not think it can be accepted that the report was in our hands. The point I want to make is this: Why do we want to take issue on this matter? Senator Keeffe wanted to make a statement on the Committee’s report which he tells me would have taken about 10 minutes. He sought leave and honourable senators opposite refused it. I ask them whether they will reconsider their attitude and get over the present situation.

Senator Cotton:

-Some of us here are trying to be reasonable about this matter. The business of the Government is in the hands of the Government. The reason for the action that was taken was to put us into a situation in which Senator Keeffe would be able to make his comments on the motion for the resumption of the debate. He is now doing that. It seems to me that that is a fairly sensible arrangement. Why not let it proceed?

Senator KEEFFE:

-The Minister is starting to see reason. Mr President, I have tried to stick to the line of argument that the Government is reluctant to discuss this report. First of all, it was most reluctant to distribute it. There was a surreptitious distribution of the report after the Senate commenced sitting tonight. That is not good enough. It is totally inconsistent with all past customs and procedures of this Parliament. When I was rudely interrupted by points of order I was wanting to point out that when the Hay report, which I consider to be a pretty fair report, was compiled it was deliberately held up by the Government for two months. It was leaked to the newspapers first, particularly the Bulletin, so that the Government could create an atmosphere in which it could slash spending on Aboriginal affairs in the Budget 12 months ago.

The Government is playing the same game with this report, apparently. It did not want it exposed to public scrutiny until it got this Budget out of the road in which the Government again has slashed spending on Aboriginal affairs. The Hay report was so desired by people that, when it was known that I had a copy of it- I am not saying how I got it; I did not steal it; as a matter of fact it was given to me by a member of the Liberal Party-two other members of the Liberal Party offered me two secret reports of the Government in exchange for one Hay report. That is how worried they were about it. When the Hiatt report was brought out it also was suppressed and the recommendations which should have been adopted by this Government were not adopted. Because there was insufficient time the Hiatt report was not properly debated in this Parliament. In fact debate was suppressed on that occasion too, even though the Opposition asked for a full, wide-ranging debate on the Hiatt report.

The Government suppressed the report because it did not intend to adopt the recommendations, particularly in relation to the National Aboriginal Conference. Today the NAC is organised on the basis of the boundaries of the Department’s administrative areas. All tribal affiliations have been abolished. The Government has done the wrong thing by every Aboriginal in this country, whether he be urban or tribal. The Government is hoping to get away with it. That is why the report was not produced tonight for discussion. That is why it was not given to members of this Parliament. The Government wanted to suppress the report and to have a nice tidy little debate, with one member from the Opposition side and three members from the Government side participating. The matter would never have been brought back again. I challenge the Government to bring on the debate on this document on the first Thursday night on which we have General Business. Let us have a free, open and democratic discussion on it.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator O’Byrne:

– I second the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 159

GOVERNMENT POLICY TOWARDS THE TEXTILES, CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES

Ministerial Statement

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

– I seek leave to make a statement relating to Government policy towards the textiles, clothing and footwear industries.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

– I seek leave to move a motion for the Senate to take note of the statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

-I move:

The recent IAC draft report on textiles, clothing and footwear has heightened uncertainty in these industries to a degree which the Government considers unacceptable. Numerous requests have been made to the Government seeking clarification of the Government’s attitude to these industries and an indication of the rules of the game so manufacturers can plan accordingly. Greater certainty about Government policies towards industry and economic prospects is essential if investment and employment are to be sustained. These industries have been subject to many difficulties and pressures over recent years. Imports have increased steadily, notwithstanding the application of short term measures of assistance. Employment has declined from about 167 000 in 1971 to less than 120 000 now.

The Government’s basic position is that it regards efficient textile, clothing and footwear sectors as important and continuing pans of Australia’s manufacturing industry. The significance of these sectors in terms of employment and related social considerations is fully recognised. We are determined- as are other developed countries- to preserve an efficient industry, not necessarily with the present composition, but with an essentially permanent character. The Government will apply what it termed in the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry ‘sectional policies’ to meet the special problems of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Support will be provided for a defined period during which the industries concerned should make a real effort to improve their structure and efficiency and hence improve their long term outlook. Specifically, the Government will now:

  1. Ask the IAC to provide advice on the construction and implementation of a policy, in both its short term and long term aspects, which takes into account the Government’s basic position which I have just referred to. In addition, the IAC will be asked to pay specific attention in its final report to the employment implications of its specific recommendations, including:

    1. whether recommendations for phased reduction of assistance, particularly in the present circumstances, are facilitating long term adjustment of industry and if not what alternative options are available; and
    2. the employment consequences of the levels of assistance regarded by the IAC as the highest justified for economic and efficient production in the long run.
  2. Ask the IAC to submit a separate and independent report within 60 days as to the detailed arrangements required to maintain to the fullest extent practicable the present level of activity and employment in the production of the goods covered by the existing references for a period of three years from mid- 1 977.
  3. 3 ) Establish a special study, separately from the IAC textiles, clothing and footwear inquiry, of the adjustment problems, especially adjustment into alternative employment, to be faced in the most highly assisted Austraiian industries, including the textiles, clothing and footwear sectors, with the objective of suggesting the broad elements of a long term policy of continuation and stability.
  4. While noting that there is a reasonably high degree of technological efficiency in the three industries, arrange for the Minister for Productivity to enter into immediate discussions with representatives of the textiles, clothing and footwear sectors, and with the appropriate unions, to determine the potential scope and commitment to a program of productivity improvement.

I wish to turn now to the level and allocation of quotas for textiles, clothing and footwear in the next quota period. In April this year, the Government announced it would extend the validity period of quota allocations for six months from January 1978 for footwear and brassieres and from March 1 978 for textiles and other clothing. We sought urgent advice from the IAC on the supplementary levels of quota for the additional six months periods. The IAC has advised that lower levels of quota for certain items appear necessary to sustain activity and employment in the local industry sectors concerned. The Government has accepted the IAC’s recommendations.

The Government has noted that the existing method of quota allocations, which is in general on an historical importing base in many cases dating back to 1973-74, has introduced rigidities into the quota allocation system. Accordingly the Government has decided to reserve 15 per cent of total quotas for cases involving anomalies. It has also decided that all quotas be made transferable and that for all quotas allocated on an historical basis, a moving base period will be used. Details of the supplementary quotas and the changed procedural arrangements will be announced in separate statements as soon as possible.

The Government has considered the position of local firms who invested in off-shore production facilities prior to the introduction of quotas with the objective of placing a substantial part of the output from these facilities on the Australian market. Provision will be made within the quota reserve for such firms. Honourable senators will be aware that a number of such cases have occurred recently with respect to Australian operations in a number of developing countries. The Government’s decision will assist the viability of these operations. Textiles, clothing and footwear form an important part of these countries’ exports to Australia. Trade in these products was an important element in the Prime Minister’s talks with the five Association of South East Asian Nations leaders in Kuala Lumpur earlier this month. During those talks the ASEAN leaders expressed their strong wish to improve their trade with Australia. As the Prime Minister informed the House earlier, there has in fact been considerable growth over the past five years in ASEAN exports to Australia, even for sensitive items such as textiles, clothing and footwear. The balance of trade with Australia which has been of concern to ASEAN countries has moved relatively in ASEAN ‘s favour during that period.

The Prime Minister was able to point out the considerable scope, even in present economic conditions, for increasing ASEAN ‘s share of the Australian import market and announced measures which we hope will facilitate increased two-way trade between ASEAN and Australia. The ASEAN heads of government and the Prime Minister agreed that they should improve consultative mechanisms to promote further cooperation on mutual trade problems. Our trading partners appreciate the difficult economic problems which we face at the moment and accept that our ability to expand our imports will depend in an important way on economic recovery in Australia and the access which our own exports have in other markets. The Government’s policy is directed towards achieving an appropriate balance between providing opportunities for our trading partners and sustaining activity and employment in the Australian textiles, clothing and footwear industries.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- As the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) pointed out, he made the statement in the Senate this evening in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer

Affairs (Mr Fife) and also in his own capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce. In the first sentence of his statement the Minister pointed out that the recent draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission- I emphasise the words draft report’- on textiles, clothing and footwear has heightened uncertainty in these industries to a degree which the Government considers unacceptable. Speaking on behalf of my colleague, Mr Young, who is the Opposition’s shadow Minister for business and consumer affairs, I recognise the problems that are inherent- particularly because of the economic situation that currently exists in Australia as a result of unemployment problems- when draft reports embodying proposals are presented by the IAC. Whilst draft reports might have been desirable a couple of years ago when the employment situation was not as acute as it is today in Australia, the simple fact of the matter is that the Government should now be looking at whether draft reports are desirable. It should also bear in mind that advisory councils have been established by the Minister.

I have not attended meetings of the clothing and footwear advisory council but I have attended one or two of the other advisory councils that have been established by the Minister. For example, on behalf of the parliamentary Labor Party I have attended meetings of the industry advisory council that the Minister established for the printing industry. I have represented my colleague, Mr Young, at meetings of the industry advisory council that has been established within the purview of the Department of Industry and Commerce to examine the metal manufacturing industry. I believe that a lot of common sense is spoken around those tables by men who come from the employers’ section of the industry, men who come from the trade union section of the industry, men who come from the Department and men who are connected with, involved with or whose businesses are associated with the respective industries. I suggest to the Minister that members of the IAC could be invited to sit around those tables and listen to the points of view of the people whose businesses are affected and the points of view of the representatives of the workers involved in those industries whose jobs are affected. I think it is about time that the Government adopted that attitude and asked the IAC to adopt that attitude.

In discussions that I have had with my colleague Mr Young we agreed that in view of the high degree of unemployment that exists in these industries and the problems that are created by men and women being put out of work in these industries, there is little that the Government can do other than what it is doing. I strongly suggest to the Minister that he and his colleague Mr Fife, should consider inviting the IAC to send observers to meetings of some of the manufacturing industry advisory councils- if that is the correct terminology- that the Minister has set up.

Senator McAuliffe:

-Would they be enlightened?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think they would be very much enlightened. As a representative of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party I have heard the views of employers, workers and trade union leaders in the printing industry and in the metal manufacturing industries. I view with scorn- if I may say sosome of the arguments that have been put forward by our friends opposite in debates on unemployment when I sit around a table at a meeting of that nature and see the great desire of men who employ workers and the workers in industry to solve the problems of the industry.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is meaningful dialogue.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is correct. I notice in an article in the Time magazine of 1 5 August 1977-1 mention this by way of interpolation- that Italy has imposed curbs on Japanese motor cycles; Washington has signed accords whereby Taiwan and South Korea have promised to restrict their export of shoes to the United States; Japan now limits its sales of colour television sets in America; United States Steel and Zenith are suing the United States Government in an endeavour to force it to impose countervailing duties on imports of European steel and Japanese colour televisions on the grounds that rebates of value added tax in foreign countries constitute illegal export subsidies. So far the courts and the United States Treasury Department have sided with the 83 nation General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which holds that such tax rebates are not violations of international trade rules.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Oh what a tangled web we weave -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As my colleague, Senator O’Byrne, says, ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave’ when international agreements are thrown by the board. Some nations are practising protectionism; others are not practising protectionism; and Australia under this Government seems to be having- if I might say so with respect to the present Governmenttwo bob each way. This Government has to make up its mind about what attitude it will adopt. I recently visited the United States. The United States is blessed with a very large market of some 240 million people. Unfortunately, in this country we have a market of only some 13 million people. So far as textiles are concerned, the quality of the United States product is far superior and much cheaper than comparable products in Australia.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Do not say that.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDWhether Senator McAuliffe likes it or not, the quality of products in the United States is superior and they are sold at much cheaper prices. I am not talking about the Australian product. I am talking about the product that is imported into this country. We have to look at the situation in order to protect not only the Australian worker who is engaged in the industry but also the Australian consumer of the product.

Having made those remarks, again I say that because of the great employment difficulties that exist in the industry we realise that the Government has virtually no alternative other than to adopt the attitude that it has adopted but I suggest to the Minister that he should invite the IAC people to sit round the table with the othersemployers and employees- who are engaged on the manufacturing advisory councils and listen to the facts of life so far as the industry and the problems of the workers in Australia are concerned.

Senator Cotton:

- Senator Douglas McClelland might like to know that at the last meeting of the clothing, textiles and footwear panel last week the Industries Assistance Commission people were invited to come along and listen.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 162

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Reports on Items

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

– by leave- On behalf of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), for the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on short term assistance to certain fabrics of acetate yarn and the Commission’s interim report on textiles, clothing and footwear- review of quotas.

page 163

STUDENT ASSISTANCE SCHEMES AND MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- In October last year, I announced substantial increases across the board for 1977 in allowances for the ten student assistance schemes administered by my Department. The Government is continuing its policy of providing a comprehensive range of assistance to students to ensure that all are able to achieve their maximum potential and will not be prevented from doing so by a lack of financial support. Under the present Government the numbers of students assisted has grown and a record number is expected to be assisted in 1 978 as shown in the following table:

Allowances

This growth in numbers, combined with increases in allowances for 1977, has resulted in a large increase in the funds allocated for direct assistance to students. In 1975-76 expenditure on student assistance was $ 154.9m. For 1976-77 expenditure increased to $ 186.9m. In considering allowances for 1978 the Government has had to balance economic restraint against its concern that students should not suffer hardship. Changes have therefore been directed to students whose needs were assessed to be the greatest. Those students who must live away from home to continue their education, those students who are self-supporting and those students who have the responsibility to support dependants are, in my view, most affected by rising costs. Allowances for these groups will be increased with effect from 1 January 1 978 at an additional cost for 1977-78 of $4.3m bringing the total appropriation for the financial year to $224.7m.

The following increased rates will apply for 1978. Other allowances under the scheme will remain unchanged.

Assistance for Isolated children

The maximum rate of the additional boarding allowance is to be increased from $450 to $500 per annum for 1978.

Aboriginal Secondary Grants

The boarding allowance limits- the maximum amount reimbursed of the actual costs- will be increased for 1978 from $1,450 per annum to $ 1 ,600 per annum where the student is enrolled at a boarding school, from $28 per week to $30 per week for students in hostels and from $20 per week to $22 per week for students in private board.

Postgraduate Awards

In 1959 the Commonwealth for the first time offered competitive awards to students undertaking postgraduate research. From a modest beginning of 100 awards in that year the number has now grown each year until, in 1977, there is an estimated 2235 postgraduate students being assisted under three schemes. These schemes offer the original Postgraduate Research Awards, Postgraduate Course Awards which were first made in 1971, and Postgraduate Awards at Colleges of Advanced Education since 1974. For 1 978, 700 new awards will be offered for competition. This is a reduction of 100 on the number offered in 1977 and, because students offered awards in previous years are continuing their studies, will reduce the total number being assisted to an estimated 2130 in 1978. This desision, which brings the number of awards on offer to approximately the number made in 1974, has regard for the increasing supply of students with higher degree qualifications in recent years, a situation which justifies a small tapering of the scheme.

Means Tests

To ensure that maximum assistance is directed to the most needy, entitlements to benefits under most schemes are subject to means tests which are normally applied to the combined incomes of a student’s parents in the previous financial year. Maximum benefits are payable where the combined parental income, less certain allowable deductions, such as for other dependents, is not more than an amount called the marginal adjusted family income, known as MAFI. Parental incomes in excess of the MAFI attract a reduced entitlement calculated by reducing the maximum allowance by $2.50 for each $10 by which the combined parental income exceeds the MAFI. To compensate for rises in incomes during the last financial year, the means tests will be relaxed to ensure that maximum benefits continue to be directed to those most in need. The MAFI for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and related schemes and Additional Boarding Allowance under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme will be increased from $8200 to $8700 for 1978. Similarly the MAFI for the Secondary Allowances Scheme and the Special Supplementary Allowance under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme will be increased from $5 100 to $5800.

Loans

Last year the Government appointed a committee to examine the desirability and feasibility of introducing a system of loans for Australian post-secondary students either as a supplement to existing schemes or as a replacement in whole or in part for those schemes. The valuable report of the committee was tabled in Parliament on 2 June 1977. It recommended two interrelated loan schemes, one of relatively small loans administered mainly by educational institutions and one of larger loans administered jointly by educational institutions and financial institutions. Careful consideration has been given to the committee ‘s recommendations and it has been decided that no action be taken at this time to implement a scheme of student loans.

Business Colleges

I have indicated the substantial additional expenditure which will be provided for student assistance in 1977-78. It is appropriate in this context to refer to the Government’s decision to phase out the payment of a fees subsidy to a small number of private business colleges. Following the abolition of fees in tertiary institutions, including technical colleges, by the Whitlam Government, a few private business colleges attracted per capita grants. The colleges had to establish themselves as non-profit-making institutions and, subject to the normal means tests, students at the colleges were eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance Allowances. About one-half the students receive these allowances.

For 1 976 my Government decided not to approve of the payment of fee subsidies to any additional colleges because of the escalating costs. Out of a total of more than 100 private business colleges currently in existence, only 1 8 attract the benefits. These 1 8 colleges have some 4000-odd students enrolled in courses approved for the fee subsidies involving a cost of $2.36m in 1977. The size of the per capita grant varies substantially between institutions. Most of these institutions, in addition to the subsidy, charge fees of as much as $600. One possible action for the Government would have been to include all private business colleges in the fees subsidy scheme. The costs of this action would have been very great. Not to do so, however, would be to continue an inequitable and discriminatory system of assistance. Since fee subsidies have been paid to some colleges more than 80 private business colleges have continued to operate and provide a useful service without Government assistance and I see no reason why these, and those which have received assistance to date, should not continue to do so and complement the parallel courses made available in government institutions.

Migrant Education Program

Additional funds are being provided in 1977-78 for the Adult Migrant Education Program. A sum of S9.663m is included in the appropriations for 1977-78, as compared with an expenditure of $8,959,645 in 1976-77. These funds will allow the Adult Migrant Education Program to be maintained in 1977-78 at a similar overall level of activity to that in 1976-77 and provide for an increase in the living allowances for adult migrants attending full time English language courses. The new rates of living allowances mean an increase of $9.15 a week for single students and $16.55 for a married student with a dependent spouse and bring the allowances to $45.15 and $76.55 a week respectively. The allowance for dependent children is increased from $7 to $7.50. These revised rates will apply from early November 1 977.

The Adult Migrant Education Program offers a range of full time and part time courses and classes including evening continuation classes as well as radio, correspondence and television English language programs. Funds for migrant and multicultural education in schools are provided, in the main, through a component of the Schools Commission’s General Recurrent Grants Program. An amount of $25.45 7m was provided to education authorities in the States in 1976-77 through that program. The Schools Commission is yet to recommend the level of funding for this purpose for 1978 although funds for 1977-78 will be sufficient to allow at least a similar level of activity nationally to that in 1976-77. In addition to the Schools Commission grants $560,000 is included in my Department’s appropriations for the production and supply of special teaching and learning materials for primary schools with children from non-English speaking backgrounds and for special assistance in respect of refugee children.

I present the following paper:

Student Assistance Schemes and Migrant Education Programs- Ministerial Statement, 17 August 1977 and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In the statement which has just been made, the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has ranged over a number of subjects. I do not wish to speak at length on them because there are other matters to be dealt with tonight. In view of the statement which has been made, there are two or three matters on which I feel comment should be made. Firstly, with regard to student allowances, I believe that the increases quoted in the statement will affect only a very small proportion of students; that is, about 5 per cent. The great bulk of students will not be affected by these increases. I think it would be quite misleading to suggest that this increased assistance will have any notable impact on students in Australia. I also point out to the Senate that the last time the Minister made a statement in respect of student allowances the calculations in that paper showed that the number of students who would benefit under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme in 1976 would be 84 000, whereas in the present estimate that figure has been revised to 96 000. The estimate for 1977 was 9 1 000 and now we find that the revised estimate is 100 000. It is understandable that complete accuracy cannot be expected in making these judgments, but nevertheless there appears to be a very big discrepancy. Therefore one wonders just how accurately the Government can make its calculations.

Of the other two matters I wish to refer to briefly, the first is the question of migrant education. I remind the Senate that despite the fact that the Minister states that the funds being provided this year compare favourably with those of last year- $9.6m is being appropriated this year as compared with $8.9m in the last Budget, which amounts to an increase in real terms of about zero- in the previous Budget, under the Labor Government, the amount was not in the area of $8m or $9m but was $2 1 .4m. I hope it is not forgotten that in the Budget last year this Government cut in half the allocation for the migrant education program. Comparisons between the amount allocated this year and that allocated last year may appear quite acceptable.

Senator Carrick:

– That is not true because you are not including the Schools Commission component. We in fact over-increased it.

Senator WRIEDT:

-That fact did not escape me; I noted the inclusion of that reference by the Minister in the latter part of his statement. I suggest to him that that is not relevant because recurrent grants were involved previously under the Schools Commission. The fact remains that in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) last night the appropriation for migrants in the 1975-76 Budget appears as $2 1.4m. In the first Budget of the Liberal-National Country Party Government, that is in 1976-77, the allocation was halved to $ 10.3m. This year the Minister advises us that the allocation will be about the same figure.

Senator Carrick:

– You must look at the Schools Commission figures.

Senator WRIEDT:

– If the Minister is getting upset at the facts I am presenting to the Senate, that is understandable, because he is getting upset, and has been for a long time, about this Government’s performance in regard to education. The last time we debated this matter in the Senate he got terribly uptight because we explained the manner in which this Government had gone back on its commitment in the education field.

That brings me to the last point I want to raise in this debate tonight. I am quite sure that we will have adequate opportunities to go through this matter in more detail as we proceed through the Budget session. It is another example of this Government’s attitude towards education. I refer to the way in which the Government has dealt with independent business schools. This Minister published an article in the Melbourne Age or the Australian a few weeks ago in which he said that it is only a matter of logic that you support the non-government sector of the school system because that relieves the burden of the government run sector. That is a fairly logical argument. It is one which we support. It is one which we ourselves built into the education assistance program in this country through the establishment of the Schools Commission. Now I ask: Why is not the same principle adopted in respect to independent business schools? They themselves have provided a service through secretarial courses and courses of that nature over the past few years, assisted by a scheme that was introduced by the Labor Government to give them a measure of support.

Senator Carrick:

– And which the Labor Government was going to wind up in 1 975.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I will pick up the Minister’s interjection in a moment. The Labor Government believed they were worthy of support on the same principle, on the same basis, as we believed the non-government schools sections should get support. The Minister himself is on record as supporting that principle. Despite the fact that we introduced that scheme this Government quite arbitrarily, without even making an announcement about it, simply wrote to the principals of the various business colleges around Australia and said: ‘The scheme is wiped as from now. You are finished; you are on your own.’ When we brought this scheme in they could get assistance only on the basis that they became non-profit making organisations. I understand that it is now legally impossible for them to change that legal position because of complications involving State laws. I am not in a position to authenticate that but I believe that all the information which has been sent to all members of parliament indicates that these business colleges are now locked into a position of nonprofit making organisations on the basis of the subsidy that the Labor Government decided to give them. Now all of a sudden this Government turns around and says: ‘We are taking it from you. ‘ Those business colleges are left in an extremely difficult position. I do not know what the Government proposes to do. I do not know whether it is going to help them out in some way. Apparently it is not, because tonight the position is confirmed.

I shall close by referring to the interjection the Minister made a few moments ago, that is, that we intended to phase out the scheme. That is not true. What the Labor Government did say was that the 18 colleges affected would be the only ones assisted. Once the decision was made for them to become non-profit organisations, that was it. We did say that no further institutions would be assisted under the scheme. It is not true to say that the Labor Government intended to stop the subsidy because we introduced it only in our last 12 months in government. As I indicated initially, the statement reflects the general attitude of the Government towards education, that is, to freeze the funds and where possible to get out of as many financial commitments as possible. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 166

CRUDE OIL POLICY

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- In presenting this ministerial statement, honourable senators will understand that when I use the first person personal pronoun I shall be referring to the Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Anthony).

It was announced in the Budget Speech last evening that the Government is introducing new arrangements for the pricing and taxation of crude oil produced from presently known Australian fields. For several years I have been arguing that energy in Australia is unrealistically priced. The price of petrol here is less than half the price in countries like Japan, France and Italy. While consumers would welcome the continuation of this situation, the fact is that it cannot continue. The quadrupling of international oil prices in 1 973-74 ushered in a new and disturbing realisation of the essential role oil plays in the standard of living the world either enjoys or aspires to. Events since then have reinforced that realisation.

Oil plays a key role in the transport on which the modern world depends. It is also the energy source for which we face the most critical shortages. President Carter’s energy statement contained the estimate that on current trends, demand would overhaul supply some time around the mid-1980s. Nobody seriously questions this forecast. If this situation is permitted to occur, the market price for oil will be anyone’s guess. Governments the world over must make every attempt to forestall such a demand-supply squeeze. They must take active steps to mitigate the effects or dearer oil- a certainty whether or not world demand outpaces availability. Oil supplies 45 per cent of the world ‘s energy needs and 47 per cent of Australia’s. It will remain for decades the most important energy source. It is at the heart of any country’s energy policy.

I am currently preparing a statement which will deal comprehensively with all forms of energy. That statement will be presented to the House as soon as practicable. The matters discussed in this present statement form an integral part of that forthcoming statement of energy policy. For Australia, our central energy policy objectives must be threefold. Firstly, we must encourage oil exploration and development. Secondly, we must encourage greater economies of energy usage and encourage people to use other fuels in preference to oil. Thirdly, we must foster a more intensive search for alternatives to oil. Each of these objectives requires the price to be increased. That is why I have constantly argued that we should move gradually and predictably towards higher oil prices. This approach allows us to avoid the large, abrupt, destabilising increases which would otherwise occur.

Price is not the only instrument available to promote our policy. Clearly the Government can and will exhort consumers to reduce their usage of oil products in the national interest. But realistic pricing remains critical to the success of a policy. Energy saving measures like, for example, insulation of houses, need to become recognised money-saving propositions. Higher priced oil will also assist in bringing about the economic introduction of alternative energy technologies such as coal conversion and solar power. A higher price will raise the return on successful exploration. An improved return on investment provides a strengthened encouragement for exploration; moreover, we would expect that higher earnings by existing producers will be ploughed back into further exploration here in Australia.

The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has given a general outline of the new arrangements. I will now describe in some additional detail the pricing, allocation, and levy arrangements, and deal briefly with the question of their likely impact. As already announced, the Government has decided to implement a scheme which will take the price of indigenous crude oil from presently known fields in the direction of import parity. This will be achieved through a uniform method of price determination. The new scheme will apply to each presently known field in Australia and will apply from midnight on 16 August 1977. Producers will receive the import parity price, determined by the Government every six months, for a specified part of their production. Import parity will be received for either the first six million barrels of oil produced from each field per annum- called the ‘basic allowance’- or a proportion of production per annum, rising over time according to a specified schedule, whichever is the greater in any particular case. The schedule is 10 per cent from 1 7 August 1 977 until the end of the present financial year, rising to 20 per cent for financial year 1978-79, 35 per cent for financial year 1979-80 and 50 per cent for financial year 1980-81.

For all additional production from each field or new development, the producers will receive the price which was current up to the time of the introduction of the new arrangements. That is $2.33 per barrel in the case of the Bass Strait fields and $2.88 per barrel in the case of the Barrow Island fields. All production from the Moonie and Alton fields and other small fields will, in practice, receive import parity prices, as the output from these fields will be well below six million barrels per annum.

The Government will review the position before June 1981 to decide the rate at which the further progression to full import parity for presently known fields should take place. Oil from fields discovered after 14 September 1975 will continue to receive full import parity. The present crude oil absorption policy, whereby all crude oil produced in Australia is required to be processed in Australian refineries, will be continued. Indigenous crude oil, with its high yield of light fractions, is ideally suited to the local market demand. The export of indigenous crude oil would therefore simply mean the exchange of our own oil for another, probably less suitable, imported oil. The existing embargo on exports of crude oil will therefore remain in force. The Government is, in any case, under an obligation to continue the present crude oil absorption policy and associated allocation arrangements until at least 1980. This is because most refineries have undertaken considerable plant investment on the basis of that policy and to prematurely abandon it or phase it out would arbitrarily disadvantage a substantial section of the oil refining industry.

The import parity price will be set every six months by the Commonwealth Government. It will be calculated on the basis of the price of Arabian light oil at the nearest refinery port, adjusted to allow for an appropriate quality differential. This differential will take account of the suitability of indigenous crude oil for the local market. For the period until 3 1 December 1977, the import parity price will be set at $13 per barrel. Officers of the Department of National Resources will be having discussions with the oil industry in the near future to determine the precise basis on which the import parity price should be calculated in future periods. The new pricing arrangements give a consistent set of ground rules applicable to all present and future developments in existing fields. They will remove any apparent arbitrariness inherent in the previous method of price determination. The basic allowance will apply to the combined existing developments in each presently known field and to each substantial new development in such fields. The figure of six million barrels per annum has been selected to ensure that new developments will immediately receive import parity prices for all or most of their production. It will ensure, firstly, that different producers are treated equitably and, secondly, that adequate recognition is given to the fact that oil from the smaller fields is typically more costly to produce than oil from the larger fields.

As already announced, the crude oil levy will be increased by $ 1 per barrel to $3 per barrel. The levy will be deducted from the price for import-parity oil, and added to the price for below-import-parity oil. In effect, therefore, producers will pay the levy on import-parity oil, and consumers will pay the levy on belowimportparity production. The likely effects on prices, company profits, and Government revenues of the new arrangements were mentioned in the Budget Speech. The new arrangements will increase the prices received by existing producers approximately as follows. For the remainder of 1977, the average price for all Bass Strait fields already in production, net of the crude oil levy, will be about $3.20 per barrel. For Barrow Island, the average price received will be about $6.60, and for Moonie the price received will be $10 per barrel. If world prices rise at 6 per cent per annum and no further changes are made in the levy arrangements, corresponding net prices by 1979-80 could be of the order of $6.20, $7.30 and $11.60 for Bass Strait, Barrow Island and Moonie respectively.

The net prices in the early period would be somewhat lower than the prices which would have resulted from acceptance of the precise Industries Assistance Commission recommendations. The new arrangements will immediately increase the average price into Australian refineries of all oil including imports by approximately 25 per cent. While the actual extent of any petroleum product price increase will be a matter for the Prices Justification Tribunal, the resultant increase will probably be of the order of 2V4c per litre on the price of regular motor spirit. On this basis, the recommended price of regular motor spirit in Sydney would rise to approximately 19c per litre.

The Government is, of course, most reluctant to increase the price of petroleum products to Australian consumers. But the option of maintaining indefinitely a low price for the bulk of Australian refinery feedstocks is simply no longer available to us. It needs to be recognised that the Australian consumer has been paying less than the real value of the petroleum he uses. Furthermore, over the phasing-in period he will continue to pay less than in most overseas countries. Compared to the new likely price of 19c per litre in Sydney, the French motorist pays 39c, the Japanese motorist pays 38c, the German, Swedish and British motorists all pay over 30c. Petrol prices in Australia remain considerably below the 25c per litre in New Zealand and are now at roughly the same level as Canadian prices. Only the United States among major Western countries has cheaper petrol than Australia and the thrust of President Carter’s energy policy is to increase the price of oil products to American consumers.

It must be recognised that our decision to move towards import parity pricing for known crude oil merely hastens the inevitable. In the next few years, production from the Bass Strait fields will begin to decline as those fields approach the end of their economic life. These fields comprise 90 per cent of present day Australian production. Hence oil produced overseas, imported at prevailing world prices, will account for an increasing proportion of the input to Australian refineries. Furthermore, should more oil be discovered in Australia, it is already established government policy that that oil will be priced at full import parity.The new arrangements will effectively increase the amount of oil available from presently known fields. There are over 400 million barrels of oil, or two years worth of consumption, locked up in fields and not economically extractable at current prices. Australia cannot afford to leave this oil in the ground. The basic allowance of 6 million barrels per annum of oil at import parity prices for each new development will provide an assurance that these reserves can be extracted.

There are several considerations other than basic energy policy considerations which the Government has necessarily had to take into account when formulating its new policy. One is the Government’s overriding aim of lowering the rate of inflation and raising the level of activity in the economy generally. There is a need also to avoid the significant dislocation which could be expected to follow as particular industries suffered large cost increases. It is for these reasons that the Government has decided to increase prices gradually rather than all at once. The new arrangements will result in very substantial increases in the profits of each of the current producers. For this reason the Government is considering the application of a resource tax to these profits. Accordingly the Government will be seeking early discussions with the relevant oil producing companies on these matters. Any decision on the future of the crude oil levy will be taken in the light of decisions on the resource tax.

The Government considers that the new pricing arrangements represent the most appropriate way of bringing Australian oil prices to world levels. The new taxation arrangements will aim to achieve an appropriate division between producers in the form of net returns, and the Government- and hence the taxpayer- in the form of taxation revenue. Over the transitional period, the Australian consumer of petroleum products will, for some years, be able to pay prices based on crude oil prices below the price of imported crude. Many other countries in a less fortunate position than Australia have had to adjust to the hard reality of high oil prices very rapidly. Our own oil reserves will allow us to adjust gradually, and consequently at less cost in terms of disruption. But we must take advantage of the time these reserves have allowed us to adjust our oil consumption habits and to prepare substitutes for imported oil. I present the following paper:

Crude Oil Policy-Ministerial Statement, 17 August 1977. and move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The statement is a crucial one at which the Opposition will be looking carefully. No doubt we will be given the opportunity to debate the subject matter. The consequences which flow from the statement and the decision of the. Government are serious. One would question the wisdom of introducing such measures at this stage. As a Queenslander, I view with alarm the cost increases which will flow from the decision. I do not share the confidence of the Government ‘s spokesman that this decision will not be inflationary. It seems that the cost of petrol to the consumer will be raised considerably. In the rural and provincial areas of Queensland the cost is likely to be prohibitive. We understand the need to protect our reserves. We also understand the need at this stage to keep costs low. We accept the proposition that the Government has been putting from time to time about the need to cut back the rate of inflation. I believe that the Government should have looked at the dislocation in the distribution industry throughout Australia before it implemented this policy. It would have been necessary to look at the report of the royal commission on the petroleum industry and to apply its recommendations in order to prevent the grave dislocations which have affected the costs of many people in the industry and which will eventually affect the cost to the consumer.

I thought the Government would have discussed with the oil producers the increases in profits before it brought down this proposition. It appears to me that the oil producers will take advantage of windfall profits and will resist strongly any measures by the Government which will lessen these windfall profits and which will make them pass back some of these profits to the nation. It was with concern that I read that the Government had not taken into consideration beforehand the windfall profits which would flow and had not taken the necessary measures, together with the other policy decisions, to control those windfall profits. We must realise that the Esso company, which is in control of the Bass Strait fields, has made considerable profits to date. I believe that the figure which was transferred to the parent company overseas was about $130m.

Senator Wright:

– Be fair. The Industries Assistance Commission reported that Esso’s subsidy to the Australian consumer in one year, 1976, was $1,000m.

Senator GEORGES:

-What you say in support of your philosophy that the oil produced is the property of Esso and not the property of the nation.

Senator Young:

– What is proves is $2.33 for indigenous and $12.50 for imported. That is what Senator Wright meant.

Senator GEORGES:

-Perhaps that is correct. Let us say that it was a fair profit from the exploitation of the Bass Strait fields; Esso made a fair profit. I would say that any increase in the price of local oil to bring it to world parity must be made in such a way that windfall profits flow back to the nation and not to overseas investors in large sums. I think the Government intends this. That appears to be the intention in the statement. I think the United States took a substantial share of the windfall profits which flowed from an increase in the price of Middle East oil. I am suggesting that this should hold here. In any case, I have said more than I wish to say at this stage. The Opposition seeks to debate this paper. In order to facilitate that, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 170

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CONSUMER AFFAIRS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE 1976

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McAuliffe)-Is Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Wood formal or not formal?

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-It is not formal, Mr Acting Deputy President; but I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the Notice of Motion.

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

Senator WOOD:

-This Notice of Motion relates to the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs (Amendment) Ordinance 1976, which has been the subject of intense examination by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and lengthy correspondence between the Committee and the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) since December 1976. The Ordinance contains amendments designed to strengthen the powers of the Director of Consumer Affairs to obtain information from suppliers of goods and services and to institute or defend proceedings on behalf of consumers. There were four provisions in the Ordinance which the Committee considered unduly trespassed upon individual rights and liberties

Section 15a of the Ordinance empowered an investigating officer to require information and documents from persons, and refusal or failure to comply with such a requirement would be an offence, the only defences being incapacity to comply or the defence that the requirement was not reasonable for the purposes of the Ordinance. The Committee considered that the offence ought to be refusal or failure to comply without reasonable excuse, so that a person who considered that the demands of the investigating officer were unreasonable, for example, because compliance would prevent the continuance of his business, could ask a court to excuse him from compliance with those demands. The Minister has now agreed to put the defence of reasonable excuse into this provision, although it should be noted that provisions similar to the one now in the Ordinance have been passed by the Parliament in various Acts.

Section 15c of the Ordinance also provided that a person would not be excused from supplying information or documents on the grounds that they might incriminate him, and that information or documents compelled under the Ordinance could then be used against the person from whom they were required in certain proceedings under the ordinance and under a number of other ordinances. The Committee considered that this provision violated the long established right of a person not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Minister has agreed to amend this provision so that information and documents compelled under the Ordinance may not be used in any proceedings except proceedings for refusing or failing to comply with a requirement or for supplying false information.

Section 15e of the Ordinance provided that officers would not be obliged to produce to a court information or documents obtained under the Ordinance except in proceedings under the Ordinance or certain other specified ordinances. The Committee is always wary of restricting the power of courts to obtain information and documents and of conferring upon executive or statutory bodies privilege from court orders. In this case the Committee considered that the provision in certain circumstances could hamper litigants, in proceedings unrelated to the Ordinance or the other laws specified, when they desired to subpoena information or documents to assist their case, and could prevent courts from obtaining the truth in some kinds of proceedings. The Minister has agreed to replace this provision with one which would allow the person from whom information or documents were obtained to make a submission to a court against their production in proceedings, so that, in effect, it will be for the court to decide whether it ought to obtain the information or documents in question.

Section 13 of the Ordinance repealed and remade section 16 of the principal Ordinance whereby officers were immune from all civil or criminal proceedings in respect of anything done in good faith under the Ordinance. The Committee accepted this provision in the principal Ordinance because it had the effect only of conferring privilege in defamation actions in respect of statements made by officers of the Consumer Affairs Bureau. The amending Ordinance, however, by empowering officers to enter and search premises, under warrant, and to compel information and documents, gave a new significance to section 16, which would confer an immunity from legal proceedings which the Committee considered could be dangerous. For example, an officer might negligently cause damage to property while acting in good faith in seaching premises under the Ordinance, and would be immune from action arising from such damage. The Minister has agreed to amend the Ordinance so that the immunity conferred will be confined to defamation actions arising from statements made by officers. The Committee wishes to consider further in the future whether even this immunity is too wide.

The Committee has subjected this Ordinance to very close and detailed scrutiny, but it is considered that all laws of this nature ought to be closely scrutinised, particularly from the point of view of protecting individual rights and civil liberties, including Bills which pass through this place and which sometimes are not given the close attention which they ought to have. It is to be hoped that if and when the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory gains legislative powers, it will subject the laws of the Territory to the kind of scrutiny which the Committee now gives to them. In view of the undertaking given by the Minister to amend this Ordinance so as to overcome the objections of the Committee, I withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name. I would like to thank the Minister for the Capital Territory for his co-operation in relation to this matter.

page 171

COMMONWEALTH INVOLVEMENT IN AUSTRALIA’S WATER RESOURCES

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- I make it clear that when I use a first person personal pronoun I am referring to the Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony).

The purpose of this statement is to bring to the attention of the Senate, the measures being taken by the Government to assist the States in the development of their water resources. Even within the current difficult budgetary constraints, the Commonwealth has approved grant funds totalling $6.66m to the States. This will be matched by State funds. It will augment State programs concerned with the assessment of surface and underground water resources and their quality. In addition, about $390,000 will be available in 1977-78 for water research projects in priority areas. Such areas have been identified by water operating authorities throughout Australia through the Australian Water Resources Council. The Commonwealth will also be providing $50,000 towards an action program to control a serious water hyacinth infestation along the Gwydir River. New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia will contribute a similar sum to the cost of the action program in 1977-78. This infestation continues to be a potential threat to our highly productive irrigation areas along the Murray and its tributaries.

The Government also recognises the appropriateness from a national perspective of being involved in the development of water resources and flood mitigation projects in the States. The Commonwealth will continue to meet its obligations to the States in respect of assistance authorised under previous programs. I have now been authorised to bring forward a new national water resources program as a basis for providing assistance for projects identified by the States as having top priority. In the present difficult budgetary circumstances, the Commonwealth will not be allocating funds for individual water resources projects. However, in 1977-78, $lm of grant funds has been allocated for the New South Wales coastal rivers flood mitigation program. These grants will be allocated on the same funding basis with State and local authorities as in previous programs. We recognise that it is urgent to ensure continuity of work on flood mitigation projects along these rivers. The States will be duly notified of the details of the new national water resources program.

I also draw the attention of the Senate to the current inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. This Committee is examining the role of the Commonwealth in the assessment, planning, development and management of Australia’s water resources. I would hope that the report on the inquiry will provide valuable guidance to the Government on these important matters. It will be apparent from this statement that the Government attaches considerable significance to the involvement of the

Commonwealth in the orderly and efficient management of the nation’s water resources, having full regard to the constitutional responsibilities in these matters. I move:

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I simply desire to tell the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) that when this matter is debated later I will be adverting to the lack of reference to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and some of its specialised divisions. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 172

POST-ASEAN CONFERENCE TALKS, KUALA LUMPUR, 6-8 AUGUST 1977

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Mr Acting Deputy President, when I use the first person personal pronoun I want to make it clear that I am speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

In 1967 Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand met and established the association of South East Asian Nations. The principal aims of the Association, set forth in the ASEAN Declaration signed in Bangkok on 8 August 1967, are to accelerate the region’s economic growth, social progress and cultural development, and to promote regional peace and stability. The leaders of the five ASEAN nations undertook to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in matters of common interest in economic, social, cultural, technical and administrative fields. This undertaking was reaffirmed in the Declaration of ASEAN concord issued at the end of the first ASEAN Summit Conference held in Bali last year.

ASEAN leaders recognise that only through interdependence and self-reliance will they secure peace and stability in the region. And they have concerted their energies to establish the region as a force for stability and concord. The five countries have made a significant effort to develop friendly relations with their neighbours as well as to accommodate the changing pattern of involvement of the major powers in South East Asia. The ASEAN countries have firmly held that ASEAN is not, and should not be, a security organisation or military pact. Increasingly their concern has been with the problems of economic development. This reflects their clear recognition of the very close connection between economic development and social and political stability. Coinciding with ASEAN ‘s tenth anniversary, Australia together with New Zealand and Japan received an invitation to meet with the Heads of Government of ASEAN in Kuala Lumpur on 6 and 7 August. The occasion was of significance: It was only the second time in which the five leaders had met together and the first at which any leader of another country had been invited to meet with the five ASEAN Heads of Government as a group. The meetings with the ASEAN Heads of Government were of the greatest value in furthering the strong and friendly ties that have linked Australia with these five countries for more than three decades. The meeting demonstrated, at the highest level, our mutual desire to enhance Australian/ASEAN co-operation.

Australia strongly supports ASEAN ‘s objective of preventing domination of the region by any major power and we have a significant interest in helping to ensure that ASEAN succeeds in its efforts to generate the economic growth and political stability for which it is striving. Our relationship with ASEAN is one which will require continuing and special attention. The opportunities which the Kuala Lumpur meeting provided to discuss policies in an open and direct manner have made many of our policies better understood, particularly those relating to our economic and trading positions.

The opening meeting between the leaders of the five ASEAN countries, Japan, New Zealand and myself afforded a useful opportunity for us to make contact as a group and to exchange views on matters of common regional concern. At Australia ‘s suggestion, world economic trends and their implications for the region were discussed. Matters which were raised included our common problems of inflation, economic recovery and international trade. The goodwill between the eight countries was most evident. This goodwill has the most important long-term implications for the development of a framework of co-operative, imaginative and mutually beneficial relations between the countries of ASEAN and their neighbours. The meeting the following day between myself and the five ASEAN Heads of Government was particularly successful and significant. It established strong foundations for the further development of relations between Australia and ASEAN.

The ASEAN Heads of Government raised the question of our trade and they expressed the strong wish to increase their share of” trade with Australia. I emphasised that the balance of trade with ASEAN countries has moved relatively in ASEAN ‘s favour since 1970-71 from a ratio of 3.4:1 to 2:1. The growth rate of imports to Australia from ASEAN over the last five years has averaged 30 per cent per year and because of import competition and changing demand patterns, employment in the Australian textiles, clothing and footwear industries has declined from about 160 000 in 1971, to less than 120 000 today. Given the short term economic difficulties Australia has experienced over the past few years, there is little prospect of imports from ASEAN continuing to grow at the rapid rate of the last five years at the further expense of Australian industry. There will be further opportunities for ASEAN ‘s exports to Australia to increase when the economic and employment situation in Australia improves. I believe the ASEAN countries understand this. And there are opportunities for ASEAN ‘s exports to Australia to expand by competing with other countries that export to Australia. ASEAN enjoys only a small share of Australia’s imports of textiles, apparel and footwearunder 10 per cent of the value of such imports from Korea, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan combined, and clearly there is room for improvement in this share.

In discussing the desirability of increasing ASEAN ‘s share of the Australian import market, it was agreed that an annual ASEAN trade fair jointly sponsored by Australia and ASEAN, be held in one or other of the State capitals. The first of these fairs will be held in 1978. I also emphasised that ASEAN trade opportunities in the Australian market were heavily dependent on Australia’s access to other markets, particularly the European Economic Community, for Australia’s agricultural products. Australia’s experience in endeavouring to obtain access to European markets has been far from satisfactory. Many of our agricultural products have been utterly excluded from the EEC by huge import levies. In 1 960, our exports to members of the EEC accounted for 40 per cent of our total exports. That proportion has now been reduced to 14.8 per cent to a significant extent because of the restrictive policies of the EEC. To make matters worse, artificially stimulated domestic surpluses in the EEC are being exported subject to subsidies which frequently change and are often quite exorbitant, disrupting our other traditional markets around the world. A recent example is the EEC subsidy or ‘restitution’ on malt. As from November, the subsidy will increase by more than 30 per cent; and this arbitrary rise could have very damaging effects on the Australian malt industry.

The ASEAN members and Australia noted their common interests as commodity producers.

We expressed our joint concern at the decline in recent years of the terms of trade against commodity producers and the difficulties sharp fluctuations in commodity prices have caused producers. The role Australia has played in commodity agreements for stabilising world trade was raised and we expressed our support for the concept of a common fund for commodity trade.

The ASEAN leaders also welcomed the initiative Australia had taken at the June Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in establishing a Commonwealth task force to consider the part a common fund would play in commodity price stabilisation. The ASEAN leaders expressed the hope that the adoption of complementary trade policies would benefit both ASEAN and Australia. In this respect they indicated their desire to increase their own imports from Australia. There has been some speculation in the Press about discriminatory measures against Australian imports continuing to be applied. I was assured by the Malaysian Trade Minister, in the presence of the Malaysian Prime Minister, that discriminatory impediments in the way of the development of that trade had been removed. The Government attaches considerable importance to that assurance. In order that we might discuss mutual trade problems before they become difficult or acute, I suggest that ASEAN and Australia should establish better arrangements for consultation on trade matters. The precise form such consultative machinery might take is still to be determined. We want arrangements which will be responsive and can be activated quickly by either side. Our objective is to have a forum for discussion and identification of problems in all aspects of trade between us. It was agreed that our foreign ministers should make appropriate proposals to our respective governments at the earliest opportunity so that the proposed new arrangements can be established.

In looking at ways in which we could promote closer economic co-operation, we agreed on the need to establish a sound basis of knowledge from which a long term economic relationship between ASEAN and Australia would be developed. To that end we proposed and will finance a joint ASEAN-Australia research project. Its success will require a major mutual effort. It is envisaged that it will take the form of an independent research team in each of our six countries working together and assembling cooperatively the basic material, ideas and proposals for- greater co-operation. It will not be expected to bring quick results. But it will give us a reliable foundation on which to build a long term economic relationship. Another matter which was raised was the basis upon which Australian import quotas are issued. A review of the principles involved has now been undertaken and details will be announced shortly.

At the post-ASEAN talks Australia also announced a significant expansion in the size of Australia’s aid program to ASEAN countries, and several measures aimed at improving its quality. These proposals are indicative of our positive interest in the economic development of the region. They can be briefly summarised. Australia will contribute an additional $10m to the ASEAN-Australia economic co-operative program. We have increased our forward commitment for total bilateral aid to the five ASEAN countries by $90m to $250m. In order to improve the quality of our aid we will untie it further to allow increased procurement of materials and equipment from within the ASEAN region. We will also fund some local costs and enter into cofinancing arrangements with international organisations, where this is considered appropriate by the recipient country.

The ASEAN leaders sought Australian assistance in developing five industrial projects which ASEAN is promoting, and the Australian Government confirmed that it would contribute to those projects within our available resources and capacities as the projects become more clearly defined. It is envisaged that our assistance will take the form of feasibility studies, technical training, design and construction work, and possibly assistance in the development of infrastructure. Discussions at official level will be held about the five industrial projects when appropriate. The ASEAN leaders were also interested in our policy on Australian investment overseas. I indicated that the Australian Government welcomed investment overseas where this contributed to the economic and social development of the countries concerned, but at the present time we would have difficulties with investment which involved little more than the transfer of operations to other countries with a consequent loss of jobs in Australia. Because of our willingness to encourage Australian investment in the ASEAN countries, an ASEAN suggestion that we sponsor an ASEAN-Australia investment seminar was accepted. It is envisaged that this will be a major seminar based on the experience of one which was held most successfully earlier this year between the European community and ASEAN.

Whilst in Kuala Lumpur I also had the opportunity of having particularly useful talks with the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Fukuda. A number of matters of significance in our bilateral relationship were discussed, including the importance Australia attaches to stability in trade. Australia seeks predictable and growing access to the Japanese market for agricultural products on a stable basis. As to Australian beef exports to Japan, I pointed out to the Japanese Prime Minister that the present arrangement of negotiating beef quotas every six months was disruptive to the beef industry’s ability to operate effectively. It should be possible to devise a system which both affords reasonable protection to the Japanese beef industry and gives more predictable and stable access to the Japanese market. Mr Fukuda agreed that our officials should work together closely to devise a system which would better serve the needs of stability. Our officials are expected to meet shortly in Japan to consider various alternatives including, for example, a fixed base quota together with a growth factor related, say, to beef consumption in Japan.

The current state of negotiations on the long term sugar contract was also raised. I stressed that the security of long term contracts as bankable documents should not be compromised in any way. The Government’s strong support for the generality of the case put by Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd to the Japanese refineries and the Government’s belief that CSR had made concessions enough was also emphasised. Any concessions made up to 1980- when the contract expires- would need to be compensated for by some arrangement after 1980 covering both price and tonnage. It is the strong desire of the Australian Government and, Mr Fukuda indicated, of the Japanese Government also, that the commercial parties resume meaningful negotiations and arrive at a prompt and mutually beneficial solution. It is in the interests of all concerned that the negotiations be brought to resolution as quickly as possible.

During the three days of discussions, the Philippines and Japan both raised the subject of uranium with me. Both stressed the importance of nuclear power to meet their future energy needs and expressed the hope that Australia would be a future supplier of uranium to them. They were informed that the Government’s decision on this issue would be taken shortly and that their representations would be taken into account in reaching that decision. The ASEAN leaders warmly welcomed the initiatives

Australia had taken and all our discussions were both constructive and helpful. The ASEAN leaders are playing a positive and progressive role in the development of our region. I am confident that as part of this process ASEAN will strengthen and extend its relations with Australia and other countries. Australia is concerned to promote the totality of its relationship with ASEAN. The measures agreed at Kuala Lumpur will add significantly to this.

I table the joint statement issued at the end of my meeting with the ASEAN leaders. I seek leave to propose a motion to take note of the statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WEBSTER:

– I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 175

ADJOURNMENT

Question on Notice-States Rights

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I regret delaying the Senate. Yesterday at Question Time I raised a question concerning a petition to the Privy Council. In answer to my question, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, asked that I place the question on notice. I did so but I see that those questions of which notice was given on 16 August this year have not been included in the Notice Paper.

Senator Georges:

– Did you hand it in?

Senator HARRADINE:

– I handed it in immediately, as a matter of fact. I regret having to raise this matter but I have just observed that fact. Having raised it, I believe it is necessary for me to explain why I raised it. It was as a result of a letter that I wrote to the Premier of Tasmania on 18 July 1977, his reply to me of 26 July 1977 and my subsequent reply to him on 2 August 1977. So as not to delay the Senate and as each of those documents is only one page I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard my letter to the Premier dated 18 July and his reply dated 26 July.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The letters read as follows-

GPOBox896J, HOBART. 7001 Telephone: 34 5478 18th July, 1977.

The Hon. W. A. Neilson, Premier of Tasmania, Government Buildings, Franklin Square, HOBART. 7000

Dear Mr Premier,

Recently whilst engaged on an examination of another matter, the case of the Commonwealth -v- Queensland and Another (1975)7ALR351 attracted my attention.

His Honour, Mr Justice Murphy, in the reasons for his decision quoted a letter from the Governor-General to the Governor of Queensland relating to advice given to Her Majesty The Queen by her Australian Ministers in the matter of a Petition seeking referral to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

My understanding is that since Tasmania was also a petitioner a similar letter was sent from the Governor-General to the Governor of Tasmania. It seems to me that if Her Majesty acted solely on the advice of her Australian Ministers this represents some alteration in the relationship between the States and the Commonwealth and which could adversely affect the rights of the States.

In these circumstances, I should like to raise these matters at a suitable moment in the Senate and in order to be fully informed I should be grateful if you could make available any relevant information.

Yours sincerely,

BRIAN HARRADINE

(Senator for Tasmania )

Premier of Tasmania Hobart 26th July, 1977.

Dear Senator Harradine,

Thank you for your letter of 1 8th July .

On 30th January, 1974, His Excellency the GovernorGeneral (Sir Paul Hasluck) sent a despatch to His Excellency the Governor of Tasmania (Sir Stanley Burbury ) in identical terms to the letter referred to by His Honour Mr Justice Murphy in the case which you mention.

You will note that after quoting the letter His Honour continued:

Although it appears that The Queen also received similar advice from her United Kingdom Ministers. . . . ‘

In actual fact confirmation that Her Majesty had not only received such advice from Her United Kingdom Minister (sic) but had accepted it, is contained in an official cable from Sir Godfrey Agnew, the Clerk of the Privy Council to the Solicitor-General for Tasmania who formally lodged the Petition to Her Majesty with the Clerk.

I am enclosing a copy of that cable for your information.

You will note that the cable concludes by making reference to another communication. As that correspondence was marked ‘Personal and Confidential’, I do not think it is appropriate that I should take any steps to enable you to see it or to have copies.

However, there is no secret about the fact that it contains nothing inconsistent with the advice given to the SolicitorGeneral.

An attempt was made to resolve the inconsistency between the advice received from the Governor-General and that received direct from London. However, no satisfactory conclusion emerged.

I agree with you that the proposition by Murphy J that United Kingdom Ministers ought not in future tender advice to The Queen on any matter involving Australian internal affairs goes beyond common understanding of existing constitutional principles if it is intended to embrace purely State affairs.

If you desire any further information about this subject I would be pleased to ask the Solicitor-General to discuss it with you and to give you such assistance as he considers appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Nielson Premier

C.T.O. Hobart Jan. 25 6.22 a.m. ‘74

C. Jennings Esq QC solicitor General Public Buildings Franklin sq Hobart Tasmania

In June1973 you formally submitted to me as Clerk of the Council a petition from the Government of Tasmania to Her Majesty the Queen relating to offshore mining rights. The petition prayed that Her Majesty refer the questions set out in paragraph 13 of the petition to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing and consideration under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. I am now instructed to inform you that Her Majesty has accepted the advice of Her Minister in the United Kingdom that the petition should not be referred to the Judicial Committee. Her Majestys Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is also communicating with His Excellencythe Governor of Tasmania on this matter.

Sir Godfrey Agnew, Clerk of the Privy Council

Senator HARRADINE:

– It will be seen that the documents deal with the case of the Commonwealth v. Queensland and Another (1975) which attracted my attention. In the reasons for his decision His Honour Mr Justice Murphy quoted from a letter from the Governor-General to the Governor of Queensland relating to advice given to Her Majesty by her Australian Ministers in the matter of a petition seeking referral to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I understood that since Tasmania was also a petitioner a similar letter was sent by the GovernorGeneral to the State of Tasmania. It seemed to me that, if Her Majesty acted solely on the advice of her Australian Ministers, as suggested by His Honour Mr Justice Murphy, this would represent some alteration in the relationship between the States and the Commonwealth and that situation could adversely affect the rights of the States. The Premier of Tasmania replied to me. That reply is now a matter of record. It is my concern to ensure that the rights of the States to advise Her Majesty in constitutional matters affecting the States are not clouded by any misunderstanding of the message given by Her Majesty to the Governor-General in 1974. That is why I am concerned that the question which I was asked by the Leader of the Government in the Senate to place on notice did not appear on the Notice Paper.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Senator Harradine raised the matter that he sought to place his question on notice and it does not appear on the Notice Paper for today. I think that this may well have arisen because quite inadvertently the honourable senator did not use the appropriate method to have the question placed on the Notice Paper. If he had handed the question not to Hansard- as I understand he did- - but to the Clerks, that would not have happened.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He might have handed it to the Clerks without asking them to put it on notice.

Senator CARRICK:

-Yes, but in any case without seeking -

Senator O’Byrne:

– It went over the air, too, which should not have happened if it was a question on notice.

Senator Harradine:

– I was asked by the attendant: ‘What was the question on notice?’ and I handed it to the attendant, which is the usual thing to do.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am not seeking to argue the point; I simply want to say that apparently -

Senator Harradine:

– It was on the blue paper for questions on notice.

Senator CARRICK:

– But apparently some misadventure occurred between Senator Harradine and the Clerk’s table and this question was not placed on notice. I suggest that Senator Harradine might reactivate the question formally so it can go on the Notice Paper. As to the remainder of the honourable senator’s comments tonight, because those issues were addressed yesterday to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) I shall draw his attention to the remarks made tonight. If Senator Harradine will activate the question now by writing it out and handing it to the officials concerned we will get it on to the Notice Paper.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank Senator Harradine for pointing out the omission. I can assure him that the matter will be rectified in Hansard and the question put on the Notice Paper in accordance with the request made at the time by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers). As Senator Harradine has said, he did what he felt was the right thing to do with the paper: He gave it to an attendant. Evidently it was not put on the table.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Let me say in fairness to the officers of the Senate that Senator Harradine did not know the procedure. When a question is handed to an attendant it merely goes to Hansard to assist in the recording of the question.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Unless you ask the attendant to put it on notice.

Senator GEORGES:

-Correct. If he did not give the question to the officers and state that it was a question on notice it would not go on the Notice Paper. It is not the fault of the officers of the Senate. I think Senator Harradine was not clearly aware of the need to advise the attendant that the question was to go on the Notice Paper. He has been here long enough to know that that is so.

Senator Harradine:

– All honourable senators are provided with blue forms which are headed: Notice of Question. For rules see back of form’.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I understand that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) proposed a motion for the adjournment of the Senate. He then spoke to that motion in reply to Senator Harradine. The question should then have been put but Senator Georges spoke. Senator Harradine has now spoken on the matter again. There was a mix-up somewhere but let us get this over. The matter will be rectified, whoever was to blame.

The PRESIDENT:

– The matter will be rectified.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

page 178

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Aborigines: Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 84)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

With respect to the minute addressed to Employment Office Managers by the Acting Assistant Director, Employment Services, of the Minister’s Department dated 27 January 1977, and headed ‘Unemployment Benefit- Persons Residing on Aboriginal Communities’, (a) how many over-printed QEMP101 applications have been received in Queensland to date, (b) how many of those applicants have been lapsed from the register as a result of answering the question ‘are you prepared to work in another locality?’ in the negative, and (c) how many of the persons listed in (b) have since been granted (i) unemployment benefit or (ii) special benefit by the Department of Social Security.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (a), (b) and (c). None. The draft circular to which the honourable senator refers was never issued.

East Timorese Refugees (Question No. 391)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that East Timor refugees who left the Portuguese territory late last year and are now residing in Portugal are now prepared to speak publicly on their experience during the Indonesian invasion; if so, is the Government prepared to obtain evidence from them relating to the deaths of six Australian journalists and reported atrocities by Indonesian forces in East Timor.
  2. Will the Government be prepared to send an all Party Parliamentary delegation to Portugal for the purpose of collecting information.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of reports of the views said to have been expressed by evacuees from East Timor now in Portugal.

The Government has investigated as thoroughly as possible in the circumstances the various and often conflicting accounts of the deaths of five of the journalists in Balibo and the fate of Mr Roger East. Recent reports, of which I am aware, of comments by East Timorese now in Portugal about what allegedly happened to the journalists have not brought forward any evidence opening up new or more promising avenues for the Government to explore.

  1. No.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 405)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What number of land claims have been made to date under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights legislation.
  2. Where are the land claims and what persons or clans have made the applications.
  3. ) What area of land does each claim cover.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Aboriginal Land Commissioner informs me that no land claims have been made to him under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act since his appointment early in April. Notice of a number of claims had been given to the Interim Aboriginal Land Commissioner before the commencement of the Act on 26 January 1977. Some of those claims were not traditional land claims and some were not claims to vacant Crown land or to alienated land held by Aboriginals. The Commissioner has now invited the submission of traditional claims under Paragraph 50 ( 1 ) (a) of the Act in order to establish with certainty which of the claims previously submitted are traditional claims of the kind which he should investigate and report upon to myself and the Minister for the Northern Territory under the terms of this paragraph of the Act. Those applications, previously submitted, which were made on the basis of need rather than traditional claim, will be dealt with in accordance with the normal procedures operative in the Northern Territory.

Radiation Hazards (Question No. 453)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) Have employees, and former employees, engaged in exploration and development of uranium mining in Australia and persons associated with nuclear experiments in the Monte Bello Islands and other areas ever been medically examined in order to ascertain if they have been affected in any way by radiation.
  2. ) If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the negative, will the Minister take appropriate steps to have every employee and former employee who is or has been employed in the areas mentioned medically examined in order to ensure that appropriate treatment can be administered as soon as possible if the persons concerned have been affected by radiation.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) h has not been possible to determine how many, in the various groups mentioned by the honourable senator had medical examinations. In addition it would not be possible to trace those involved. Medical practitioners are generally aware of possible radiation hazards and individuals attending their doctor for illness would be assessed from this standpoint if they gave a history of occupational exposure. I am aware of the need to protect the health of those engaged in the uranium industry and my Department has been involved in the production of the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores. The Code makes provision for appropriate medical examinations. The Code of Practice was accepted as an authoritative document by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Enquiry.

Aboriginal Affairs: Discussions between Commonwealth and Queensland Public Servants (Question No. 462)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

With respect to the Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 32, can the Minister advise whether the Queensland Government ever insisted that any request for discussions between Federal and State public servants on Aboriginal affairs matters be channelled through the Queensland Premier between December 1972 and November 1975; if so, what are the details.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

The question refers to matters which may have occurred during the life of the previous Government. Such information would not generally be made publicly available. I am not therefore able to provide any additional information.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 568)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 3 (i) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, ‘we will channel all future major expenditure on Aboriginal education, employment, housing, health and legal aid and similar services through a new account to be called The Aborigines’ Entitlement Revenue Account. This account will replace the present Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account’; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported by responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 569)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 3 (ii) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely ‘in addition to making allocations to the Aboriginal Loans Commission, we will establish and make annual allocations to an Aborigines’ Entitlement Capital Account. The funds contained in this account will be invested for the benefit of the Aboriginal people. The manner in which this account is to be administered and the income from it distributed will be determined after consultation with the Aboriginal people’; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported by responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal Affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 570)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 4 (i) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, appointment of additional Aborigines to liaison, advisory and training positions in such fields as education, health, and community development’; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported y responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 571)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 4 (ii) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, “the maintenance and, where appropriate, the expansion of Aborigine-managed enterprises and services such as Aboriginal Medical Services, Aboriginal Legal Services and details: if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported y responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal Affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 572)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 4 (iii) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, “the creation of a network of outback pre-schools to cater for the needs of Aboriginal and other Australian children side by side to actively involve their parents as well”; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported by responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 573)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 4 (iv) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, “the expansion of bi-cultural education in those Northern Australian schools with predominantly Aboriginal enrolments”; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported by responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 574)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 4 (v) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, the introduction of Aboriginal History and Culture as a full subject in the education programmes available’ to all Australians from primary school in the education -programmes available to all Australians from primary school onwards’; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported y responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 575)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 4 (vi) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, ‘a complete review of existing Aboriginal employment and training schemes in order to increase social and geographical mobility for those Aborigines who desire it’; if so, what are the details, if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported y responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 576)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 4 (vii) of, the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, the introduction of an experimental “work-out” program in rural secondary schools with high Aboriginal enrolments’; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported by responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 577)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in part 4 (viii) of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, “the establishment of a ‘parent-educator’ program among Aboriginal parents in capital cities”; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aborigi-. nal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported by responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs: Government Policy (Question No. 578)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1977:

Has the Government fulfilled the promise, contained in pan 4 (ix) of the Liberal and Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy dated 25 November 1975, namely, “consultation with the Aboriginal people on appropriate ways of dealing with social problems such as alcohol and drug abuse ; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Implementation of policy commitments is a continuing process and the adoption of new policy initiatives is reported y responsible Ministers where appropriate.

Annual Reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provide a comprehensive review of progress in the implementation of Government policy in Aboriginal affairs.

Legal Aid (Question No. 594)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) When will the Legal Aid Ordinances be submitted to the Legislative Assemblies of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
  2. ) When will the ordinances in their present, or amended form, commence.
  3. When will the commissions established by the ordinances commence to provide legal aid in accordance with their provisions.
  4. What are the estimated expenditures of the commissions during the first year of operation (a) upon wages and salaries (including superannuation); (b) upon rental, lighting and other utilities; (c) upon matters assigned to the private legal profession; (d) upon matters taken over from (i) the Legal Assistance Committee, (ii) the Australian Legal Aid Office, and (iii) members of committees; and (e) allowances.
  5. What will be the effect on funding responsibilities of the Legislative Assemblies, with particular reference to the contribution of Commonwealth assistance.
  6. When will the proposed Commonwealth Commission commence operations.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) A draft of a model Legal Aid Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory was submitted for comment to the Legislative Assembly of the Territory on 5 April 1977. A Bill for a Legal Aid Ordinance was submitted to the Assembly on 29 June 1977 and dealt with by the Assembly on 5 July 1977.

The draft Legal Aid Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory has been made available for comment to members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and to the Law Society of the Northern Territory. The AttorneyGeneral has not received any comments from the Assembly. He is presently considering comments received from the Law Society. He expects that a Legal Aid Ordinance will be ready for submission to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory by the Executive Member for Law and for consideration by interested persons and bodies about August 1977.

  1. ) The Legal Aid Ordinance 1 977 of the Australian Capital Territory came into operation on 1 1 July 1977.

The date upon which the proposed Legal Aid Ordinance for the Northern Territory will come into operation will be determined after consultation between the Executive Member for Law and the Attorney-General.

  1. The Legal Aid Commission established by the Legal Aid Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory will commence to provide legal aid on a date fixed by the AttorneyGeneral and notified in the Gazette. The Attorney-General intends to fix a date for commencement as soon as the Commission is ready to provide legal aid after it has taken all the necessary steps required by the Ordinance.

The Attorney-General anticipates that the Legal Aid Commission to be established in the Northern Territory will commence to provide legal aid as soon as it is ready to do so after complying with the requirements of the proposed legislation.

  1. Estimates of expenditure of the proposed Legal Aid Commissions are being considered in the context of the Budget. These estimates are designed to ensure that legal aid will at least be maintained at current levels.
  2. The Legislative Assemblies of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory do not presently have any funding responsibilities in respect of the provision of legal aid.
  3. A Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission is established by the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Act, 1977 that came into operation on 1 July 1977. It is expected that the Commonwealth Commission will commence operations on or before 1 January 1978.

Dickson College: Science Courses (Question No. 596)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many students are enrolled at Dickson College in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. How many science courses are being pursued by those students.
  3. How many students are being deprived of practical laboratory classes in science courses.
  4. Are those students being disadvantaged in their final school assessment because they are being deprived of laboratory classes.
  5. 5 ) What action is the Minister prepared to take to provide adequate ancillary staff for Dickson College so that all accredited courses can proceed.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 812 students were enrolled at Dickson College on 30 May 1977.
  2. 51 science courses are available at Dickson College.
  3. No students are being deprived of practical laboratory classes in science courses, however during April this year a temporary suspension of laboratory classes occurred.
  4. The students were not disadvantaged in their final school assessment by this temporary suspension.
  5. Dickson College and the A.C.T. Schools Authority overcame the difficulties experienced during April. The college was able to allocate additional ancilliary support for science courses by rearranging staff; the Authority made an additional staff member available in the light of the special circumstances at the college.

Uranium (Question No. 648)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of statements made in the Fox Report which indicated that total world demand for uranium up to 1985 has been revised downwards over the past two years to approximately from 40 1 000 to 476 000 tonnes.
  2. Has the Minister read recent statements by Pancontinental Mining Ltd which indicate that world demand for uranium between 1980 and 1985 will be sufficient to enable known Australian uranium deposits to be developed simultaneously at their planned production rates.
  3. Which authority quoted the correct figures and can the Minister publicly indicate which authority has exaggerated the figures.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Estimates of future requirements for uranium, as for any other mineral, undergo constant revision reflecting reassessment of the world economic situation as well as aspects related to a particular mineral. It is not unusual to find disparities between estimates from different sources.

Uranium (Question 651)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 26 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Minister recall statements he made last year concerning the need for Australia to sell its uranium to Japan or else they might come and take it by force ‘.
  2. Has the Minister seen the statement by the Japanese Ambassador to Australia, Mr Okawara, which indicated that Japan does not vitally depend on Australia’s uranium for its energy needs and could, in fact, get all its uranium supplies from South Africa.
  3. In the light of this recent development, will the Minister publicly repudiate his earlier statements.
  4. How does this statement influence the often stated case by pro-uranium miners that Australia has to mine uranium to help such energy hungry countries as Japan overcome their energy crisis.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) I have not said that there is a need for Australia to sell its uranium to Japan or else they might come and take it by force. The remaining questions are therefore irrelevant.

Legal Aid (Question No. 773)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Australian Legal Aid Office have sufficient regional offices, funds and staff to provide adequate legal aid in the Federal area; if so, what is the basis for such a conclusion.
  2. What particular expertise does the private legal profession have in relation to the development of policies for the provision of legal aid (as distinct from providing legal services for payment) that entitles it to dominate or control the proposed Legal Aid Commissions in the States and Territories.
  3. In view of the Commonwealth’s undoubted responsibilities in the Federal area, in particular, in family law matters, has the Attorney-General considered whether an appropriate scheme of legal aid might comprise joint Commonwealth and State Commissions in each State and a Commonwealth advisory and co-ordinating Commission; if not, why not; or if so, has he rejected such a scheme, and why.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The sufficiency of Australian Legal Aid Office funding inevitably falls to be considered in a Budget context. In 1976-77 the Government provided for legal aid, other than Aboriginal legal aid, $17,976,600 compared with expenditure of$12,527,206 in 1975-76. This represented an increase in funds of 43 per cent. During the current review of legal aid, the Government has maintained the existing level of activity and staffing of the Australian Legal Aid Office. The Government considers that in principle matters such as the opening of new regional offices and staffing should be decided by the new State and Territorial Commissions.
  2. A successful legal aid scheme must depend in large part upon the contribution made by the private legal profession both in reduced fees and in voluntary services. The private profession has had experience in the development of legal aid policies in managing the various Law Society, Law Institute and Legal Aid Committee schemes throughout Australia. It is therefore appropriate that the private profession should have a substantial but not dominant representation upon Legal Aid Commissions.
  3. Yes, it has been considered by me. I raised it as a possible option wilh State Attorneys-General early in 1976. They preferred to proceed on the basis of establishing independent Legal Aid Commissions in each State funded by both State and Federal governments and operating in conjunction with, and having regard to, the recommendations of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Yuendumu (Question No. 774)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Yuendumu that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisation and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1)and (2)No

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Haasts Bluff (Question No. 775)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Haasts Bluff that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (l)and (2) No.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Hermannsburg (Question No. 776)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Hermannsburg that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and /or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1)and (2)No

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Hooker Creek (Question No. 777)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Hooker Creek that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975, and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1)and (2)No

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Wattie Creek (Question No. 778)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Wattie Creek that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Oenpelli (Question No. 779)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Oenpelli that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1)and (2)No

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Borroloola (Question No. 780)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Borroloola that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1)and (2)No

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Daly River (Question No. 781)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Daly River that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975, and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Amata (Question No. 782)

Senatort Keeffe asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Amata that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. A total of $71,810 was applied for by the community for housing, $1 1,000 for a special work project and $26,800 for the bakery.

    1. The request for housing funds was rejected because of unsatisfactory past performance. Funds were not available for the special work project and the bakery.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Papunya (Question No. 783)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Papunya that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these; what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1)and (2)No

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Ernabella (Question No. 784)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Ernabella that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. An application for $18,000 was made for . a special work project for reafforestation.
  2. ) The request was rejected as funds were not available.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Kununurra (Question No. 785)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Kununurra that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes. Djidja Enterprises applied for $60,700 to equip a farm and develop a small cattle enterprise.
  2. No funds were available for the project. Since then there has been a re-development program established which is being funded on a lower subsistence share farm basis as well as a broom millet operation.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Beagle Bay (Question No. 786)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Beagle Bay that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1 975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) No applications have been refused.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Strelley (Question No. 787)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Strelley that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) No applications have been refused.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Fitzroy Crossing (Question No. 788)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Fitzroy Crossing that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and /or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) No applications have been refused.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Halls Creek (Question No. 789)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Halls Creek that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. The Noonjuwah Council applied for $1,500 for emergency accommodation for Reserve residents during the 1976 Wet Season.
  2. The request was rejected after discussions with the State Department for Community Welfare on the grounds that the accommodation sought was inadequate. The matter of suitable temporary accommodation at Halls Creek is currently being examined.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Forrest River (Question No. 790)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any- Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Forrest River that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these; what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) No applications have been refused.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Amoonguna (Question No. 791)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Amoonguna that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Areyonga (Question No. 792)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and /or organisations in Areyonga that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these; what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and /or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) No.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Cherbourg (Question No. 793)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Cherbourg that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these; what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) No applications have been refused.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Elcho Island (Question No. 794)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Elcho Island that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and /or communities were these; what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Bathurst Island (Question No. 795)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and /or organisations in Bathurst Island that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) Yes. Tiwi Treated Timber Incorporated applied for $48,900 but investigation of the project indicated that it was not feasible.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Jigalong (Question No. 796)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Jigalong that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) No applications have been refused.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Fortescue River (Question No. 797)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Fortescue River that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused; if so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) No identifiable groups.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Wilcannia (Question No. 798)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Wilcannia that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused. If so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes. Bakandji Limited. The company applied for a special work project to employ 14 men for 12 weeks on the preparation of building sites on the Mallee and the employment of one woman for 12 weeks’ cleaning. The cost would have been $4 1 ,660.
  2. Bakandji Limited has received total funding of $716,272 since 1974. Available funds for 1976-77 were allocated to other Aboriginal Organisations in greater need than Bakandji.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Yarrabah (Question No. 799)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Are there any Aboriginal communities and/or organisations in Yarrabah that have applied for Federal Government funds since December 1975 and have been refused. If so, which organisations and/or communities were these, what were the projects they required funding for and what was the level of funding they required.
  2. What were the reasons for the refusal by the Federal Government to fund these organisations and/or community projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) No applications have been refused.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Yuendumu (Question No. 809)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Yuendumu since December 1969.
  2. 2 ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The attached schedule, as far as is possible, shows details of direct grant in aid assistance made available by my Department. As a result of changing administrative arrangements and the effect of Cyclone Tracy, full information is not readily available for the years 1 969-70 to 1 974-75.

Details of indirect funding to the communities listed is not available.

  1. and (4) Information is not readily available in respect of the number of houses provided in each community and the number of Aboriginals remaining to be housed. I do, however, draw the honourable senator’s attention to the answer I provided to Representatives Question 633 (Hansard 2 June 1977, page 2576) which gives details of the number of houses funded by the Commonwealth through Aboriginal organisations and grants to the States.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Haasts Bluff (Question No. 810)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May1977:

  1. ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal Communities and Organisations in Haasts Bluff since December 1969.
  2. 2 ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Hermannsburg (Question No. 811)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Hermannsburg since December 1969.
  2. 2 ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Hooker Creek (Question No. 812)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Hooker Creek since December 1969.
  2. 2 ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Wattie Creek (Question No. 813)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Wattie Creek since December 1969.
  2. 2 ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in the area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this Community since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Oenpelli (Question No. 814)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Oenpelli since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Borroloola (Question No. 815)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Borroloola since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Daly River (Question No. 816)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Daly River since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Amata (Question No. 817)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually,’ both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Amata since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Papunya (Question No. 818)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Papunya since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Ernabella (Question No. 819)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Ernabella since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Kununurra (Question No. 820)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Kununurra since December 1969.
  2. 2 ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain ‘to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Beagle Bay (Question No. 821)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Beagle Bay since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Strelley (Question No. 822)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Strelley since December 1969.
  2. 2 ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Fitzroy Crossing (Question No. 823)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Fitzroy Crossing since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Halls Creek (Question No. 824)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Halls Creek since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Forrest River (Question No. 825)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Forrest River since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Amoonguna (Question No. 826)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Amoonguna since December 1 969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Areyonga (Question No. 827)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Areyonga since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Cherbourg (Question No. 828)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisation in Cherbourg since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. ) How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.

Senator Guilfoyle: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Elcho Island (Question No. 829)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Elcho Island since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.

Senator Guilfoyle: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Bathurst Island (Question No. 830)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Bathurst Island since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.

Senator Guilfoyle: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Jigalong (Question No. 831)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Jigalong since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.

Senator Guilfoyle: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Fortescue River (Question No. 832)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Fortescue River since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to bc housed in this area.

Senator Guilfoyle: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Wilcannia (Question No. 833)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Wilcannia since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. ) How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.

Senator Guilfoyle: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure at Yarrabah (Question No. 834)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Yarrabah since December 1 969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. ) How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.

Senator Guilfoyle: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Senate Question No. 809.

Australian Oil Resources (Question No. 864)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. Did the Prime Minister state on 1 May 1977 that Australia already had enormous coal resources and after several years of exploration was 70 per cent self sufficient in oil supplies … but this proposition had begun to decline because of the neglect of the former administration’; if so, does this mean that the Government believes the decline of Australia’s oil reserves over the next 10 to 15 years is attributable to the neglect of the former administration; if so, how can the Prime Minister reconcile his statement with those of petroleum geologists and other experts who are of the opinion that the chances of finding large oil reserves in Australia are very slim.

    1. Does the Pime Minister agree that the very small chances of finding oil in Australia are the main reasons for the recent inactivity by oil exploration companies.
    2. Will the Prime Mininster make a public withdrawal of any such statement about the reasons for the declining level of self sufficiency for oil in Australia.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The exact quotation from my statement of 1 May 1 977 is: ‘Australia has enormous resources of coal and over several years of exploration and endeavour, we had reached 70 per cent self sufficiency in oil needs. Because of the neglect of the former administration, this proportion has begun to decline ‘. As I stated in my speech to the APEA Annual Conference on 18 April 1977, ‘The Labor Government deliberately held back mineral exploration and development. By the time they went out of office, investment in the industry had practically stopped. This Government is determined to revive it. We will not penalise the mineral industries in which Australia has a comparative advantage. Since coming to office, we have removed unnecessary barriers hindering exploration companies and, where necessary, we have provided positive incentives to encourage exploration and mining activity’.
  2. and (3) No, but see answer given on 24 May 1977 (Hansard, page 1308) to Question No. 207.

Aboriginal Land Rights: Legal Aid (Question No. 867)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

In view of the arrangement for Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, who wish to make claims under the Aboriginal land rights legislation, to have access to funds, legal assistance, etc., will the Attorney-General also make funds available to those other people and organisations in the Northern Territory who require legal assistance in putting their submissions to the Land Rights Commissioner.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

An individual wishing to put submissions before the Land Rights Commissioner may be provided with legal assistance by the Australian Legal Aid Office if he satisfies the office guidelines as to means and needs and the merits of his case. If any other individual or an organisation is involved in hardship in putting a submission to the Commissioner the Attorney-General would be prepared to give consideration to the question of what arrangements might be made for the provision of legal assistance.

Statutory Authorities responsible to Minister for Overseas Trade (Question No. 873)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. If so,

what are they

b ) who are the bankers for each authority, and

which, if any, of the authorities may be termed ‘statutory authorities of a business nature ‘.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Export Development Grants Board. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation.
  2. The banker for the Export Development Grants Board is the Reserve Bank. The bankers for the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation are the Reserve Bank and the Bank of New South Wales.
  3. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation.

Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for Defence (Question No. 882)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister, if so (a) what are they, (b) who are the bankers for each authority and (c) which, if any, of the authorities may be termed ‘statutory authorities of a business nature ‘.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Yes.

The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority; the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Board; the Australian Services Canteens Organisation; the RAN Central Canteens Board; the RAN Relief Trust Fund; the RAAF Veterans Residence Trust; the RAAF Welfare Trust Fund; the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund and the Services Canteens Trust Fund.

Neither the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority nor the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Board is a funded scheme and no banking is involved. Of the other statutory authorities, the RAN Relief Trust Fund and the Services Canteens Trust Fund bank with the Commonwealth Trading Bank while the remainder bank with the Commonwealth Savings Bank.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation; RAAF Veterans Residence Trust and the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund.

Statutory Authorities responsible to Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 887)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister; if so, (a) what are they, (b) who are the bankers for each authority and (c) which, if any, of the authorities may be termed ‘statutory authorities of a business nature’.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes. As at 31 May 1977, there were three statutory authorities responsible to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

) and ( b ) The authorities and their banks are:

Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for the Northern Territory (Question No. 888)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister, if so:

What are they

b ) Who are bankers for each authority

Which, if any, of the authorities may be termed Statutory Authorities of a business nature.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (1) Statutory authorities directly responsible to the Minister for the Northern Territory:

Companies Auditors Board

Darwin Reconstruction Commission

Fair Rents Board

Home Finance Trustee

Land Board of the Northern Territory

Land Valuation Review Tribunal

Northern Territory Town Planning Board

Place Names Committee

Public Trustee for the Northern Territory

Soil Conservation Advisory Committee

Urban Land Ballot Committee

Veterinary Surgeons Board

  1. Statutory Authorities responsible to the Minister for the Northern Territory through Executive Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly:

Betting Control Board

Building Board

Bush Fires Council

Dentists Registration Board

Electrical Mechanics Licensing Board

Housing Commission- Northern Territory

Medical Board

Museums and An Galleries Board

Northern Territory Architects Board

Northern Territory Consumer Protection Council

Northern Territory Police Force

Northern Territory Port Authority

Northern Territory Reserves Board

Northern Territory Tourist Board

Nurses Board

Optometrist Board

Parole Board

Pharmacy Board

Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Board

Primary Producers Board

Public Cemeteries Board of Trustees- Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek

Regional Fire Control Committee

Wildlife Advisory Council

  1. The following authorities have bank accounts as indicated:

Darwin Reconstruction Commission- Reserve Bank of Australia

Public Trustee for the Northern Territory- Reserve Bank of Australia

Betting Control Board- Reserve Bank of Australia

Housing Commission- Northern Territory- working account with Reserve Bank. Investments with other banks

Museums and Art Galleries Board- Reserve Bank of Australia

Northern Territory Port Authority- Current account with Reserve Bank of Australia. Investment accounts with Bank of New South Wales, ANZ Bank, Commonwealth Banking Corporation and Reserve Bank of Australia

Northern Territory Reserves Board- Commonwealth Banking Corporation

Northern Territory Tourist Board- Commonwealth Banking Corporation

Primary Producers Board- Commonwealth Banking Corporation

  1. The following Authorities are ofa business nature’.

Housing Commission- Northern Territory

Northern Territory Port Authority

Primary Producers Board

Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Question No. 891)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister; if so:

What are they

b ) Who are the bankers for each authority, and

Which, if any, of the authorities may be termed statutory authorities of a business nature ‘.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes.

Albury/Wodonga Development Corporation,

Housing Loans Insurance Corporation,

Australian Heritage Commission,

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service,

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Albury/Wodonga Development CorporationCommonwealth Trading Bank of Australia,

Housing Loans Insurance CorporationCommonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, Bank of New South Wales, The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited, The National Bank of Australasia Limited, Reserve Bank of Australia. The account with the Reserve Bank will be closed when the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill 1977 comes into effect,

Australian Heritage Commission- Reserve Bank of Australia,

Australian National Parks and Wildlife ServiceReserve Bank of Australia,

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-Reserve Bank of Australia.

Housing Loans Insurance Corporation,

Albury/Wodonga Development Corporation.

Statutory Authorities responsible to the Minister for Science (Question No. 892)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister; if so,

what are they;

b ) who are the bankers for each authority; and

which, if any, of the authorities may be termed statutory authorities of a business nature.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Anglo-Australian Telescope Board (i)-Reserve Bank of Australia

Australian Institute of Marine Science- Common wealth Trading Bank

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation- Reserve Bank of Australia

Metric Conversion Board- Reserve Bank of Australia

National Standards Commission- Reserve Bank of Australia

National Standards Commission- Reserve Bank of Australia

  1. None of the above Statutory Authorities may be termed ‘of a business nature’.
  2. The Anglo-Australian Telescope Board was established by agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as detailed in the Schedule to the AngloAustralian Telescope Agreement Act 1970. The Board reports jointly to the Australian and the United Kingdom Governments.

Townsville Growth Centre (Question No. 915)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

Has the Queensland Government made formal submission to the Federal Government concerning the Townsville growth centre; if so,

what are the details,

what response has the Federal Government made to the submission and

what funds, if any, have so far been provided for the project.

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

  1. No formal submission has been made to the Commonwealth by the Queensland Government concerning the development of a growth centre at Townsville.

The Premier of Queensland has written to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions seeking financial assistance through the Commonwealth’s urban expansion and redevelopment programs. However, the Premier has not so far provided details as to how such financial assistance would be used, nor whether it was required specifically for growth centre development.

  1. and (c) In view of the answer to question (a) questions (b) and (c) do not apply.

Rental by Commonwealth of Premises in Brisbane (Question No. 920)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

With respect to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 195 concerning rental of the building ‘Professional Suites’ in Brisbane (Senate Hansard, 21 April 1977, page 930), can the Minister advise-

1 ) Who are the 1 8 owners in the consortium mentioned in part (e) of the Minister’s reply;

Why does the deed to the property at 138 Albert Street, Brisbane, held at the Titles Office in Brisbane, show title vested in Marie Cassimatis Marie Marendy Nicholas Politis, Athana Politis and Evangeline Cassimatis

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As the owners of the strata title are registered as the proprietors at the Titles Office in Brisbane, it is suggested that the honourable senator conduct a search for himself.
  2. ) The facts as alleged are not correct.

Urban Development Programs in Queensland (Question No. 924)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

With respect to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 1 183 (Senate Hansard, 1 December 1976) and to Question No. 6 (Senate Hansard, 31 March 1977, page 765), is the subject of additional funds for urban development programs in Queensland currently under negotiation between the Federal Government and the Queensland Government; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

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

The Premier of Queensland has written to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions seeking financial assistance from the Commonwealth for urban development programs and these requests are being considered in the context of the forthcoming Budget.

Detoxification Centres in Roma Street, Brisbane (Question No. 925)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

Is the Federal Government providing any funding assistance for the construction or operation of the new Detoxification Centre in Roma Street, Brisbane; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) why has the Queensland Government been permitted to raise banners proclaiming ‘a Queensland Government Project’ on the construction site.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Yes.

Through the Community Health Program, the Commonwealth Government has provided substantial funds for the construction of the Detoxification Centre in Roma Street, Brisbane, and for the operation of the temporary centre. Details of Commonwealth financial assistance are as follows:

  1. At the time this question was asked by the honourable senator, there were two banners on the building which stated A Queensland Government Project’. However, the following statement also appeared on the site ‘s official construction sign: ‘This project is supported by the Commonwealth Government under the Community Health Program’. While there was therefore some imbalance in the emphasis given to the respective financial contributions by the two governments, the Queensland authorities had complied with the understanding which exists concerning the recognition of Commonwealth financial assistance to Community Health Program projects.

National Sewerage Program (Question No. 945)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What response has been received from each State on suggestions by the Federal Government that water quality standards be imposed as a condition of State Grants under the National Sewerage Program.
  2. What action is the Federal Government taking on this suggestion.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No response has been received because the suggestion has not been made.
  2. See above.

Sewerage Services (Question No. 946)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated extent of the current backlog in sewerage sevices in (a) Australia, (b) each State and Territory and (c) each capital city in Australia.
  2. What action is the Federal Government taking to overcome the backlog.
  3. What effect has the cutback in funds allocated for sewerage backlog programs in the 1976-77 Federal Budget had on the rate of overcoming the backlog.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1. (a) No figures currently available.

  1. See (a) above.

  2. See (a) above.

    1. Funds are made available directly through the National Sewerage Program. Under the new financial arrangements which place emphasis on enhancing the independence and responsibility of State and local governments, this Government has increased the flow on untied assistance. As a result State and local government should now be in a better position to allocate their funds according to their own priorities, including, if they wish, to the overcoming of sewerage backlog.
    2. The cutback in funds in 1975-76 made by the previous Government had the effect of abandoning the original timetable for overcoming the sewerage backlog.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Staffing (Question No. 966)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

How many (a) permanent employees, (b) temporary employees and (c) other employees were there in the Minister’s Department for each month since and including November 1975.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 949.

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development: Staffing (Question No. 969)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

How many (a) permanent employees, (b) temporary employees and (c) other employees were there in the Minister’s

Department for each month since and including November 1975.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 949.

Housing for Aborigines: Use of Caravans (Question No. 977)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. Were 1261 caravans brought to Darwin to provide temporary homes after Cyclone Tracy.
  2. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, is it now the case that those caravans, no longer required, are being offered for sale by the Department of the Northern Territory in lots of 50.
  3. Will the Minister consider purchasing the caravans and using them to provide shelter on Aboriginal settlements in the Northern Territory where housing problems are acute, e.g., Papunya and Yuendumu.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1261 caravans were purchased by the Department of the Northern Territory after Cyclone Tracy. Of these, 1229 were brought to Darwin to provide temporary accommodation. The remaining 32 were used in Alice Springs.
  2. ) The caravans in Darwin are being disposed of by auction or tender in various sized lots. Tenders have been invited for disposal of 200 caravans in four lots of fifty.
  3. Yes. My Department has made an application for a number of caravans to be located in Aboriginal communities. Some will be used to accommodate Aboriginal families.

Establishment Needs of Public Service Departments (Question No. 988)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did all departments in the Public Service report their total establishment needs to the Public Service Board by 10 September 1976.
  2. In summary, what were those needs in respect of each department up to 10 September 1976.
  3. Have these needs been reviewed since that time; if so, in what respect and with what result.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) In August the Public Service Board sought information from departments, by 10 September 1976, on their establishment requirements for 1976-77. All departments responded although not all replies were received by 10 September.
  2. Some of the information originally sought by 10 September 1976 was overtaken by ad hoc establishment proposals. The best summary available of the overall results of this exercise is that departments sought the abolition/cancellation of about 3700 positions and the creation of about 2300 positions.
  3. The returns due by 10 September 1976 were sought in the context of an annual review of departmental establishments under the Bulk Establishment Control Scheme. Although this reduces the number of ad hoc approaches for establishment adjustment, it by no means eliminates them.

In total, 1959 separate establishment adjustment proposals were received by the Board ‘s Office in the period 1 July 1976 to 8 June 1977. These proposals resulted in 8251 abolitions, 6624 creations and 789 reclassifications.

Engagement of Consultants by Authorities (Question No. 993)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What authorities, staffed other than under the Public Service Act, engaged consultants and contracted services in the financial year 1976-77.
  2. Who were these consultants and for what purposes were they engaged.
  3. Were these consultants approved by the Public Service Board and by the Treasury; if not, under what authority were these consultants engaged.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) No central records are kept of consultants or contracted services engaged by authorities staffed outside the Public Service Act.
  2. Although the authority for engagements of consultants and contracted services by statutory authorities staffed outside the Public Service Act lies in the legislation which governs the particular authority, the Treasurer has asked all Ministers to extend their examination of consultancy arrangements to all statutory authorities within their Ministry which are financed wholly or partly from the Budget; and to ask those authorities to exercise the greatest possible restraint in the engagement of consultants and contracted services to ensure that such engagements meet the strictest tests of essentiality. Where, however, funds additional to those provided in the Budget are involved, the prior approval of the Treasurer is required for the commitment of funds.

Expenditure on Consultants and Lecturers (Question No. 996)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 24 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What is the reason for the dramatic increase in finance expended on consultancies and guest lecturers for the Public Service Board from $184,620 in 1975-76 to $350,000 in 1976-77.
  2. Were all of these consultancies and guest lecturers approved by the Treasury.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Actual expenditure for consultants’ fees during 1975-76 was $184,620. Actual expenditure on this item during 1976-77 was $230,443. The amount of $350,000 was the figure included in the Board’s 1976-77 appropriations for consultants’ fees; however, savings and deferments resulted in a shortfall between actual expenditure and the appropriation.

There are two specific areas in which there was a significant increase in expenditure for consultants in 1976-77 compared with the previous year

  1. the engagement of consultants to report on two major ADP projects at a cost of $72,322 in 1976-77 compared with nil expenditure on comparable work the previous year; and

  2. b ) the emphasis given to the development of specialised training activities involved assistance from consultants at a cost of $31,072 in 1976-77 compared with $ 1 1 ,357 on comparable work the previous year.

    1. ) Prior approval of the Treasurer for the engagement of all consultants was obtained until a review of procedures in March 1977 resulted in this responsibility being transferred to the Board itself.

Aboriginal Loans Commission: Transactions in Western Australia (Question No. 998)

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many homes in Western Australia are currently being financed through the Aboriginal Loans Commission.
  2. How many homes in Australia are currently being financed through the Aboriginal Loans Commission.
  3. How many owners in Western Australia, being financed through the Aboriginal Loans Commission, are behind in their loan repayments.
  4. How many such new loans were approved in Western Australia in 1976.
  5. How many loan applications are on the waiting list of the Commission of Western Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) As at 25 May 1977 there were 61 homes in Western Australia being financed through the Aboriginal Loans Commission.
  2. As at 25 May 1977 there were 722 homes in Australia being financed through the Aboriginal Loans Commission.
  3. Seventeen home owners in Western Australia are behind in their loan repayments, of which seven are only one payment in arrears.
  4. A total of 1 1 new loans were approved in Western Australia in 1976.
  5. There are 15 loan applications from Western Australia on the wailing list of the Commission.

Establishment of Separate States in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern - Territory (Question No. 1008)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Queensland Liberal Party Leader and Deputy Premier, Mr Knox, at a public meeting in Brisbane on 20 May 1977, stated that the Queensland Government supported the establishment of separate States, presumably with 10 senators each, in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; if so, (a) has the Queensland Government made any representations to the Commonwealth Government on this matter and (b) what is the Commonwealth’s response to the suggestion.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (b) I am not aware of any representation made by the Queensland Government to the Commonwealth Government on this matter.

Coffee, Tea and Cocoa (Question No. 1023)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What were the weekly prices of Brazilian coffee on the London Coffee Market and the New York Coffee and Sugar Exchange for each week since 1 April 1977.
  2. Has the Government monitored movements in f.o.b. and cif. prices for coffee, cocoa and tea in the countries from which Australian companies purchase those commodities; if so, when did the monitoring start.
  3. What were the total stocks of coffee, tea and cocoa held by Australian importers at 1 April and I May 1977 and what was the c.i.f. value of the stocks of each commodity at each date.
  4. Do any of the importers and distributors of coffee, tea and cocoa lodge their purchases on United States or United Kingdom futures markets; if so, what was the value of stocks and purchases lodged at I April and 1 May 1977.
  5. ) What are the names of the importers of coffee, tea and cocoa in Australia.
  6. Are any of the ‘importers’ of these commodities wholly or partially owned outside Australia.
  7. If any of the companies are owned outside Australia, what is the proportion of shares held in each company by other than Australian citizens and who are the ten largest shareholders in each company.
  8. Which of the companies whose names are sought in (5) would be normally required to submit requests for price increases to the Prices Justification Tribunal.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Several varieties and grades of Brazilian coffee are traded on the London Coffee Market For the period 1 April to 10 June 1977, the prices published by Reuters New York for coffee of type Santos and Grade New York 4 were as follows. I am advised that the trend in these prices is representative of prices of other Brazilian coffees.

Further advice I have is that no Brazilian coffee was traded on the New York Coffee and Sugar Exchange in the above period, all sales being negotiated on a contract basis.

  1. The Prices Justification Tribunal has regard to movements in world prices of coffee, tea and cocoa when examining notifications of proposed price increases from prescribed companies. Apart from this, the Government has not monitored overseas prices of these commodities.
  2. Details of the quantity and value of total stocks of coffee, tea and cocoa held by Australian importers at 1 April and1 May 1977 are not available to me.
  3. Advice 1 have is that some importers of coffee deal on futures markets to ensure continuity of supply at a satisfactory price rather than for speculative reasons, and that some importers of cocoa trade on terminal markets for similar reasons, but that most tea is purchased at auction and the remainder is purchased direct from producers.

Information on the value of stocks and purchases of coffee and cocoa lodged by Australian importers on United States and United Kingdom futures markets at 1 April and 1 May 1 977 is not available to me.

  1. The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs has access to the names of importers of coffee, tea and cocoa in Australia but the information is treated in commercial confidence and not made available publicly. However, the names of the major companies which are required to notify the Prices Justification Tribunal of proposed increases in prices of coffee, tea and cocoa are available. These companies, which I am advised are direct importers are:

Coffee

The Nestle Company (Australia) Ltd

BushellsPtyLtd

Cottee ‘s General Foods Limited

D&JFowler Limited

Tea

Bushels Pty Ltd

Lipton Tea Company Limited

D& J Fowler Limited

Marrickville Limited

Cocoa

Cadbury Schweppes Ltd

Rowntree Hoadley Pty Ltd

Red Tulip Pty Ltd

The Nestle Company (Australia) Ltd

  1. and (7) Information in respect of the registered shareholdings in each company is kept by the company and is a matter of public record. To collect and assemble the information would be a major task and it has not been the practice of successive Governments to authorise the expenditure of money and effort involved in assembling such information on a general basis.
  2. 8 ) With the exception of Cottee ‘s General Foods Limited in respect of coffee prices, the companies mentioned in (5) are required to notify the Prices Justificaiton Tribunal of proposed increases in prices of coffee, tea and cocoa.

American Military Involvement in the Philippines (Question No. 1024)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister express any views in Manila about continued United States of America military involvement in the Philippines.
  2. Was the Minister correctly reported in the Asian Wall Street Journal of 18 April when he is alleged to have said, There is a desire on the part of the Australian Government to see a U.S. presence remain in the region’, and that he is satisfied with U.S. plans to withdraw ground troops from South Korea in the next four to five years. The current rapid expansion of a sophisticated U.S.-British outpost on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia should not be weighed against the Korea pullout ‘.
  3. Has the Australian Government made any decision about its attitude to the retention by the United States of America of the Subic Bay Base; if so, when was the decision made.
  4. Was the decision about the base made after an approach from the United States of America or unilaterally; if the former, when was the formal approach made by the United States and from whom did it come.
  5. If the Australian Government has reacted to a United States of America request for the attitude to the retention of the Subic Bay Base, did the Australian Government consult with the Philippines Government prior to giving an answer; if so, what was the nature of the consultation and when did it take place.
  6. Has the United States of America formally communicated to Australia its intention to withdraw American troops from South Korea; if so, when.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) During discussions in Manila with Philippines leaders, the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed views on the subject of the United States military presence in the Philippines. As the honourable senator will appreciate, it is not the practice of Ministers to provide details of such private and confidential discussions.
  2. In response to his earlier Question No. 807, the honourable senator will by now have received copies of the texts to speeches and statements made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he was in the Philippines. The report to which he refers was apparently gleaned from a press conference which the Minister gave in Manila on 16 April 1977 in which he stated, inter alia, that there was a desire on the part of the Australian Government to see a United States presence remain in the region.
  3. The Australian Government has not made any decision on this matter in the terms suggested by the question. As you know, negotiations are in train between the Philippines and the United States on the future of the Subic Bay Base. The Australian Government hopes that there will be a mutually satisfactory outcome.
  4. Not applicable.
  5. Not applicable.
  6. The question of the United States troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea has been the subject of exchanges of views at various levels between the United States Government and the Australian Government since the election of President Carter in November 1 976.

Naval Shipbuilding Program (Question No. 1027)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the- Minister seen an article in Triad No. 2 on ‘The future of naval shipbuilding’ by Commodore G. A. Bennett, General Manager, HMA Naval Dockyard, Williamstown.
  2. Has the Minister seen a statement in that paper that ‘it is concluded that a naval shipbuilding capability in Australia is necessary and it must be provided in a specialised naval shipbuilding yard. If this naval shipbuilding activity is to be efficiently carried out there must be a continuity of program with identicality between ships ‘.
  3. Can the Minister outline (a) what naval shipbuilding facilities presently exist in Australia; (b) what action is being taken to improve and expand those facilities; and (c) whether the criteria as to efficiency mentioned by Commodore Bennett, that is continuity of programs and identicality between ships, are being implemented in present shipbuilding activities.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

  3. (a) Naval shipbuilding facilities presently in Australia provide the capability to construct major war vessels up to Destroyer size at Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Victoria and Cockatoo Island Dockyard, Sydney, N.S. W.

    1. Over the past 10 years, Capital Works to the value of $16m have been authorised for Williamstown Naval Dockyard and $12m for Cockatoo Island Dockyard. There is a continuing program to modernise both dockyards.
    2. In view of the current limited Naval shipbuilding program it is not possible at present to apply the criteria mentioned by Commodore Bennett. However, as announced in the Defence White Paper presented in November 1976 examination has commenced of a follow-on destroyer program and approval has been given for the acquisition of some IS patrol craft of which 13 or 14 are to be built in Australia. Tenders for the construction of these craft by four Australian shipbuilders are currently being examined. Continuity and identical configurations of vessels in each class would be features in both the follow-on destroyer and patrol craft programs.

Solar Energy (Question No. 1050)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

What assistance will the Federal Government be providing, if any, to the research project by four University of Sydney physicists into a new process for the development of solar energy.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The Commonwealth Government provides substantial funds to the University of Sydney, as to other Australian universities, through the Tertiary Education Commission which comes under the administration of the Minister for Education. Funds provided in recent years have included a special development grant, pan of which has been allocated by the university administration to solar energy research.

Within my own field of responsibility research grants are made available to Australian university scientists, on a competitive basis, through the Australian Research Grants scheme. Funds have been awarded in recent years through that scheme for solar energy research in the University of Sydney and other Australian universities.

Governmental Inquiries (Question No. 1056)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 31 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Australian Federation of University Women, A.C.T., resolve ‘that this Association protest at the brevity of time allowed for making submissions to the various Governmental Inquiries’.
  2. Is it desirable to achieve maximum public input and participation through submissions to Governmental inquiries; if so, will the Minister consider recommending that there be a generous increase in the time allowed for individuals, and for groups of interested persons, to present submissions to various Governmental inquiries.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I do not believe that I have seen such a resolution.
  2. I agree that it is desirable that individuals and groups are given adequate time to prepare submissions to Governmental inquiries. In setting reporting dates for inquiries, the Government seeks to allow sufficient time for them to perform their tasks including obtaining public input. Some inquiries, particularly Royal Commissions, are deliberately given a high degree of autonomy and it would not be appropriate for the Government to specify detailed operating instructions such as the time to be allowed for receipt of submissions. In any instance where a person or organisation has difficulty in meeting the time limit set for lodging of a submission with an inquiry, the appropriate course would be to write to the Chairman of the inquiry explaining the difficulties involved and seeking an extension of time.

South Australian Hospitals: Bad Debts Owed by Aboriginals (Question No. 1061)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on 25 August 1975 forward a letter to the South Australian Minister for Health requesting that hospitals in that State not prosecute Aboriginals for unpaid debts as the Commonwealth would pay such accounts; if so, did hospitals in the State act in good faith and in accordance with the Commonwealth commitment.
  2. Did the present Minister repudiate on 23 May 1977, by letter the Commonwealth’s previous undertaking; if so, have many hospitals in the State suffered a resultant financial loss.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Department did not write to the S.A. Minister for Health on 25 August 1975. The letter to which the honourable senator refers is probably one dated 5 August 1975 from the Acting Regional Director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, South Australian Regional office to the Director General of Medical Services. I understand that most hospitals complied with the requests made in that letter.
  2. State Ministers of Health were advised by letter in August 1975 of a Government decision to terminate the reimbursement of hospital bad debts, following the introduction of Medibank on 1 July 1975. This decision was reaffirmed in a letter on 23 May 1977 to the Minister of Health, South Australia. I am not in a position to say whether any hospitals in the State have suffered a resultant financial loss. However, I can say that the ongoing position of all hospitals, as regards the problem of bad debts, has been considerably improved by the operation of the new funding arrangements for hospitals through Medibank.

Quail Island: Use for Bombing Practice (Question No. 1064)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the Royal Australian Air Force again using Quail Island as a bombing target.
  2. Is Quail Island (a) the subject of an Aboriginal land claim and (b) a turtle breeding ground which should be subject to environmental protection.
  3. Will the Minister undertake to immediately set in course the necessary action to prevent Quail Island from being used for practice bombing.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Quail Island has recently been used for bombing practice by the RAAF from 24 May 1977 to 8 June 1977. No further bombing practice is planned for the remainder of 1977.

  2. (a) The Island is the subject of an Aboriginal land claim lodged by a member of the Wagait/ Wadjiginy people on 23 September 1976. This claim will be considered by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in due course. In the meantime, Quail Island is not Aboriginal land nor could it become such unless the Commissioner so recommended and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs agreed.

    1. Expert advice extending over a number of years has confirmed that Quail Island continues to be used as a turtle breeding ground and that RAAF bombing activities have not significantly interfered with the turtle breeding patterns. Further studies have been undertaken into this and other environmental aspects.
  3. Quail Island is a properly proclaimed bombing practice area. The existence of a range for live bombing practice is an essential requirement for the proper conduct of operational training for the RAAF. In the absence of a suitable alternative range, I can give no undertaking which will prevent Quail Island from being used for practice bombing.

Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security (Question No. 1073)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

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

As the original terms of reference of the Royal Commission into the Intelligence and Security Services of the Australian Government were confined to the Australian Services and as the Minister for Administrative Services said on 3 1 May 1 977, in reply to a question asked by Senator Brown, that the Royal Commission stayed strictly within the original terms of reference, how could the Prime Minister say in his press statement on 24 May 1977 that the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Hope’s, investigation included the activities of foreign intelligence services in Australia.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

In stating that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security were ‘. . . confined to the Australian Services . . . the honourable senator makes an assumption about the terms of reference of Mr Justice Hope’s inquiry which he will find would not be supported by study of the terms of reference taken as a whole which were incorporated in Hansard ( page 1 675 ) on 3 1 May 1977.

Australian Government Publishing Service Offices (Question No. 1075)

Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the total sales figures from each office of the Australian Government Publishing Service over the past three years.
  2. What are the total sales figures from the Mail Order Service of the Australian Government Publishing Service over the last three years.
  3. 3 ) What are the staff figures for each office of the Service for the same period.
  4. What are the relative sales, per head of population, in each State over the same period.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. I ) The total sales figures from each bookshop operated by the Australian Government Publishing Service over the past three years are-
  1. The total sales figures from the Mail Order Service of the Australian Government Publishing Service over the last three years are-
  1. Staff figures for each bookshop for the same period were-
  1. Mail sales figures in respect of States are not maintained. However, sales per head of population in each State from bookshops operated by the Australian Government Publishing Service over the same period are-

Report on the Underprivileged and the Law (Question No. 1083)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) What action, if any, is the Attorney-General taking to investigate the recommendations of the report on the underprivileged and the law prepared by a committee of the Law Council of Australia, referred to in the Melbourne Age dated 27 May 1977, with a view to taking legislative action.
  2. When is it likely an announcement will be made on this subject by the Government.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The matters in the report that relate to the administration of the Department of Social Security and of the Social Services Act are primarily matters for my colleague the Minister for Social Security and I refer the honourable senator to the reply given by the Minister to his question No. 1082.

The report also contains a recommendation that the Social Services Act be reprinted in a consolidated form. This is well in hand. A reprint of the Act incorporating amendments has been ordered and printer’s proof copies are expected to be available soon.

Katherine Meat works (Question No. 1089)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 2 June 1 977: (1)IstheMinister aware that cattle producers in the Katherine area of the Northern Territory are critical of prices paid by the local meatworks.

  1. Is any action being taken by the Minister or the Government to ensure that the producer receives a fair price and that the tendency of the middleman to make excessive profits is discouraged.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. I am aware that certain cattle producers have been critical of the prices offered by Katherine Meatworks this year and in past years. Recent critical statements have, however, not been substantiated by subsequent investigation. In spite of these isolated critical remarks bookings for cattle to be slaughtered at the meatworks remain at a satisfactory level.
  2. The price offered to cattlemen by the meatworks is governed primarily by the prices obtained on the American market which has been very soft since the beginning of the season. Prices are also governed by the operating costs of the meatworks of which labour is by far the greatest component. In these circumstances the Government regards the price offered to cattlemen as a matter of commercial judgment.

Coal-based Motor Spirit Plant (Question No. 1091)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 3 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) What investigations have been carried out in Australia to examine the possibility of setting up a coal-based motor spirit plant in Australia.
  2. If a study has been carried out and it has proved feasible, what would the capital outlay be and what effect could it have in providing fuel in future years in Australia.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

While CSIRO and other agencies within my portfolio have not been involved directly in any investigations of this proposal, I know that the Minister for National Resources has the matter under consideration. In this connection, his department arranged for a delegation of West German industrialists to visit Australia earlier this year when I understand meaningful discussions took place with mining interests and State Governments. For more detailed information, I would refer the honourable senator to the answer provided by the Minister for National Resources to a question without notice from Mr O’Keefe on 25 May 1977.

Home Savings Grant Scheme (Question No. 1093)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 3 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many applications have been made in 1977 for grants under the new Home Savings Grant Scheme.
  2. How many applicants were successful and how much money has been, or will be, paid out in respect of these applicants.
  3. How many staff are employed, and in which offices around Australia, to administer this Scheme.
  4. What is the estimated total cost of administering the new Scheme.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: () To 16 June 1977, 10 194 applications were received under the Homes Savings Grant Act 1976 since its commencement on 1 January. The application rate increased steadily over the period, and by 16 June had reached a rate in excess of 40 000 per annum.

  1. To 16 June 1977, 7035 applications have been successful and 1 18 failed to qualify. The remainder are in process. At an average grant of $650, successful applications represent expenditure of $4,573,000.
  2. Staff administering the new Home Savings Grant Scheme also administer the Homes Savings Grant Act 1964, and some of them also perform other duties. The total number of such staff is 109, deployed as follows:
  1. The annual salary cost for staff referred to in Part (3) is approximately $1,1 47,000.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly: Travelling Allowance Paid to Members (Question No. 1095)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 3 June 1977:

What is the quantum of Travelling Allowance paid to each Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory for the period 1 July 1976 to 31 December 1976?

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The question refers to the disposal of funds under the control of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. However, during the relevant period, members of the Legislative Assembly were entitled to a travelling allowance of $41 per diem and I am advised that travelling allowances paid to all members over this period totalled $24,373.50. As would be expected the bulk of such funds were paid to those Executive Members and representatives of electorates located outside Darwin.

East Timor: Jamming of Radio Transmissions

Senator Carrick:
LP

- Senator Mcintosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice, on 24 May 1977.

My question refers to reports on jamming of messages from East Timor on 14 and 18 May. Is the Government aware of such incidents of jamming? Can he state whether such jamming emanated from any source in Australia? Further, can he assure the public that no Australian Government agency or individuals were involved in such jamming?

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

Investigations have failed to disclose any evidence of jamming or indeed any evidence that would suggest that any Australian Government agency or individual was involved in jamming of radio transmissions either to or from East Timor.

Brisbane City Council Transport Services (Question No. 565)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Minister investigated the claim by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, referred to in an article in the Courier-Mail dated 14 April 1977, that the Queensland Government seemed reluctant to hand over $7,085,000’ it had received from the Federal Government for Brisbane bus transport; if so, what are the details.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes, this issue was raised by the Minister for Transport with out colleague the Minister for Administrative Services. The Minister for Administrative Services has recently written to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane providing the following details of Queensland ‘s claims for 1 974-75.

The Special Grant paid to Queensland for the year 1 974-75 was $24m. The amount of this Special Grant would have been $16,915,000 had the losses on the Brisbane City Council’s transport undertaking for that year not been taken into account’.

The disbursement of these funds is however the responsibility of the Queensland Government.

Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for Transport (Question No. 879)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister repesenting the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister; if so,

what are they.

b ) who are the bankers for each authority and

which, if any, of the authorities may be termed ‘statutory authorities of a business nature ‘.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. –

    1. 1 ) Australian National Airlines Commission ( trading as Trans- Australia Airlines).
    2. ) Australian National Railways Commission.
    3. Australian Shipping Commission (trading as Australian National Line).

  2. –

    1. Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, 223 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
    2. ) Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, 96 King William Street, Adelaide.
    3. Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, 367 Collins Street, Melbourne.

  3. All three.

Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Question No. 889)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister if so, (a) what are they, (b) who are the bankers for each authority and (c) which, if any, of the authorities may be termed ‘statutory authorities of a business nature ‘.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The following statutory authorities are responsible to me: Australian Broadcasting Commission, Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Australian Postal Commission, Australian Telecommunications Commission and Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia).
  2. and (c) The first two authorities use the Reserve Bank of Australia and the other three which could be termed statutory authorities of a business nature’ use the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia for normal banking business. Some post offices maintain field accounts with a nearby branch of a bank, selected on a basis of ease of access and availability of those services required by post offices e.g. night safe services.

Brisbane Suburban Railway Electrification (Question No. 918)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

Has the Queensland Government made formal submission to the Federal Government concerning Brisbane rail electrification; if so,

a ) what are the details,

what response has the Federal Government made to the submission; and

what funds, if any, have so far been provided for the project.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes, since the inception of the Urban Public Transport Program in 1973-74 the Queensland Government has requested assistance in each year of the program for projects associated with Brisbane suburban rail electrification. The Queensland Government has requested assistance in 1977-78 for the approval of further works associated with this program.

Assistance requested by the Queensland Government in 1977-78 for Brisbane rail electrification comprises the acquisition of rolling stock vehicles for the electrified rail system, track improvements, electrification of track between Mayne to Northgate and construction of the Ferny Grove flyover.

The Budget provides $5.0m for new projects in 1977-78 under the Urban Public Transport Agreement. The allocation of available funds to specific projects is currently under consideration and I expect to announce details shortly.

Details of Commonwealth funds provided for Brisbane rail electrification projects and funds advanced to 30 June 1977 under the Urban Public Transport Program for these projects are listed in the table below.

Mr and Mrs H. W. Fancher: Tapping of Telephone (Question No. 940)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Does the Minister have any reason to believe that the telephone of Mr and Mrs H. W. Fancher has been tapped, as was claimed by Mrs Aileen Fancher in the Townsville Bankruptcy Court on 17 May 1977, reported in the Courier-Mail dated 18 May 1977; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) what action is the Minister taking on this matter.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

No.

Brisbane Suburban Railway Electrification (Question No. 943)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

Did the Federal Government have a responsibility for meeting two-thirds of the total cost of purchasing 39 electric passenger rail cars for the Queensland Railways, as was claimed by the Queensland Minister for Transport, Mr Hooper, as reported in the Courier-Mail dated 1 8 May 1 977;

a ) what are the details; and

why did the Federal Government renegue on its undertaking.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Government has no commitment at this stage to assist the Queensland Government with the acquisition of the 39 electric passenger rail cars for Brisbane’s suburban rail system.

Amnesty International Report on Torture: Foreign Aid Program (Question No. 1060)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

To which of the countries, named by Amnesty International as systematically practising torture, does Australia give foreign aid?

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The 1973 Amnesty International Report on Torture, updated in 1975, does not provide a list of countries said to use torture ‘systematically’. It did, however, investigate allegations of torture in recent years in over 60 countries.

Countries listed in the report under the heading ‘World Survey of Torture: the Nature of Evidence’ as having allegedly used torture and to which Australia gave bilateral aid in 1976-77, are

Africa

Ethiopia; Ghana; Malawi; Mozambique; Tanzania; Uganda; Zambia.

Europe

Cyprus; Turkey.

Middle East

Egypt; Iran.

Asia

India; Republic of Korea; Indonesia; Pakistan; Philippines; Sri Lanka; Vietnam.

Americas

Brazil; Chile; Guatemala; Mexico; Peru.

Provision of this information should not be taken as implying that the Minister concurs in the judgments made by Amnesty International.

Aviation Divisions of Department of Transport: Resignations (Question No. 1084)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

Have there been numerous resignations from the Aviation Division of the Department of Transport in the past 18 months, as was suggested by Mr John Stackhouse on the PM program on 1 1 May 1977; if so,

what are the details.

how does the resignation rate during the past eighteen months compare with the average rate of resignations during the previous five years, and

what is the reason for the situation referred to by Mr Stackhouse.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The rate of resignations in the Aviation Divisions of the Department of Transport has fallen over the past eighteen months. Details are shown in (b) below.
  2. Resignations for 18 month period 1 January 1976 to 30 June 1977 totalled 871, i.e. 580 per annum. Annual resignations over five year period 1 January 1 97 1 to 30 December 1 975 averaged 932.
  3. Although the resignation rate has dropped, retirements on age and invalidity grounds have increased. The Aviation Divisions expanded after World War II and were largely staffed by exservicemen, who are now at or approaching retirement age and are retiring at age or on the grounds of invalidity. The introduction of the new Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme on 1 July 1976 has also had some influence on the retirement rate.

Department of Transport: Review of Procedures (Question No. 1085)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

Has the Minister undertaken any review of procedures within the Department of Transport since the severe criticism of the administration of the Department by an aviation and defence correspondent John Stackhouse on the PM program of May 1977; if so, what are the details.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Procedures of all types in the Department of Transport are under continual review and the results promulgated through the usual channels of communication.

Air Services to Bali (Question No. 1092)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) What reasons have prompted the Government to allocate charter rights on the Western Australia-Bali route to MacRobenson Miller Airline Services, a subsidiary of Ansett Airlines of Australia.

    1. Is this not a marked departure from established Government airline policy laid down over many years.
  2. ) Why has Qantas Airways Limited not received even a firm reply to its application to operate a scheduled service on this route.
  3. Can this decision be taken as a precedent for the allocation of regional air traffic routes to domestic airlines at the expense of Qantas, the traditional carrier.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Dampier Golf Club and the Port Hedland Sports and Recreation Council applied for approval of charter flights by MacRobertson Miller Airlines to Bali. As these applications complied with established Government airline policy on charter operations they were approved, subject to the usual policy requirements for affinity charter flights.
  2. No.
  3. Qantas Airways Limited has authority to operate scheduled services from Perth to Bali. The Qantas board p roposed that, to meet the wishes of the residents of the Pilb ara area for direct scheduled services to Bali, it be permitted to operate through a Pilbara airport with Boeing 707 aircraft. The Board was advised in March that the only airport which may be suitable was Learmonth, but both operational and facilitational problems existed with use of this airport. The Qantas board was informed in late July that after a full review of the problems associated with the use of Learmonth for international scheduled services I had to refuse the company’s application.
  4. No.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 1036)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

Will funding be available under the Community Youth Support Scheme after 30 June 1 977; if not, why not.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Yes.

Great Barrier Reef Waters: Oil Exploration (Question No. 1037)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources the following question, upon notice, on 27 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Is it necessary for the Queensland Government to seek approval from the Commonwealth Government prior to granting oil exploration leases in waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef; if so, what are the details.
  2. Has the Queensland Government sought approval from the Commonwealth Government for exploration lease applications from Gulf Oil or from any other company; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) has Commonwealth Government approval been granted.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Under the 1967 Commonwealth-State Offshore Petroleum Agreement a State government is required to consult the Commonwealth Government, inter alia, before an exploration permit under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 is granted or renewed. The details are set out in clause 1 1 of the Agreement.
  2. In accordance with the Agreement and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, exploration permits Q/4P, Q/5P, Q/6P and Q/7P were issued to the Australian Gulf Oil Company on 1 September 1968. The initial 6 year terms of these permits expired on 31 August 1974. In addition two exploration permits were issued over areas of the Torres Strait adjacent to the northernmost extent of the Great Barrier Reef on 1 October 1968. These are Q/10P granted to California Asiatic Oil Company and Texaco Overseas Petroleum, and Q/11P, granted to Gulf Interstate Overseas Limited. The initial terms of these permits expired on 30 September 1974.

The companies applied for renewal of the permits in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and these applications were referred to the Commonwealth by the Queensland Designated Authority. Taking into account the recommendations of the Royal Commissions into Exploratory and Production Drilling for Petroleum in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef, the Commonwealth has deferred its decision on the renewal applications.

The previous Government banned oil drilling in the Reef Area pending research into possible effects of oil on the ecosystems of the Reef. Since the change of government Commonwealth Departments have been examining the nature of the research that might be appropriate in the context of the Royal Commissions’ recommendations. The examination has not been completed and thus no decisions have been taken by the Government in this regard.

Minister for Education: Cancellation of Visit to South East Asia (Question No. 1038)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 May 1 977:

Has the Minister recently cancelled a visit to South East Asia; if so, (a) when was the trip first planned, (b) when was the trip to take place, (c) what was the reason for the visit, (d) what itinerary was planned for the visit and (e) why has the visit been cancelled.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes. (a) and (b) I had proposed to make a visit to South East Asia to coincide with the Twelfth Conference of the South East Asian Ministers of Education Council, which was held in Jakarta from 3-7 March 1977.I was not able to do so and subsequently decided to visit the member countries of the Council from the end of May.

I had been invited to attend the Conference as the appropriate ministerial representative of Australia, which is an

Associate Member of the South East Asian Ministers of Education Organisation (SEAMEO). Attendance at this Conference and the extension of my visit to include other South East Asian countries in the SEAMEO region would have enabled me to hold discussions with fellow Ministers of Education in the region and to come to a better understanding of educational developments in South East Asia. I believe such a visit would be of value in promoting further educational cooperation in the region.

A firm itinerary for the visit to the five countries had not been developed on either occasion.

Rather than being cancelled, the visit has been postponed as a result of unavoidable commitments, and I still hope to be able to visit South-East Asia at some appropriate time in the future.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Counter Staff (Question No. 1039)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

With respect to the Minister’s reply to Senate question No. 71 concerning training for counter staff employed in offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, can the Minister advise when the off-the-job training program is likely to be introduced.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The off-the-job training program for counter staff employed in offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service is now available in all Regional offices of the Department and will be introduced progressively over the next few months.

Questions on Notice (Question No. 1040)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 May 1977:

What will be the cost of providing an answer to (a) question No. 1033 and (b) question No. 1034 asked by Senator Lewis on 26 May 1977.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

As mentioned in my reply to question No. 1033 I have taken steps to obtain for a trial period during the next session of Parliament estimates of the cost of preparing answers to questions directed to me on notice. However as no costing procedures are yet in operation I am not in a position to provide the information sought by the honourable senator.

Question No. 1034 was, of course, directed to another Minister.

Australian Government Publishing Service: Price of Publications (Question No. 1043)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

What publications and Acts sold to the public, through the Australian Government Publishing Service, have had their prices increased, and by how much, since 1 3 April 1977.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

There have been no increases in charges for Acts or other publications sold to the public by the Australian Government Publishing Service since 13 April 1977.

Mr I. Salemi: Application for Residence Permit (Question No. 1048)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What were the factors in the Minister’s letter of 29 July 1976, to Mr Ignazio Salemi, which influenced his decision not to grant permanent residence to Mr Salemi.
  2. How much, if any, of the costs were awarded against (a) Mr Salemi and (b) the Government, in the recent High Court appeal by Mr Salemi.
  3. How much public money has been spent by the Government since 29 July 1976, in the way of lawyers’ fees, complete court costs and administration costs in the Minister’s efforts to deport Mr Salemi.
  4. How does the Minister justify such expenditure at a time when the Government is advocating cuts in Government expenditure, and when vital projects go un-financed.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The factors were that Mr Salemi was a prohibited immigrant as his temporary entry permit had expired, he was not eligible under amnesty and he was not eligible on occupational or family re-union criteria for the grant of resident status.

  2. (a) Following Mr Salemi ‘s successful appeal against the initial decision by Mr Justice Gibbs that his Statement of Claim should be struck out costs were awarded against the Government. These were calculated at $2,770.50.

    1. The final judgment given in favour of the Government awarded all costs involved in that hearing against Mr Salemi. These have not yet been calculated.
  3. and (4) No deportation order has been signed against Mr Salemi, nor has he been threatened with deportation. The High Court action was instigated by Mr Salemi.

Mental Hospitals (Question No. 1052)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 31 May 1977:

What is the Government’s attitude to mental hospitals, in view of the Labor Party’s new health plan which proposes to abolish mental institutions.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

In answering the honourable senator’s question it should first be said that any decision to abolish mental institutions would have to be taken by State governments. The Commonwealth Government’s attitude concerning mental hospitals is inherent in its overall health policy which is to develop the most efficient and effective services possible to meet need.

As pan of this policy many community based alternativesto acute treatment in psychiatric hospitals, and to long term care in large remote mental institutions, have already been provided. Numbers in these institutions are continuing to decrease. There is also a strong move among health professionals for the integration of mental health services within the general health services. Already a considerable amount of psychiatry is practised in the wards of general hospitals.

The Government is committed to the best possible services for the mentally ill. This development will greatly reduce the need for mental institutions, but hasty abolition would be against the interests of patients.

Wave Power: United Kingdom Trials (Question No. 1055)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

Is the Minister aware of the ‘Nodding Ducks’ trial at Loch Ness for tapping wave power as a source of energy; if so, is there to be research on the implementation of the scheme in Australia, with particular reference to the Northern Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

In May 1976 the United Kingdom Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for Energy announced a f lm, two-year feasibility study to assess the possibility of extracting energy from waves around Britain’s coast.

One of the four devices being studied is the Salter Duck, which is a type of oscillating vane, which, due to its shape, has the possibility of being able to extract a high percentage of the incident wave energy. These devices rock to and fro with the waves and have, therefore, been referred to as ‘nodding ducks’.

The United Kingdom has one of the world’s most favoured coastlines for wave power. Availability of this form of energy throughout the year is high and tends to coincide with the pattern of seasonal demand for electricity. Australia is not so favourably endowed.

For this reason, I believe that, at this time, it would be more advantageous for Australian scientists to maintain a watching brief on the experiments being conducted in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, than for similar research to be initiated in this country.

Central Intelligence Agency (Question No. 1063)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 31 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government received any information as to when the report of investigations in the United States of America into the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency in Australia will be released.
  2. Is it intended that the Australian Government receive a copy of the report; if so, will the Prime Minister undertake to provide all senators with a copy of the full report as soon as possible after it is provided to the Government.
  3. 3 ) Has the Australian Government asked for, or received, a complete transcript of evidence in the Boyce/Fox trials, plus a copy of their alleged confessions.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

The honourable senator’s question on notice is almost identical to the one she asked without notice on 3 1 May 1977 (Hansard page 1670). I refer her to my statement on this subject on 24 May (House of Representatives Hansard, pages 1695-1696) and draw attention to the assurance given to me personally by President Carter in Washington recently that the CIA has no intelligence operations in Australia that are not shared by and well known to the Australian Government.

Maternity and Paternity Leave for Commonwealth Employees (Question No. 1072)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 1 June 1 977:

  1. Does the Government intend to abolish paternity leave and severely curtail maternity leave; if so, (a) on what evidence of abuse did the Government base these decisions; (b) what consultations did the Government have with relevant unions relating to these decisions, and (c) will the changes be made by Parliamentary legislation or merely by Executive action.
  2. Will a full 52 weeks maternity leave, including 12 weeks paid leave, be available to mothers who qualify under the new provisions.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable senator to my press statement of 27 May 1977 concerning proposed changes to maternity and paternity leave provisions for Commonwealth employees.

Fraser Island: Mineral Reserves (Question No. 1076)

Senator Martin:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

What is the estimated tonnage in the ground at Fraser Island of (a) rutile, (b) zircon, (c) ilmenite, and (d) monazite.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Bureau of Mineral Resources has assessed that demonstrated recoverable reserves, based on a recovery rate of 85-90% of mineral in the ground, are:

732 000 tonnes

740 000 tonnes

2 950 000 tonnes

7 000 tonnes.

Pregnancy Tests: Information Sought by Medical Benefits Fund of Australia (Question No. 1087)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a claim reputedly made by a Cairns medical practitioner, referred to in the Courier-Mail dated 27 May 1977, that doctor-patient confidences are being breached by the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd when seeking unnecessary information from applicants for refunds on pregnancy test ante-natal examination; if so (a) has the Minister investigated this claim; if so, what are the details, and (b) what further action does the Minister intend taking on this matter.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I have had investigations made into the matter raised by the honourable senator. I am advised that it was a long standing practice of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited (Queensland) to instruct staff at claims payment centres to seek information on claims involving pregnancy tests. Where it was found that these tests proved positive the contributors membership book was endorsed accordingly to allow subsequent claims for obstetric benefits to be correctly identified and properly assessed.

The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited (Queensland) has been advised that this practice is an invasion of personal privacy, and has now withdrawn its instruction to claims payment centres so that this information will not be sought from contributors in the future.

Grants for Aboriginal Advancement

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1977: (Question No. 896)

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in south western Queensland in the shires of Bulloo, Murweh, Paroo.and Quilpie since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December i 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 897)
  5. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in south-east Queensland in the Cities of Ipswich, Toowoomba, Brisbane, and Redcliffe since December 1969.
  6. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and /or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  7. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  8. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 898) ( ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in central Queensland in the Cities of Rockhampton and Gladstone since December 1969.
  9. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  10. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  11. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 899)
  12. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in central Queensland in the Shires of Banana, Broadsound, Calliope, Duaringa, Fitzroy, Livingstone, Miriam Vale, Monto, Mount Morgan, and Taroom since December 1969.
  13. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  14. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  15. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 900)
  16. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Darling Downs area of Queensland in the Shires of Goondiwindi, Allora, Cambooya, Chinchilla, Stanthorpe, and Tara since December 1 969.
  17. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  18. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  19. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 901)
  20. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Roma Division of Queensland in the Shires of Roma, Balonne, Bendemere, Booringa, Bungil, and Warroo since December 1969.
  21. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  22. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  23. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 902)
  24. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Shires and Cities of Biggenden, Burrum, Eidsvold, Bundaberg, Maryborough, Gympie, Gayndah, Isis, Kilkivan, Kolan, Mundubbera, Murgon, Nanango, Noosa, Perry, Widgee, Wondai, Woocoo, and Woongarra since December 1969.
  25. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  26. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  27. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 903)
  28. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Central Western Division of Queensland Shires of Aramac, Barcaldine, Bauhima, Belyands, Blackall, Emerald, Jericho, Longreach, Peak Downs, and Tambo since December 1969.
  29. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  30. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  31. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 904)
  32. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Far Western Division of Queensland in the Shires of Bacoo, Boulia, Diamantina, and Winton since December 1 969.
  33. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  34. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  35. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 90S)
  36. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Mackay Division of Queensland in the Cities and Shires of Mackay, Mirani, Nebo, Pioneer, Proserpine, and Sarina since December 1969.
  37. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  38. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  39. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 906)
  40. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Cairns Division of Queensland in the Cities and Shires of Cairns, Atherton, Cardwell, Douglas, Eacham, Herberton, Hinchinbrook, Johnstone, Mareeba, and Mulgrave since December 1969.
  41. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and /or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  42. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  43. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 907)
  44. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Shires of Cook and Torres since December 1969.
  45. 2 ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  46. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  47. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 908)
  48. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Townsville Division of Queensland in the Cities and Shires of Townsville, Charters Towers, Ayr, Bowen, Dalrymple and Thuringowa since December 1 969.
  49. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  50. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  51. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area. (Question No. 909)
  52. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the North Western Division of Queensland in the Shires and Cities of Mount lsa, Cloncurry, Burke, Carpentaria, Croydon, Etheridge, Flinders, McKinlay and Richmond since December 1969.
  53. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  54. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  55. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1977: (Question No. 1080)

  1. 1 ) How many organisations in Australia receive funds to finance their activities in the Aboriginal field.
  2. What is the name and location of each organisation and what amounts has each organisation received in each of the past three years.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has supplied the following answer to parts one and two of Senator Keeffe ‘s questions and to Senator Kilgariff ‘s question:

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 August 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770817_senate_30_s74/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant