Senate
23 February 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 89

PETITIONS

Loans to Pensioners for Home Maintenance

Senator RYAN:
ACT

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

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on the 30 June 1978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at the 30 June 1977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

As this petition exceeds 250 words in length I do not propose to ask that it be read.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:

Loans to Pensioners for Home Maintenance

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on the 30 June 1978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4, 120 couples as at the 30 June 1977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

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

Petition received.

page 89

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 89

QUESTION

ANTARCTIC: AUSTRALIAN FISHING ZONE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, although he may feel that another Minister should answer the question. Will the proposed legislation to enable the proclamation of an Australian fishing zone of living marine resources up to 200 nautical miles include a similar claim in respect of waters off Australia’s Antarctic territory? If such is the case, will this in any way restrict Australia’s negotiating position at the international conference on the Antarctic to be held in Canberra next week?

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

– It is Australia’s intention to declare the 200 nautical mile limit so far as its territorial waters are concerned but no decision has been taken in relation to waters surrounding our Antarctic territory. A conference will be held next week mainly to discuss conservation matters in relation to waters off Antarctica. Probably that discussion will result in some arrangement whereby conservation matters concerning waters surrounding Antarctica can be discussed. The brief answer to the honourable senator’s question is that at this moment Australia does not intend to declare its claim over the waters surrounding Antarctica.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Will Senator Webster clarify what he has just said? Are we to understand that the Government has made a decision that it does not intend to claim the fisheries and living resources zone in the waters off the Antarctic? I understand from what the Minister said in the earlier part of his answer that a decision has not been taken. Can the Minister clarify the position as to whether a decision has or has not been taken? Has the Government made a firm decision and, if so, what is the decision?

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Government has made a firm decision relating to the waters surrounding Australia but it has not made a decision in relation to waters surrounding our territory in Antarctica.

page 90

QUESTION

EDUCATION: SOCIAL SCIENCES PROGRAM

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Education. Has the Minister seen a newspaper report that the Queensland Government has banned a social sciences program in its schools? Can he say whether the report is correct? Can he say what is the nature and the origin of the program?

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for Education · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I saw an item in one of the newspapers this morning reporting that a project called SEMP- the Social Education Materials Project- had been banned yesterday by the Queensland Government. I have no details as to the nature of that action. The program was started many years ago in the early 1970s. It was in fact taken up by the then Whitlam Government and after that shepherded by the Curriculum Development Centre. It is a program that has had the involvement of all

State governments, all State education departments, of educators and churchmen.

Because I think it will be a matter of some keen public interest in the days ahead I propose to do two things. First I propose to circulate, I hope by later today, to all honourable senators and members a factual paper of the background of the program. Secondly with your cooperation, Mr President, I also would like to find some space in this building to display a range of the program. There is, I think, a genuine public interest in matters relating to social education and social science as well as in the question of social values, community values, and whether, in schools, programs exceed the limits that one may judge. I do not propose to enter into a discussion on that aspect at this moment. However, I hope as a first step to inform all honourable senators and members and the public of the facts as far as I can before we enter into further discussion on the matter.

page 90

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to reports of grave disquiet in the United States Congress regarding the development of a nuclear industry in the Philippines, particularly an article in the Australian Financial Review of 10 February, which reads:

According to congressional critics of the plan, the 620,000- kilowatt reactor is being built close to an active volcano, close to a potential hot mud flow, possibly near a fault line and close to the Subic Bay naval base where more than 3,000 American families live.

I also refer the Minister to a statement by Mr Anthony on 1 7 November of last year when he said that he believed that Australia should supply uranium to the Philippines and said that it wants 3,000 tonnes from us.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise to a point of order. The Standing Orders say quite clearly that in asking a question an honourable senator is not to give information. The honourable senator is not only giving information but also using Question Time as a propaganda forum in order to have an outlet.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you aware of that Standing Order, Senator Button?

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes, I am. The statement went on to say:

It is very important for the Philippines. They have -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is giving information.

Senator BUTTON:

– With respect, Mr President, I am quoting what the Minister for Trade and Resources said. I propose to ask a question about it.

Senator Withers:

– You are still giving information.

Senator BUTTON:

– In that case I ask the Minister Is it the intention of the Australian Government to make uranium available to the Philippines, as indicated by the Minister for Trade and Resources? Has the Government conducted any inquiry of the type that is being conducted as a matter of great concern by the United States Congress?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Not being an avid reader of the Financial Review–

Senator Button:

– Or anything.

Senator WITHERS:

– Or anything, especially Labor publications like the Financial Review, I would not know what was in it.

Senator Brown:

– How do you know if you do not read it?

Senator WITHERS:

– The honourable senator would be surprised. I have no direct information on what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised concerning the building of a nuclear reactor in the Philippines. The Government’s views on the countries to which it is prepared to sell uranium are quite well known. Such sales are subject to the Commonwealth Government being satisfied that the proper, adequate and stringent safeguards that Australia will require will be enforced in the country to which we sell. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised a number of matters of which I have no direct knowledge. I will seek information from my colleague the Minister for Trade and Resources and let him have a reply at the earliest possible moment.

page 91

QUESTION

FILM: GROWING UP

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. It is in four parts. Firstly, is the Minister aware of a series of films produced by Film Australia entitled Growing Upl Secondly, are those films available for showing in schools? Thirdly, has there been any criticism by parents or others of the content of those films? Fourthly, are the films a part of the material produced by the Department of Education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the existence of a series of films produced by Film Australia entitled Growing Up primarily because I have received a range of correspondence that I think is from mature people criticising some of the content of the films. I suppose that is inevitable anyhow when one enters into what is basically, I imagine, a group of films aimed, if I can put it in the broader compass, at sex education. Therefore it does raise, of course, the question of individual values and whether the programs conform with what the community feels ought to be desirable. Indeed, some people whom I have judged to be mature have expressed to me the view that the films themselves go far beyond what would be accepted as normal social values. I cannot adjudicate. I have not seen them. I have asked my Department to look at them and see whether that is so. I understand that they have been made available for showing at some schools. Of course, it is a matter for the decision of the schools themselves as to whether they use them. They are not part of the Depanment of Education. In case there is some link- and I could understand it- with my Department in what will obviously become a public discussion on these values, I should say that the films are not in any way connected with the Curriculum Development Centre or my Department. They are produced by Film Australia on its own initiative and come under another department.

page 91

QUESTION

MIGRANT WORKERS: UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question deals with problems facing migrant workers who are unemployed and is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Does the Minister recognise that migrant workers face difficulty in comprehending the complexities of the work test, the restrictions on unemployment benefit, and the operation of the appeals system? Will the Minister, with her colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, put together a simplified account of procedures and penalties in different languages, as recommended in the Myers report?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I would be happy to consult my colleague in order to assist migrants in any way to receive the benefits to which they are entitled through my Department. A number of pamphlets in different languages are produced on the range of pensions and benefits available. The interpreter service works closely with my Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which now has within it a migrant services section which has the responsibility of advising migrants on the matters referred to in the honourable senator’s question. We have experimented with ethnic communities performing the services as an alternative to the services being performed by government departments. As the Governor-General’s Speech foreshadowed, this sort of activity is to be increased in the future as the pilot programs show the ways in which we are able to assist migrants with information on the range of government programs that might be of assistance to them. However, I have taken note of the suggestion that my colleague and I should consult specifically with regard to the work testing procedures and the appeals system within the Department of Social Security. I will ascertain whether further information can be given, either in a pamphlet or through the ethnic Press, which may be of immediate assistance to migrants.

page 92

QUESTION

NATIONAL RESERVES AND PARKS

Senator SIR MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Has Senator Carrick noted the arrival in Australia of Professor Mellanby, who is lecturing upon environmental matters in relation to the use of national reserves and parks? Has he noted the Professor’s observations on those who adopt extreme views about national parks? Will the Minister discuss with his colleague in another place the possibility of inviting Professor Mellanby to Parliament House in order that senators and members may obtain some relief from the monotonous drum beat of Dr Mosely and other extremists? Will the Minister consult his colleague in another place and Senator Mulvihill and use his good offices to get Professor Mellanby to Parliament House in order to enlighten our minds further?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have read media reports of the presence in Australia of Professor Mellanby. To the extent that the media reports have commented on his statements, they are available to me. I think it is a good idea that one should make available all sides of public dialogue. I am sure that Senator Mulvihill, who has an interest in this matter, would not object to somebody coming to Parliament House even if that person were to express views diametrically opposed to his own. I will bring the suggestion to the attention of my colleage in another place and ask him to let the honourable senator have a reply.

page 92

QUESTION

ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. It relates to the administration of the Electoral Act. The question also has some implications for the Minister for Science, with whom I have discussed this matter on previous occasions. In relation to the entitlement to vote, am I correct in saying that, in addition to the Governor-General, persons who cannot vote in federal elections and referenda are persons under 1 8 years of age, persons who are not Australian citizens, certain persons who are in prison or in mental institutions, and Antarctic expeditioners serving in the Australian Antarctic and sub-Antarctic bases? Is there any hope that early measures can be taken to ensure that those Australians serving this country in our Antarctic bases and who are not otherwise disenfranchised are given a vote at future elections and referenda? I might say as a postscript that this matter is a sore point with people serving in our Antarctic bases, who, like their New Zealand counterparts, believe that they ought to have an opportunity to vote at elections.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-In addition to the categories which the honourable senator has mentioned there are other categories. I have received a number of representations from people all over the world who are in much the same position as the people referred to by Senator Devitt.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Some are not as isolated as others.

Senator WITHERS:

-I realise that. There is a problem relating to the time that elapses between the closing of nominations and the date of the poll. A person in the Antarctic would have to send to Australia for an application form for a postal vote. Upon its receipt he would have to complete the form and return it to his divisional returning officer, who would then send a ballot paper to Antarctica. Upon completing the ballot paper the person in Antarctica would have to return it by post to his divisional returning officer in Australia. All this would have to be done in the time from the close of nominations to ten days after the poll. Great physical difficulties attach to such a procedure. The Chief Electoral Officer has informed me that he is having this matter thoroughly investigated. I think I advised Senator Douglas McClelland last year, before the Parliament dissolved, that it was my desire to re-write the Commonwealth Electoral Act during the life of this Parliament, hopefully reasonably early. We have received representations from many people who are disadvantaged under the Electoral Act for all sorts of reasons. There is one group in Australia which is particularly disadvantaged at the moment. I refer to quadraplegics. While an illiterate person can get a vote it is almost impossible for a quadraplegic in a hospital, without a mobile polling booth, to apply for a postal vote. He must be able to sign his own name. So under the Electoral Act, which virtually has not been looked at for proper forms for the last 50 years, many people are disadvantaged and they ought to be given the opportunity of voting if they so desire. I have well in mind the problems of those in the Antarctic. I am also mindful not so much of Service personnel overseas, but of the spouses of Service personnel overseas who are disadvantaged. I also have in mind Australians abroad who tend to lose the right to vote at our national elections. I give the honourable senator my assurance that I will do all I can. I hope that when the Bill comes before the Parliament it will do so not as we have seen similar Bills introduced in recent years. I hope we will be able to bring the Bill in and leave it lying on the table for at least one period of sittings so that there will be ample opportunity for all members of Parliament, the Party organisations and the public at large to bring to bear their criticisms and comments on it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I shudder to think what might be in it.

Senator WITHERS:

-Well, Senator, it will not be like those disgraceful Daly Bills that you tried to ram through the Parliament by using the guillotine. They were rushed in one day and rushed out the next. I am saying that I wish to effect some sensible, decent electoral reform.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Gerrymanders.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator’s Party was thrashed in 1975 and thrashed again in 1977. Do not forget the Electoral Act of 1977. The criteria in that Act were the criteria which the Australian Labor Party put into the Act in 1974. It was the criterion of the Labor Party that there should be no more than a 10 per cent variation. It was the Labor Party which amended section 20 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and under that criterion the boundaries were redistributed. As I recall, the redistribution of boundaries with one exception passed through this Parliament with the support of the Oppostion. So please let us not hear the Opposition talking to us about gerrymandered boundaries. The facts are that the Opposition is the great ger.rymanderer and that it was thrashed at two general elections, irrespective of what it might have thought the boundaries were.

page 93

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE: COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OFFICERS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and

Industrial Relations say what the present position is regarding the dispute between Commonwealth Employment Service officers and the Government?

Senator Georges:

– This is a good chance to make a statement.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– This dispute is of great concern to the Government and I should have thought that it would have been of great concern to the Senate and to the community. We have a situation here where the Opposition and the unions have rightly expressed great concern about the levels of unemployment. One of the important initiatives the Government has taken in this matter has been to establish the Norgard inquiry into the Commonwealth Employment Service. When Mr Norgard reported he advocated a very great upgrading of the Commonwealth Employment Service and also the creation of a number of new positions. The Government accepted that recommendation as early as December last year and proceeded immediately to advertise those positions, which it made open to both people within the Australian Public Service and people outside the Australian Public Service. The reason it made the positions open to people outside the Public Service was that Mr Norgard had recommended that there was a need to employ in the Commonwealth Employment Service persons who had had experience in industry and commerce.

The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association is challenging that recommendation by Mr Norgard and the efforts of the Government to implement that recommendation. A number of officers are refusing to process applications from people outside the Public Service. A number of officers have been stood down. Some attempt has been made by these officers still to carry on performing partial duties, even though they’ are unpaid. These officers have been instructed by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations not to report for work until they are prepared to perform their duties as directed. The matter has been before the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator. Applications have been made to the High Court. I think that appeals from the Public Service Arbitrator are pending also.

Senator Bishop:

– One is to be heard today.

Senator DURACK:

– Yes, Senator Bishop is quite right. Perhaps he would give us the benefit also of his opinion as to the merits of the whole issue. I am simply explaining the Government’s position and why it has taken the position it has. The fact is that today another hearing is before the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator. As I have said, no doubt there will be further hearings because there are proceedings in the High Court and there are suggestions of appeals to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and so on. I do not wish to canvass matters of a legal character which might be before these tribunals. I have endeavoured to explain why the Government has taken the stand it has and why it continues to take that stand.

page 94

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: FIELD OFFICERS

Senator BROWN:

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: What duties of investigating officers in her Department will be temporarily deferred while the officers are engaged in their mission to cut down the numbers of people receiving the unemployment benefit? Further, what effect does the Minister think this disruption will have on pension and benefit claims and appeals?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The field officers in my Department have principally two duties: One is to test and check the eligibility of people who claim pensions and benefits and the other is to make personal visits to offer assistance to members of the community who might be pensioners or who might be seeking a pension or a benefit. From time to time they may be concentrated on one area of activity or they may cover the whole range of activity. At present they are principally engaged in checking the eligibility of claims for unemployment benefit. It would be seen that if they are concentrating on one area they are not at this time checking the eligibility for invalid pension, supporting mothers benefit, widows pension, age pension and other matters which would fall within their range of responsibility. This would have no effect on appeals which are conducted through the social security appeals tribunals nor would it disrupt the payment of pensions and benefits in other categories of activity.

I take this opportunity to say that much misleading publicity has been propagated by the Opposition with regard to the activities of field officers. I think the claims which were made by Opposition spokesmen overlooked the continuing nature of the duties of field officers and the administrative process in which they are engaged for those people who seek pensions and benefits. It seems that the Opposition was surprised that there were field officers. I remind honourable senators opposite that during the time they were in government they almost doubled the number of field officers engaged in the Department. This

Government has not significantly added to that number of field officers.

I also remind honourable senators opposite that their present leader, Mr Hayden, when he was Minister for Social Security released in May 1975 a statement in which he outlined the way in which he would use field officers to catch people who were abusing the unemployment benefits system. He said that he should be able to accelerate that procedure with the new numbers and new procedures which he had adopted. He said he adopted those procedures principally because he felt there were people who were trying to beat the system. I simply say that there has been no change in the way in which field officers are engaged. There has been no significant increase in the numbers of people engaged as field officers. I feel sure the Australian community accepts that my Department is responsible to see that people who are eligible to receive pensions or benefits receive them without harassment or the infringement of their privacy but that they must be eligible before the Department is able to pay them.

page 94

QUESTION

TELEPHONE COSTS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the increasing numbers of references made to the record profit of Telecom Australia and the public call for the reduction of country telephone costs. I ask: Has the Minister noted the latest of these requests from employer groups, reflected in statements in this morning’s Melbourne Age? In view of the high charges in country districts, will the Government look seriously at these divisions of telephone expenditure and give greater encouragement to those who live and work beyond the urban areas?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am well aware that there has been widely reported in the Press what, in fact, should be regarded as the gross profit of Telecom Australia and not, of course, its net profit. Because of the misunderstanding as to the nature of the amount there is a total misunderstanding of the flexibility of the institution to deal with the problems within it. Honourable senators will know that Telecom has a massive capital indebtedness and a massive borrowing program which it must bear, to a large part, internally and self-finance. So one should look at the heart of that situation before reaching a conclusion as to major flexibility. Nevertheless, I think it is important to study what Senator Davidson has said. It is true that there is growing criticism by people in the country and by country industries as to the relatively higher costs incurred. Honourable senators have directed my attention to this situation repeatedly in this and previous sessions. I think the matter is of sufficient importance to direct it to my colleague the Minister for Post and Telecommunications who is in another place. I shall ask him to study the matter and, if possible, to communicate to Telecom the desirability of helping country people and country industries to the extent that is possible. But as this is a policy matter I simply refer it to my colleague.

page 95

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. As will be recalled, last year I asked a number of questions relating to the International Year of the Child. Is she now in a position to give further information to the Senate concerning the Government’s plans for the International Year of the Child?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I do not recall whether I have previously advised the Senate that it is expected that an announcement will shortly be made concerning the name of the Executive Director of the voluntary committee that is to be established through the United Nations International Childrens Emergency Fund. The director will co-ordinate the activities of the non-government organisations. At the time of that announcement I shall also announce the names of the organisations that will be represented on the national committee of nongovernment organisations.

Also, I shall be meeting State Ministers of the relevant departments to discuss the activities that will be undertaken throughout the year. We have also formed a committee of Federal Ministers who will co-ordinate the activities at the Federal level. We have consulted UNICEF and other bodies active in promoting the celebration of the International Year of the Child and I would hope that the announcement to which I have referred will lead to the formation of a committee to undertake this work and to ensure that this Year is celebrated in the community in a way that represents a fitting contribution by Australia.

page 95

QUESTION

EXPORT OF AUSTRALIAN WINES TO JAPAN

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources to the statement by Mr Graham McKenzie, research officer of the Australian Wine Board, as reported in the Australian of 20

February 1978. that pans of the wine industry face disaster and there will be a surplus of 50,000 tonnes of top-quality grapes this year. Is the Minister aware of the almost total absence of goodquality Australian wines in Japanese hotels? What efforts is the Government making to promote the sale of Australian wines in Japan and other Asian countries with rising standards of living and expanding tourist activity?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– The honourable senator was good enough to advise me that he would be asking a question on these lines, and I have been advised by my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Resources, that he is aware that goodquality Australian wines are not readily available in Japanese hotels. The basic problem is that the Japanese Government imposes a tariff of 320 yen, equivalent to $ A 1.20, per litre on bottled still wine imports and it also levies a 50 per cent liquor tax on all wines which enter at a c.i.f. threshhold price above 770 yen or SA2.85 per litre.

The practical effect of this is that our cheaper wines enter at a reasonable price, but our goodquality wines soon become very expensive to the consumer. Over the years, the Government has without success pressed the Japanese Government to lower the tariff and the liquor tax. Recently, the Japanese reduced marginally the level of the tariff, but the basic problem remains. Despite this difficulty, joint promotional campaigns in Japan by the Department of Trade and Resources and the Australian Wine Board are conducted to create and maintain an awareness of Australian wines, promote their image and facilitate sales. Campaigns have centred on wine tastings in Japanese hotels, participation in food displays and exhibitions and the distribution of promotional literature. In addition, Australian wines as beverages are prominently featured in the regular food store promotions organised by the Department of Trade and Resources, in conjunction with major Japanese retail chains.

page 95

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: FIELD OFFICERS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Social Security is supplementary to the question asked earlier by my colleague Senator Brown concerning the work of field officers of her Department. She has stated that field officer tasks include helping people who need assistance in claiming pensions and benefits, especially those unable to call at Social Security offices to discuss their problems. Have field officers currently sent out in quest of the unemployed been instructed to help people in this way? Will the

Minister table the special directive issued to field officers in recent weeks on the current unemployment benefit exercise, to allay suspicion that officers of her Department have been instructed to carry out a punitive expedition?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I believe I was asked two questions. The first was whether field officers had been instructed to help people to gain their unemployment benefit or any pension or benefit to which they are entitled. It is part of the work of field officers as it is part of the work of the officers of the Department to see that people are aware of their entitlements. As I understand the position from time to time field officers are called to visit people who are invalided or are unable to make personal visits to the Department to have their eligibility determined. It is part of the duties of a field officer to undertake this work. Senator McLaren referred to a special directive. I shall ask the Department whether it released special instructions to field officers on this occasion and determine whether such instructions should be released publicly in the Senate.

page 96

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FISHING INDUSTRY

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Yesterday I asked a question about the approval of a joint venture fishing proposition in southern waters. I have since been approached by another group of fishermen in which a similar joint venture has been discussed. In view of the rapid changes to the world fishing resources management, will the Government withhold any joint venture approvals for the present, firstly to allow full consideration of the capacity and ability of the Australian fishing industry and its relation to the available resources and, secondly, to allow full discussion with the fishermen involved or affected?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– In my reply to Senator Archer’s question yesterday I referred to a proposal supported by the Tasmanian Government for a feasibility fishing operation on squid in Commonwealth waters in the Tasmanian region. I understand that the term ‘feasibility fishing’ arises from the recommendation of a special working group set up by the Australian Fisheries Council to report on management strategies and policies which may be employed by Australia in respect of the 200-mile fishing zone. The working group’s report recognised that there are considerable gaps in the knowledge of our fisheries resources and that the Australian fishing industry does not have the ability to explore and determine the extent of these resources.

The working group held meetings with fishing industry representatives throughout Australia. The industry itself agreed that it did not have the capacity to fish in certain areas and, in many instances, did not at this time have a real interest in them. The Australian Fisheries Council agreed. This was the substance of a Press release by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry on 16 January this year. He stated that certain feasibility fishing proposals involving Australian companies in conjunction with foreign fishing partners might be considered to enable resource determination to go ahead before the 200-mile zone was actually established.

In relation to Senator Archer’s question, the position is that the capacity and ability of the Australian fishing industry to undertake this sort of work have been examined and reported on. The key element of the working group’s report to which I have referred is that none of the foreign activities contemplated should conflict with the Australian fishing industry and that proposals for feasibility fishing or foreign activity generally should not be considered where there is a definite Australian interest.

page 96

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FISHING INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to Senator Webster and relates to the answer which he just gave to Senator Archer. Is the Minister not saying in that answer that the decision by the Tasmanian Government to enter into an agreement for the establishment of fishing resources in Tasmania is thoroughly justified and in complete conformity with the Australian Fisheries Council meeting? Is the Minister telling the Senate that there is not sufficient capacity in Australia to determine those resources and that we must seek technology and assistance from other countries on a joint basis? If that is the case, will he agree that the decision by the Tasmanian Government to proceed with fisheries resource activities in Tasmanian waters in conjunction with a Japanese company is completely justified and completely in accordance with the Council decision, a unanimous decision of all States?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I attempted to give a fairly detailed answer to Senator Archer and thought that the points I had made were clear. The honourable senator asks whether my answer indicated that the decision of the Tasmanian Government was completely justified. At no stage have I heard from the honourable senator or have I read the basis upon which the Tasmanian Government has decided to enter this proposition. I am unaware of this particular State proposal. If the Tasmanian Government has proceeded within the guidelines I referred to in my earlier reply today the honourable senator may well be able to say that the decision of the Tasmanian Government is completely justified. Whether the Tasmanian operation is within those guidelines would be a matter for decision. There is no intention that the operations should be conducted in any area where there is any Australian interest. If the honourable senator is able to declare that that is the case he may be entitled to say that Tasmania is completely justified in doing what it is doing. 1 certainly have not made the comment nor do I do so now.

page 97

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and it relates to the present dispute in the filling of positions in the Commonwealth Employment Service and the proposed employment of people from outside the Public Service.

Senator Bishop:

– It has been answered. You are too late, senator.

Senator BAUME:

– I thank the honourable senator for his assistance but will continue to ask my question. Has there been any instruction that outsiders are to be appointed to the Commonwealth Employment Service other than on merit or is the tradition of appointment on merit to be maintained whether the appointee is from inside or outside the Public Service? Is there any proposal for review procedures should appeals be desired against any particular appointment?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Baume ‘s question takes the matter further than did the previous question that was addressed to me and I am pleased to have the opportunity of giving further information on the subject despite Senator Bishop’s apparent desire that the matter should be swept under the carpet. The fact is that the Government at all times has taken and maintained the view that appointments will be on merit and there is no question but that any outside appointment would be on that basis, the applicant having to compete on the basis of merit with applicants from within the Public Service. The Government also has indicated to the unions and to those who have been concerned about this matter that any persons within the Public Service who felt that their applications had not received proper consideration could have their grievance examined by a panel on which there would be union representatives but that offer has not been taken up.

page 97

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. By way of explanation. I state that a big Victorian private health fund claims that it was told by the Federal Department of Health to increase its rates for basic medical care substantially above what the fund considered necessary. The fund says that it did as it was told and raised its rates when it took into account the deregistration powers of that Department. Has the Federal Department of Health instructed other funds to increase their charges? To which of those other funds has the instruction been given? What is the basis of the Department ‘s instruction to funds to raise their rates over what the funds themselves have considered necessary?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– There are several questions requiring specific information. I shall refer them to the Minister for Health for his attention.

page 97

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE FORCE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What are the powers of the Federal Government in relation to the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police Force? Who has responsibility for such matters as his appointment, suspension or dismissal?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police Force is a permanent public servant employed under the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. The powers of the Commonwealth Government in relation to this officer are the same as they are in relation to all other permanent public servants and matters such as appointment, suspension, resignation or dismissal are governed by the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act.

I think the honourable senator and, for that matter, all honourable senators would know from there general knowledge of the Commonwealth Public Service Act- I do not think that any of us claim to have a detailed knowledge of that Act- that very strict procedures are laid down in the Public Service Act and these must be followed before a person may be dismissed. From memory, I think the first step that must occur is the suspension of the person concerned. I think there are statutory rights of appeal to persons who hold judicial office.

Senator Young:

– Statutory rights of appeal?

Senator WITHERS:

– I think there are, even at the stage of suspension, statutory rights of appeal to magistrates or other people holding some judicial office. Even should the act of suspension move to the act of dismissal, I think again there are proper appeal provisions within the Public Service Act. I think I am roughly correct in what I am saying.

The procedure followed in the Commonwealth area is different from that followed in some of the States. I have no knowledge of what the conditions are in respect of other police commissioners although I have a feeling that in my own State of Western Australia the only way in which a police commissioner can be dismissed is by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, lt has been generally held that persons holding this office should enjoy a great deal of independence from arbitrary acts of the executive government. I think that, if a police force is to maintain any standing in this country, it is very important that the head of that police force ought to be able to act in an independent manner and without fear or favour in respect of arbitrary dismissal.

Senator Bishop:

– I rise to a point of order. My point of order relates to the matters about which Senator Withers is talking. At present a royal commission in South Australia is looking into questions which obviously are the origin of Senator Young’s question. I suggest to the Leader of the Government that he should have regard to the royal commission which is presently attending to these matters. If any honourable senator wants to make a submission before the royal commission he can do so.

Senator WITHERS:

– On the point of order, at no time did I mention the royal commission or the events in South Australia. I was answering the question in a very general sense. In fact, I had finished my answer. Really, I cannot understand why Senator Bishop should get so excited unless he, in common with the vast majority of South Australians, is thoroughly ashamed of the actions of the Premier of that State.

page 98

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that prior to 1977 employees who had not qualified for full annual leave entitlement at the time of the annual leave close-down at their place of employment could register for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service to receive the unemployment benefit for the period they had no income but were prepared to accept any employment offered? Has that practice now been discontinued? When were the branches of the Department of Social Security notified of the change.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I shall investigate the question that has been asked. But it should be said that for a person to be entitled to the unemployment benefit that person must be unemployed. A person who is expecting to resume work after a shut-down for a holiday period is not necessarily unemployed. In some circumstancesfor example, if he had not a holiday entitlement- he would be eligible to be tested for a special benefit at that time. I understand that the Department was aware that this could arise during the holiday period and that it was expecting to deal with applications of that sort. As far as a general description of an unemployed person is concerned, a person who commenced a job in, say, December and who worked for two or three weeks before being subjected to a shutdown over the holiday period but who expected to resume work when the factory reopened is not unemployed in the strict sense of the interpretation of unemployment, but he could have access to a special benefit on that occasion. As far as the instructions to my Department are concerned, I will investigate that aspect.

page 98

QUESTION

BLUETONGUE

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. In view of the somewhat chaotic situation that has developed in the export and interstate live beef market in particular through the discovery of bluetongue in Australia, is the Minister in a position to advise the Senate of the present situation with regard to the movement of cattle both interstate and overseas? Secondly, what action is contemplated by the Government to overcome the problem? Thirdly, what contact has there been with our clients in such areas as Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Japan in regard to the matter?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The honourable senator’s question is about a subject that is very important to the stock industry in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory. May I say at the outset that I believe that the Australian scientific community deserves the greatest credit for the way that it has responded to the bluetongue sheep alert?

Senator Wriedt:

– Oh, get on with it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I note that the Leader of the Opposition wants the question to be got out of the way. Perhaps his previous knowledge of primary industry does not lead him to have the great interest that he should have to-day in this very important matter.

Senator Bishop:

– Read your notes, Mr Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will, Senator. The honourable senator who asked the question may be interested in the fact that the disease of bluetongue has not been observed in any animal in Australia under pastoral conditions. I think that is a fact that would not be recognised generally. Of course, under artificial experimental conditions the virus has caused sheep to become mildly ill. Incidentally, those sheep have recovered completely and naturally. Assessing the ability of the virus to produce illness is a very complex matter. Indeed, it will take a great deal of time to work out the extent of the problem. Most of the work is proceeding through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Division of Animal Health at the Long Pocket laboratories in Brisbane. I know that the honourable senator’s interest in this matter has made him aware of the work that has gone on.

The honourable senator asked 2 questions in relation to the movement of cattle. I am unable to answer accurately the second part of his question, which related to international markets, but I know that within Australia there are proposals to restrict movement out of the Northern Territory. I understand that the proposals are subject to acceptance by the Animal Health Committee, which is composed of representatives of the various States. When they have agreed to the proposals they will have to be approved further by the Australian Agricultural Council. It is proposed that the Northern Territory be divided into 3 areas. There is to be free movement to all destinations within Australia of cattle from the area that is basically bluetongue free. Another area would have an overall low prevalence of bluetongue. Store cattle from the properties in that area which have had positive serological tests must be tested and sprayed before thay are moved, and the fat cattle must be sprayed before they are moved. Cattle from properties within that area which have been established as being free of bluetongue can move anywhere within Australia. In the third area, that is, where bluetongue has an overall high prevalence, cattle can be moved only for slaughter, and slaughter can occur only after spraying.

I have outlined the situation in relation to movement within Australia. As to some of the markets, there has been some publicity to the effect that other countries have now commenced to accept exports from Australia. I will attempt to ascertain the actual situation in relation to the countries referred to by the honourable senator.

Senator KILGARIFF:

- Mr President. I wish to ask a supplementary question.

Senator Wriedt:

– Fair go.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– It is the first supplementary I have asked. I have not asked enough supplementary questions. Is the Minister able to assure the Senate that the Australian authorities are indicating to our overseas clients that to date bluetongue has not been found in a pastoral condition but has been found only through laboratory tests?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not in a position to respond as to the actual information being conveyed to overseas countries. I think the comment I made previously is particularly important, and I repeat it. The disease has not been observed in any animal under pastoral conditions. Nevertheless, some time ago an exotic disease was found in Australia through testing. The honourable senator will know that it was in March 1975 that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation first established that arboviruses apparently were carrying some disease which we were not able to recognise in Australia. It was necessary to carry out tests at Yale in the United States and in South Africa to establish that whilst the disease appeared to be of the bluetongue strain it was unknown to science throughout the world. The disease became known as CSIRO Strain 19, and factors now becoming evident, I think, have indicated that Australia has acted correctly on the matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The question asked whether certain information was given to overseas buyers. We are now getting a recitation of the various sheep diseases that have occurred in the past. This has no relevance to the question and is merely wasting the time of the Senate at Question Time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out that this morning only 20 questions have been asked. I stress again the necessity for questions to be presented in as brief a form as possible and for answers to be kept directly relevant to the question and as brief as possible, to enable a greater number of honourable senators to ask questions. Some honourable senators who yesterday did not have an opportunity to ask a question have not had the opportunity today. That is not a very satisfactory situation when it is considered that instead of the normal 32 or 33 questions, today we have had only 20.

page 100

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-I preface my question to the Minister for Social Security by pointing out that for a large number of the unemployed their period of unemployment is not a temporary problem between jobs and that, because the average waiting time between jobs is now five months, the unemployment benefit can no longer be considered as a short term bridging payment. I therefore ask the Minister whether she will grant automatic retention of unemployment benefit to those unemployed who are asking for their cases to be reconsidered, particularly in view of the fact that 60 per cent of them have less than $50 saved. If the Minister will not do that, how can she justify treating unemployment benefit recipients differently from other pensioners and beneficiaries whose benefits continue while their cases are under examination or appeal?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will give consideration to the suggestion contained in the question raised by Senator Primmer. With regard to the statistics quoted by the honourable senator in relation to young people and others having longer term unemployment, I agree that numbers of people are on unemployment benefit for many months. It should perhaps be said for the information of honourable senators that people who show that they are chronically unemployed- that is, those people who have been in receipt of unemployment benefit for more than 12 months- appear to be people who are over the age of 55 years and not, as some honourable senators might believe, always the younger unemployed people. With regard to the retention of benefits while an appeal is being heard, that matter could be considered but it should be understood that an unemployment benefit is temporary in the sense that a person must continually prove his eligibility for it. The Commonwealth Employment Service has a work testing procedure and eligibility must continually be proved by passing the work test. If the benefit were continued it would be continued only until such time as the next work test had to be undertaken. That testing is undertaken on a twoweekly basis.

This situation is different to that of an invalid pensioner whose appeal is heard on medical grounds. Here, no alternative test can be undertaken for a more permanent benefit such as a widow’s pension or supporting mother’s benefit. In that sense there is a difference in the way in which eligibility is proved. Consideration is always given to facilitating the hearing of appeals. We have that matter under consideration at present. I will give consideration to the question of retention of benefit pending the next test under the work testing arrangements to see whether a situation can be developed that may be of assistance in that regard.

page 100

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian National University Act 1946 I present the report of the Council of the Australian National University for the calendar year 1976.

page 100

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) ACT 1976

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 67 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1976I present the report on financial assistance granted to each State under the provisions of that Act.

page 100

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) ACT 1972

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972I present the report on financial assistance granted to each State under the provisions of that Act during the financial year 1976-77.

page 100

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled: A Study of East- West Rail Passenger Services: The Indian Pacific ‘ and ‘ Trans Australian ‘.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). Two particularly important reports dealing generally with railways and with particular respect to South Australia have come from the Department of Transport. In future would the Minister consider giving a copy of such reports to the shadow Minister or to the Opposition Whip before such reports are presented to the Senate? Some honourable senators feel that we have not properly studied the reports early enough to decide whether the matter should be debated forthwith on the presentation of the report or whether we should seek a listing of the debate for an appropriate later time.

Senator CARRICK (New South WalesMinister for Education)- I apologise to the honourable senator that that was not done on this occasion. Of course, we shall do so in the future. I regret that it did not happen today.

Senator BISHOP (South Australia)-I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 101

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the interm report of the Industries Assistance Commission on bench or pedestal drilling machines, belt driven, pully operated, non-power fed.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 101

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present reports of the Temporary Assistance Authority on spectacle frames, non-adjustable spanners and fork lift trucks not battery operated.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 101

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 29(2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 I present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on luggage.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 101

REPORT ON FIXED RESISTORS

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 30(2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on fixed resistors.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 101

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) On behalf of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and for the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the 62nd (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva in October 1976. 1 seek leave to have a statement in relation to that report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

Appended to the Report are the texts of the following instruments adopted by the 62nd Session of the Conference:

Recommendation No. 153- Protection of Young Seafarers, 1976;

Convention No. 145- Continuity of Employment (Seafarers), 1976;

Recommendation No. 154- Continuity of Employment (Seafarers), 1976;

Convention No. 146- Seafarers’ Annual Leave with Pay, 1976;

Convention No. 147- Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards), 1976; and

Recommendation No. 155- Merchant Shipping (Improvement of Standards), 1976.

The 6 instruments have been referred to the appropriate Commonwealth and State authorities for examination and comment. This preliminary examination indicates that while there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the instruments, Australian law and practice do not comply in all respects. In the light of this, immediate ratification of the 3 Conventions does not appear to be practicable. However, in accordance with the normal practice, the position regarding compliance with Conventions Nos 145, 146 and 147 will be kept under examination with a view to possible ratification in due course. The position regarding compliance with the provisions of Recommendations Nos 153, 154 and 155 will be kept under continuing review also.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 102

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Senator Walters:

That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to:

To His Excellency the Governor-General

page 102

QUESTION

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY-

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-When the Address-in-Reply debate was adjourned last night, I had been referring to the development of the committee system within the chamber. I had made some reference to the situation which one of the committees- the one with which I am associated, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations- had found when it started to undertake the task given to it by the Senate which was the overall scrutiny of the statutory authorities of Australia. I had mentioned the fact that one of the first things we discovered was that there was not even a list of all the statutory authorities created by the Parliament. There is no consistency in the form in which those authorities are required to account. There is no consistency in the question whether they are subject to audit or by whom they are subject to audit.

I believe there is a large number of areas of concern in relation to that situation. Now the Parliament can be advised by one of its own committees as to what has been happening. It can receive some recommendations as to what should happen. That is one example of the type of function which I believe is most appropriate to this chamber. One of the further developments which is possible in the work of this chamber is to avoid the duplication and the relative waste of time which can take place when we have lengthy debates on legislation which has already been the subject matter of full debate in the House of Representatives in relation to policy and where the policy is of little relevance to the consideration of the legislation in this chamber.

It seems to me that by the use of a legislation committee system which operates extemely satisfactorily in the House of Commons at Westminster we could avoid the waste of time, we could expedite the passage of legislation and we could make more interesting the operation of the work of this chamber. I mention that in passing. I do not wish to deal with it in great detail. The major point I make is that I believe that the whole of the Parliament has a tremendous responsibility at this time to ensure that its procedures are relevant to the day and age in which we live, that they are understood by the public and that they enhance the public attitude towards parliamentary democracy.

Senator Button:

– If it happens it happens: I wish you luck.

Senator RAE:

– I thank Senator Button for his comment. Perhaps I am an optimist, but I do believe that at a time when the public is critical and anxious, we should remember that its anxiety arises from a desire to ensure that the parliamentary system is effective. There is an overall concern in the community at the growth of big government, at the tendency for government to get bigger and more intrusive. There is a concern that big unions, big business and big government are running everything. In the works of not only Schumacher but others- and indeed it is a view that is held generally by a great number of people- it is suggested that there is something in the saying, ‘Small is beautiful’; that there is good reason that the Parliament should ensure that government does not become all-powerful, or seem to be, or be thought to be.

The Senate has a clear role in ensuring that. I think one of our troubles in Australia at the moment is that to quite an extent we are suffering from a hardening of the compassion artery as a result of the constant twitching of the hip pocket nerve as people have been required to pay more and more to cover the cost of compassionate action. I was intrigued during the recent election campaign, while in the field for some three weeks meeting hundreds of people in factories, timber mills, shops, pubs and other places that the one matter that was raised constantly by the average person was his concern about unemployment. But it was not a concern for the unemployed; it was a concern for the amount that it was costing the country to support people whom they regarded as not wanting to work. Everywhere one went it was raised by average employees- it was not a matter of management raising it- giving examples from their factory or mill, whatever it might be, of the sort of people that they regarded as bludgers and who ought to be required to do something for the community in return for the money they had been receiving from it.

Repeatedly I had put to me by those sorts of people that there should be a scheme whereby, for about three days a week people in receipt of unemployment benefits should carry out some community service, do something of value to the community, give back something to those who had to provide the funds for their support. I must say that I was amazed at the frequency and strength of the comments which I received on that score. It is something which I take this opportunity to mention- not from any lack of personal concern for the plight of people who seriously wish to obtain employment and find difficulty in doing so- because one cannot but be impressed when one is told repeatedly by the average citizen that a large number of people are misusing that aspect of the system, for whom employment is available, but that they do not wish to take it. Repeatedly I was given in country towns in Tasmania examples of jobs which just could not be filled. It seems extraordinary. I was surprised and would have found it hard to believe had it not been for the regularity and frequency of the assertion.

I think we must undertake a considerable analysis of the cause of unemployment in this country. We must determine to what extent our unemployment is the product of economic forces from outside, as it is so often said to be; what extent it is the product of disillusionment, of unfulfilled expectations, the product of what our young have been taught at school. There tends in a large number of schools to have been an emphasis on teaching children how to be unemployed. I know it is important, if there is a real unemployment problem in this country, that children attempting to enter the work force, should have some attention paid to their attitudes in this regard. It seems to quite a few of them that this is an easy way to cop out. The net result is that they say: ‘I will try this dole lurk.’ They leave good jobs or they do not care whether they find a job. They enjoy receiving something for nothing. It may very well be that they are not blameworthy for this attitude nearly to the same extent as those who created the social situation in which such an attitude can prevail may be blameworthy.

I believe that a large degree of disenchantment with institutions which appear to have failed is rampant in our community. There has been a huge growth in expectations as governments have provided more and as we have become a better educated, better informed and materially better off community. So too have government parties and tended to compete with each other to offer more and more to people. All the time they were making offers with money which they would be taking from the people to whom they were making the offers. I believe that a considerable expectation was generated in the mind of the average person. That was the product not only of the desire for peace in relation to international affairs or the desire for prosperity in relation to general economic affairs but also a lot of other desires in relation to the type of society people believed was being created. People have seen that fail.

Particularly serious to Australians was the disillusionment which resulted from the failure of the 1972-1975 period of government. In 1972 Australians determined that the Liberal and Country parties had been a little dull and that they were not providing a sufficient degree of excitement or contemporary recognition of the desires of the people. They threw us out and elected the Labor Party with great expectations as to what it would provide in government. How disastrous was the result; how destructive of the expectations which people had. How disillusioning it was for the people of Australia to find that not only did the Labor Party not provide the type of government for which they had hoped, it even made a most disastrous hash of managing the economy. This aspect was not to the forefront of the thoughts of the average person in 1972. We had been going through a period of economic stability. Economic management was not thought of. Now we have seen the pendulum swing to the stage where at the last election in December the management of the economy was probably the only issue. People disillusioned and frightened by some of the experiments of the period of 1972 to 1975 were not prepared to join in any further experiments or even ask for them.

I believe that underlying that there is still a desire by people to build up a nation which has something more to it than mere material wellbeing In our struggle to overcome the ills of the economy that should not be forgotten. In our analysis of the causes of unemployment we have to look not only to the structure of our manufacturing industry and other matters which ‘have received a lot of discussion but also to the importance of the growth of new employment opportunities through the service industries which are able to provide major opportunities for new jobs in Australia and similar countries. It is not a matter of producing more; it is a matter of finding a way to satisfy people’s desires other than by planned obsolescence of produced material goods.

In this respect tourism is of vital importance. It is an industry which employs as much as 10 per cent of the Australian work force.

It is a major growth area which, if given adequate encouragement and recognition, could provide considerable job opportunities, particularly on a decentralised basis, for a wide crosssection of the community, for people of all ages and both sexes. It is one of the things that people want. They want the opportunity to learn from, to see, relax with and to use the products of the society which we have created- the material products and the knowledge which people better informed and better educated now have. There is an opportunity for the better use of leisure time but I am not sure that we are adequately providing the ways in which people can have appropriate choices as to the use of their leisure time.

Finally, I refer briefly to the need for this Parliament at all times to engage in a degree of what may be called futurology or what is called by Alvin Tofler anticipatory democracy. It can be best summed up as ensuring that in the thought which is given to the solution of current problems and the decisions which are now taken we look far enough ahead to what those decisions may mean in a few years time when we live in an economic and social society in which the rate of change has become the most dramatic feature. We have a tendency to fail to look far enough ahead in our decision-making processes. It is interesting that the United States Congress has now decided that all its committees in their work will have specified regard to the future impact of their recommendations. This is a little like the environmental impact statements which have become part of the planning process of Australian government. In the United States the future impact of those decisions has become a standard part of the operation, a matter to be specifically adverted to and assessed, where we have technology raging ahead in the development of new and different opportunities for mankind we must be careful to ensure that we look far enough ahead in the decisions that we take.

A good example of failure to look far enough ahead was the disastrous period of the 1972-75

Government. I trust that my own Government will not fall into a similar trap. If it becomes totally concentrated in its concern to overcome the economic ills of Australia it may let opportunities pass by and may create situation in Australia which will take a long time to correct. One example of this is the unemployment situation. If we develop in Australia a group of permanently unemployed people, who gradually will become unemployable, we could have this situation with us for the remainder of their lifetime. It could become an entrenched part of society. I therefore urge consideration of every possible way of ensuring that unemployment on a large scale does not become part of our way of life.

I not only support the proposed AddressinReply but also take this opportunity to compliment the new Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen, on the manner in which he delivered the Speech. I believe that he performed a difficult task because reading somebody else ‘s speech is never something into which one can put great feeling but he carried out that difficult task with feeling, a degree of humanity and even a slight degree of whimsical humour in recognising some of the matters around him. I take this opportunity to compliment him on the manner of the delivery of his speech. ( Quorum formed).

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I thought for a moment that I was going to be counted out. In speaking to the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply I first of all congratulate Senator Haines on her maiden speech last night and welcome her to the chamber as other speakers have done. We realise that her stay will be short. I thought her speech last night succinct and to the point, bi-lateral in its treatment of both sides of the chamber but done in a very gentle way. It also succeeded in doing something very unusual by provoking my Tasmanian colleague, Senator Rae, into a mild display of righteous indignation because he felt that Senator Haines had breached the convention that maiden speeches should be nonprovocative. I must say that after listening to her speech last night and reading it again today I certainly do not think it particularly provocative and cannot understand what upset Senator Rae to such an extent. Perhaps it was a demonstration of the phenomenon we see so often that conservative people consider trivial conventions more important than some of the more serious conventions and tend to wax more eloquent when they think that the trivial conventions of the Senate are breached than when some of the more serious conventions are breached. I cannot remember many senators from the other side of the chamber getting up and creating the fuss that Senator Rae did last night when Premiers Lewis and Bjelke-Petersen breached what most of us considered to be very serious conventions and enabled the events of November 1975 to take place. I am sorry that Senator Haines’ stay will be so short but we hope that it will be a pleasant one.

Senator Rae’s speech followed that of Senator James McClelland who also provoked some criticism from Senator Rae. Senator James McClelland criticised rather trenchantly the appointment of Sir John Kerr as Australian ambassador to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and pointed out clearly the dangerous precedent that has been set. He clearly set out the sequence of events which led up to that appointment and the possible consequences when persons in vice regal office, which we know now has considerable power in this country, are appointed to a sinecure after they leave that vice regal office. Senator James McClelland ‘s speech provoked a considerable response from Senator Rae and other speakers from the Government side who preceded him. But nowhere in his speech did Senator Rae answer the criticism made by Senator James McClelland. Nowhere in his speech did Senator Rae attempt to justify the appointment of Sir John Kerr to the office of Ambassador to UNESCO. In fact the only two people to my knowledge who have tried to justify that appointment are the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and Senator Withers, who represents the Prime Minister in this place. Senator James McClelland made only passing reference to the events of November 1975. He spent considerable time speaking about the very real dangers of what has happened and what can happen as a result of this appointment. Senator Rae and others have not yet attempted to answer those criticisms. I assume by his silence, and by the silence of others, that he too has expressed his disapproval of this appointment to UNESCO.

Senator Rae also spoke at length on the role of the Senate. It is a subject about which he feels very strongly and genuinely and about which he speaks very frequently inside and outside this place. He has considered most seriously the problems of the Senate and the role of the Senate. Many of us have discussed this matter with him inside and outside this chamber. He has a very genuinely held concept of the Senate as a House of review, as a States House and, I believe, as a non-party House. I differ from Senator

Rae in that I believe this view is divorced completely from reality. I believe that, before we start to change this House and before we start to make this House a more relevant House as Senator Rae does, we have to accept that it is, and it has been in fact almost since the time it was formed, a party House. Senator Rae and I represent parties in this House. As this House has the right to refuse Supply, defeat a government and force an election in the other place without going to an election itself, it is a very powerful House as Senator Rae and others have said. It is for this reason that this House is dominated by parties. This is recognised by the Liberal Party. (Quorum formed). Before a quorum was called I was speaking of Senator Rae’s concept of what this place should be and the difficulties I can see in trying to achieve that concept. I was pointing out that in fact this place is a parties House. Senators are elected by parties. I also pointed out that the Liberal Party recognises that the Senate is a parties House.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate is not elected by Senators- he is appointed by the leader of the Executive, by the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. He is referred to in this place by senators opposite as ‘my leader’. I am merely making the point that we must be realistic.

Senator Baume:

– How did we vote in committees?

Senator GRIMES:

– I am coming to that. But we must be realistic and we must in fact recognise that the Senate is a parties House and the behaviour, I suggest, of honourable senators from both side of the House when in government, including Senator Rae, is dominated by the Executive. Certainly a few will occasionally cross the floor but this happens, I suggest, always when there is no danger that the government will be in any trouble. At other times- very rarelysome will make angry noises about something the Executive is doing but in fact, when the crunch comes, their behaviour changes. There have been many examples of this. An excellent example, I would suggest, occurred in 1975 when two Bills were introduced by the then Labor Government. One was a Bill to introduce a Medibank levy or a national health insurance levy as it was called at the time. The second Bill- A National Health Insurance Amendment Bill- was designed to introduce controls over voluntary health agencies in this country. Both of these Bills were vigorously opposed in 1975 by every honourable senator who was a member of the then Opposition in this chamber that was acting allegedly as a House of review. The Bills in fact were quoted by Sir John Kerr at the time as being one of the reasons for a double dissolution. In 1976, when safely in power, legislation was presented by the then coalition Government to introduce a Medibank levy. The coalition Government introduced the same legislation as the Australian Labor Party had put forward a year before. The legislation was designed to control and to obtain better information from the voluntary health funds. These two pieces of legislation were accepted without demur from the same senators who had vigorously opposed them some 12 months before.

I submit that if we are to retain a Senate- and obviously we will retain a Senate- and if that Senate is to become the House of review that Senator Rae wants to talk about, the right to refuse Supply will in fact have to go. This right does not exist in other Houses of review outside Australia. I also suggest that members of the Executive should not be in this place. I know that is the view of many honourable senators opposite. But as this will not happen, as Senator Rae and his ilk are firmly committed to the concept of a Senate which can at any time throw out the lower House even though the Senate cannot in any way be considered representative of the people in the same way as the other House is and even though many members of that Senate will have been elected many years before the election of whatever government is in office, I believe the Senate will remain the rubber stamp it is. It will be ignored by the press and populace except at election time.

Certainly we have a committee system in this place that I find works very successfully. Certainly committee members frequently vote on non-party lines. But just as frequently members vote and committees are divided on party lines. But the reality is that when the crunch comes, when it gets back to power in this country and politics is about power- the Senate behaves like a rubber stamp except on a very few occasions. It is a sad fact, perhaps, but it is a fact of political life.

Senator Missen:

– You do not help towards it on your side.

Senator GRIMES:

– I have pointed out that while the Senate has the power to refuse supply and while it has the power to throw out the lower House at any old time the fact of life will remain that that is the position. I submit that merely changing other things will not make any difference unless the Senate loses that right.

Senator Rae made some very interesting comments about the Senate committee system in particular and the parliamentary committee system in general and about the fact that the new committees have experienced extraordinary difficulty in obtaining information from the Public Service of this country and sometimes from the Executive of this country when those committees need that information for the Parliament itself. That is a problem that we have all faced. We have all faced it with Estimates committees. One of the reasons why Estimates committees sometimes groan on into the night and for day after day is the difficulty of getting out of those who are present information that should be freely available to every member of this House, every member of this Parliament and every member of the public of this country. Sometimes Senate committees become like the war of attrition with a battle between the public servants and the parliamentarians trying to wear each other down. “ That is a very real problem. Anybody who has served on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, as I have, will realise that it can become a very real problem there. Certainly we must get over this problem. We must do so by allowing or enabling the Auditor-General, for instance, to get information more easily than he can, to report to the Parliament in more detail than he does at times and to have less of a scatter gun approach across the affairs of the various departments. It is a very real problem and it will remain a very real problem in the future. One hopes that the new committees will be able to do something about it, but I believe that a much more basic reformation is going to be needed in this country for that to happen.

Senator Button, Senator James McClelland and, I was surprised to note, Senator Rae commented in their speeches on the increasing cynicism of the electorate towards parliament itself as an institution- in particular, towards politicians. They have rightly stated that this cynicism and this suspicion of parliament and parliamentarians is a danger to the institution itself and to democracy itself. Senator James McClelland pointed out how the appointment of the former Governor-General as Ambassador to UNESCO will add to this cynicism. Senator Button spoke of Premier Bjelke-Petersen’s discrimination in the Public Service of Queensland against those who would dare to stand as Australian Labor Party candidates and of how the present Executive itself treats parliament with contempt by appointing an outside body to review the pecuniary interests of parliamentarians when a parliamentary committee from both Houses of Parliament and both sides of politics, including present Ministers, has reported with a unanimous decision on the subject.

The cynicism is also heightened by other happenings in this Parliament involving parliamentarians. What must be the view of the thousands of potential home owners in this country who can raise neither finance nor a deposit to purchase a home of their own when they learn that a senior parliamentarian can obtain finance beyond the dreams of most people seeking homes and can obtain that finance at a discounted rate of interest and with delayed repayments of the loan to the company that gave it? What will be the view of the unemployed in this country who are visited by inspectors to see whether they are entitled to the $36 or $49 a week that they are getting when they learn that a senior Minister’s family uses tax avoidance schemes, however legal they are, to avoid contributions to the public revenue? Why should they not be cynical when the Premier of Queensland campaigns on the basis that if the people of an electorate do not vote for his party that electorate will get nothing and if they do vote for it he will look after that electorate?

I believe that there is even further danger. I have experienced it and I have spoken about it in this Parliament before. There are people- not many yet, but an increasing number- who see parliament as a place that has no concern for their hopes or aspirations and who, whatever attempts are made to introduce reform to overcome what they see as their disadvantages or difficulties, feel that the system is rigged against them either by the nature of parliament itself, by the electoral system or by the fact that the decisions of parliament itself are so often able to be overcome or got around by those in power outside the parliament. I believe that this is a danger to the institution itself because the people who find themselves in this position too frequently will seek to achieve their aims by actions outside the parliament. They may succumb to the temptation to indulge in violent action outside the parliament. As one who believes in parliamentary democracy, I regret that. I fear that if we continue as we are going at the moment we will have great difficulties in the future.

I wish also to speak briefly about the unemployment problem and some of the actions that have been taken in the last few years in dealing with the unemployed. I believe that I have to answer some of the remarks that were made earlier in this debate about me, about the Opposition and about some of the people in this community who are concerned about unemployment. The Governor-General’s Speech from the Throne mentioned unemployment and inflation. In fact his Speech, on behalf of the Prime Minister, said that the defeating of inflation and unemployment was in fact the first priority of the Government. He also said that the Government rejects the notion that there can be a trade-off between inflation and unemployment and that the Government would continue to give its highest priority to defeating inflation. It would seem to the Opposition- certainly to me- that the Prime Minister and his advisers do not believe that and that the aim of government policy in fact has been to defeat inflation by inducing recession and consequent unemployment. One occasionally hears a supporter of the Government come clean on this issue. I can remember a Tasmanian member of the House of Representatives saying that if it was necessary to increase the unemployment figure to beyond 400,000 to defeat inflation that is the way it would have to be. One wonders whether he was being prophetic at the time, which was in the middle of last year.

Much has been said by various Ministers in the past few years about unemployment and the treatment of the unemployed. We all remember Mr Lynch predicting with great confidence in his 1976 Budget that there would be a fall in the level of unemployment by March 1 977. Almost exactly 12 months ago when the unemployment figure was 354,000 Mr Fraser, Mr Lynch and Mr Street assured us that the unemployment situation had reached its peak and that it would proceed to fall in the next month. Twelve months hence the unemployment figure has reached 445,000. There has been a quite ominous increase. There has been an especially ominous increase since December. We have the same assurances being given now that it has reached its peak and is going to come down, even though 75 per cent of the increase since December has involved adult workers. Mr Fraser has often had things to say about unemployment. In 1974 when he was the shadow Minister for Labour he had certain things to say in a Press statement which was issued in August 1974 following the release of the unemployment figures at that time. Those unemployment figures had increased by 22,000 in one month, which was a quite serious increase. Mr Fraser said:

The increase in seasonally adjusted terms in unemployed of 22,000 in one month is complete evidence of the failure of the Government’s economic policies. The tragedy of unemployment is the personal hardship involved; indeed the complete destruction of a family’s living standards as jobs become harder to get . . . the Government should consider closely the situation that as unemployment rises so too should unemployment benefits increase. This proposal rests on the principle that as it becomes harder to get work so too should the compensation for those out of work be increased. I believe that principle to be valid and governments need to make a concerted effort so that unemployment does not remain the complete and absolute disaster that it has so often been in the past.

The principle involved in this is all the more valid when unemployment as it is now, is a result of the Government’s mishandling ofthe Australian economy.

That was in August 1974, but in DecemberJanuary, the last period for which figures are available, unemployment rose by 40,000. From November to January the increase was 96,000, from 349,000 to 445,000. On Mr Fraser’s criterion of 1974, we should be increasing unemployment benefit to avoid what he then called the complete and absolute disaster that it is’. There has been no increase in unemployment benefit and no increase in compassion in the treatment of the unemployed. In fact we are seeing a Government effort to reduce by investigatory means, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits, and I will come to that later. I believe it is a sad fact of history that whenever economic difficulties occur, whenever recession or inflation or recession and inflation disturb our comfortable existence, scapegoats are sought. In more primitive times I suppose gods and spirits were blamed for the difficulties of the community.

Senator Primmer:

– And witches.

Senator GRIMES:

– There have been witches too, I believe. In recent times racial and religious groups have been blamed, as occurred in Russia earlier this century and in Germany not so long ago. In the Depression of the early 1 930s, if one reads the commentaries and the history of that period, including the biography of Mrs Margaret Thatcher, so often the chief scapegoats for the economic difficulties were the unemployed, the victims of those economic difficulties. During the Depression, when unemployment exceeded 30 per cent and sometimes 40 per cent, people said what they are saying now: ‘These people don’t want to work. There are plenty of jobs available. They are slackers. They are causing difficulties in the community’. Those sorts of statements are very common now, and I agree with Senator Rae that that view is commonly held in the community as a result of the continuous campaign which has gone on since before November 1975 to denigrate the unemployed in the community.

This is a very real problem. I agree with Senator Rae that we need an analysis of the problems of unemployment. We need an analysis of the sorts of economic difficulties that are causing unemployment. We need an analysis of the sorts of people who are unemployed. At the moment we must rely on the figures. They show 445,000 people unemployed and only 28,500 job vacancies. It is nonsense to say to those people who are unemployed that there are plenty of jobs around and they should go out and get them. Senator Rae referred to the commonly suggested proposal that people should be given work in exchange for unemployment benefits, but many governments, of different persuasions have looked at that suggestion. It has considerable difficulties. Perhaps some of the difficulties are greater than governments have thought, but we must look at the proposal. We should not be deprecating the unemployed, saying that our problems are due to the unemployed, and distracting from the fact that our economic system is not supplying jobs. In the last two years legislation and regulations have been changed to limit the payment of unemployment benefit in the community. The number of categories of people who can receive that benefit has been cut down. The regulations have been changed repeatedly to cover things such as a person’s dress and attitude and promptness in returning forms, and whether he has voluntarily left his job or not. All these things have been introduced to make it more difficult for people to obtain unemployment benefit. There was a regulation change and then a legislation change to deprive school leavers of unemployment benefit for six weeks after they leave school.

No matter what figures one considers, whether they are the number of registered unemployed or the number of people on unemployment benefit, whether the figures come from the Commonwealth Employment Service or from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, they all show an increase, and the increase has been comparable in all the figures. I do not believe that Senator Rae was referring to this when he spoke about the education system, but teachers have been reprimanded for telling school leavers who are facing unemployment- we have an extraordinary unemployment situation with school leavers- how to handle the social security system and how to lodge unemployment benefit applications. These teachers were said to be cultivating dependency. There are even people who have denied that there is a problem. The present Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) said in February 1977, when the Commonwealth Employment Service figures showed 346,000 unemployed and the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed 334,000 unemployed, that unemployment is largely a myth. During all this time the number of people who are unemployed has been from 16 to 20 times greater than the number of registered job vacancies. That is the present position. It is said that attempts are now being made to fiddle with the figures, to scrub the CES figures because the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures are a little lower. But none of the figures are precise. We should consider the married women who were in the work force and have now gone out of it but who would work and who would register for employment if work were available.

We have heard in the address from the throne and we have seen in government statements the comment that unemployment will go when inflation goes and that we should not worry about it. If that is the Government’s belief, surely the Government should be concerned about the problems of the unemployed as people, about the very real and continuing social problems to which Senator Rae adverted when he spoke about the possibilities of long term unemployment in the community. In recent weeks some criticism has been directed at members of the Opposition and other people in the community who have pointed out that the Department of Social Security has started to investigate on a mass scale those on unemployment benefit. We were critical of the tactics that were being used and we were accused of causing anxiety, of not being accurate in what we said. I believe that I must present the case for myself and the Opposition and, if I am not being too presumptuous, for other people who joined in expressing concern at the situation. The Opposition is and always has been opposed to people receiving unemployment benefit fraudulently or illegally. The law as it stands provides penalties for such behaviour and we of the Opposition believe that this law should be carried out. We have sought repeatedly from Government spokesmen evidence of how many people are in receipt of unemployment benefit fraudulently, illegally -

Senator Guilfoyle:

- Senator Wheeldon told you it was 24 per cent in 1975.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am coming to that, Minister. Do not get too anxious. We have repeatedly sought such information. We have not been able to get specific information but the Minister may remember appearing with me during the election campaign on a program called The Policy Makers. She said on that program that she had no evidence that abuse of unemployment benefit was any higher than the abuse of any other benefit or pension. I merely say to that: Why then is the concentration on unemployment benefit alone now the way it is? We have in this country- this has been confirmed by the Director General, Mr Lanigan- some 250 investigation officers who have been transferred from other duties to confine their duties to the investigation of people in receipt of unemployment benefit. These duties consist of investigating claims, assisting beneficiaries to cope with the system, and assisting appeals tribunals to deal with the appeals. That is a very important function because 60 per cent of people who are deprived of unemployment benefit under the system as it normally functions have their benefits restored on appeal.

There was no public announcement that this situation had developed. The Director-General attempted to say that he had ordered this procedure to be implemented and he issued a statement to that effect. Senator Walters, Senator Guilfoyle and others said that this was a normal routine procedure. I have two comments to make in that regard. Firstly, if the Director-General did in fact order the 250 investigation officers to do nothing but concentrate on the unemployedwhich I believe is a considerable step to takeand if he did that off his own bat without consulting the Government, I would suggest that the Government should watch that DirectorGeneral. Senator Walters and other honourable senators remarked that this was a routine answer. It was answered very quickly by irate officers of the Department of Social Security who apparently bombarded the Australian Broadcasting Commission after this statement was made. I believe- I ask the Minister to deny it if she likes and to give evidence in support of her denial- that there has never been an Australiawide effort like this one, an Australia-wide effort where the whole force of investigation officers has been called out to investigate the unemployed.

Certainly, small scale investigations and small scale stepping up of investigations have been made, often with good reason. Senator Wheeldon admits, and I admit, that this was done when the Labor Government was in power. In one area he found 24 per cent of the people who were receiving unemployment benefit were ineligible for that benefit. Senator Wheeldon also pointed out that there were all sorts of reasons for that. There were those people who were receiving the benefit fraudulently; there were those who were receiving it who had notified the Department that they should not be receiving it and, because of departmental snafus, the Department had not stopped the benefit.

Perhaps the Department’s files had been lost. Senator Wheeldon did not suggest that 24 per cent of beneficiaries of unemployment benefit were frauds. If there are 24 per cent who are frauds I would like to see evidence of that. We have been calling for this evidence for two years. Mr Street said that there were many. Senator Walters said that there were thousands and the Minister told me that she had no evidence that there was greater abuse in the unemployment benefit area than in any other area. I repeat that we do not believe that people should be receiving public moneys illegally or wrongly. We have never suggested that.

Sitting suspended from 1.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GRIMES:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was talking about the present campaign by the Department of Social Security and the Government to detect people who are illegally receiving the unemployment benefit. I was talking about the misgivings which I and other people in the community have about such tactics. The concern by those of us who are critical of this sort of tactic arises out of several facts.

Firstly, we must bear in mind that, at the moment, according to the Commonwealth Employment Service figures, the unemployment level exceeds 445,000 people and there are only about 28,000 job vacancies. There is an enormous gap between the number of registered unemployed and the number of registered job vacancies. The average time that people are now receiving the unemployment benefit is approximately 5 months, an increase of something like 2 months in 2 years. For many people the unemployment benefit is no longer an emergency payment to tide them over in the short term. In August 1 977, 55.4 per cent of the unemployed were less than 25 years of age. At the same time the percentage of unemployment benefit beneficiaries who were born overseas was 22.5 per cent, which is in excess of the percentage which they represent of the population.

I think we all realise that we have a very serious situation. People other than the Opposition members are saying this. People other than those in voluntary welfare agencies are saying this. I was surprised to hear Mr George Polites of the Associated Chamber of Manufactures saying this. I believe and many people believe that the situation is not one in which tactics of this type should be used, nor do we believe that tactics like this can be effective. In the past we have had experience of this sort of tactic being used in small areas or in widespread areas across the country.

We know that people receiving the unemployment benefit who have had their benefit ceased by the Department are successful in their appeals against that decision in about 60 per cent of the cases. We know that whenever there is an increase in the stringency of the regulations or an increase in crackdowns the number of people who come to voluntary agencies seeking assistance increases dramatically. We know that since the introduction of the new system of payments the average duration between application for and receipt of the unemployment benefit is something like 28 days. We believe that at times like the present when the level of unemployment is very high and when the number of job vacancies is very low this sort of tactic is quite inappropriate and that we really should be trying to help the unemployed. We believe that the inspection officers would be better employed in assisting those unemployed people who need assistance. As I have said before, some people work the system; some people rip off the system. But I believe that in general those people who do this successfully do so because they know the system. They know the complexities of the system, what they can get away with and how to avoid detection. The people who cannot cope with the system or have difficulty coping with it- migrants, the illiterate or the relatively illiterate, some of the inexperienced school leavers and people who for all sorts of reasons have great difficulty in coping with our system of social security- are in danger in such an investigation. Already the results of surveys in the western suburbs of Sydney have suggested that something like 22 per cent of the unemployed youth are not receiving the unemployment benefit to which they are entitled because they do not know how to go about applying for it or they have just given up trying because, in their terms, ‘it is one big hassle ‘.

The system we have and have had for many years has grown up in an ad hoc way. I believe that is unnecessarily complicated. I believe, as many people do, that we need to have a very good look at the whole system of social security, particularly at the system of income security. As Senator Rae said, it is important that we analyse the problems facing us with unemploymentwhy people are unemployed; whether unemployment is in fact structural; how much it is regional; how much of the unemployment is due to the education system- so that we have some basis on which to plan.

Senator Rae told stories which we have all heard, of people who have jobs available but cannot fill them, of people who are supposed to be ripping off the system. But when individual cases are investigated they are frequently found to be merely anecdotal stories and are unable to be confirmed. In Launceston in Tasmania, the city where Senate Rae and I live, we recently had a front page story in our local newspaper in which 2 farmers, both raspberry growers, bitterly complained that they could not get any workers, that people would not come and work and that people were idle and would not work to pick the raspberries. The next day those 2 farmers were flooded with some hundreds of workers. Neither farmer had applied to the Commonwealth Employment Service for pickers; neither had gone out of his immediate little town to look for people to pick his crops. In this situation there were literally hundreds of people looking for work and willing to work.

We have a great communication problem in some places where work might be available but the Commonwealth Employment Service system and the employment system does not enable people who are looking for work to go to work. We believe that the answer to this problem does not lie in increasing the difficulties of people who might need the unemployment benefit. We believe that the answer to the problem does not lie in making moral judgments about whether people are shirkers, whether they are willing to work or unwilling to work. We believe that the problem will not be solved by the sort of investigation in which the Department of Social Security is presently engaged. We believe that first of all the Government must take positive action to do something about the increasing level of employment. It is a cliche or a truism that the best way to reduce unemployment is to give people jobs. But that is a fact which has been recognised in every comparable overseas country. The real problems of this high proportion of youth unemployment which we have will leave a social scar for many years to come unless we do something about it and take positive economic action.

Most of the large private construction industries rely to a large extent on government contracts and the flow on from their contracts to other industries has a great bearing on employment in the manufacturing and building industries. Concomitant with the decrease in government expenditure in this area, in the past 2 years we have lost 100,000 jobs in the manufacturing and construction industries. The Opposition certainly believes that by careful expenditure in certain areas we can at least boost employment in this vital area and so have a multiplier effect throughout the community. We believe that far more can be done in apprenticeship schemes. But

I certainly agree with those people who say that before we can do something effective in the long term we must look hard at our economic system and at how it works and we must look hard and investigate what is really going on.

It is no good any honourable senators wandering into this chamber and presenting anecdotal stories about people who have work available but cannot find workers; it is no good any honourable senator coming into this chamber and complaining that the beaches are littered with people receiving the unemployment benefit but who do not want to work, without producing figures and evidence. In the past two years we have sought figures and evidence in this Parliament but have not received them. As I said, we are facing a serious problem and the problem will not go away by using the tactic of the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) and saying that unemployment is a myth. Unemployment will not go away simply by our not talking about it. The Opposition and I will not be deterred from drawing attention to the problems in this community by the people who say: ‘You should not talk about that, you will cause insecurity in the community and insecurity amongst the unemployed’. We must talk about it. We must try to look at the problem and we must look at possible solutions. When we take action we must be careful that the action we are taking is effective. We must evaluate the programs which we introduce. No one is suggesting it is easy. We are suggesting that we have a serious problem. We must recognise that. The problem cannot be left to get better by itself as inflation improves or as some mystical government monetary policy is carried out. It needs positive action and it will need positive action in the future. That action may need to be a broad attack. It may need to be job creation, plus reform of the education system, plus reform of our social security system. We will not get anywhere by taking the attitude that governments cannot do anything about the situation, that the only role of government is to indulge in foreign affairs and to pay a few pensions while letting the rest of the community look after itself. That sort of economic system does not exist anywhere and has not existed for a couple of hundred years.

So we find little in the Speech by the Governor-General to indicate just what will happen in the community. We find lots of words like: To revitalise our Federal system by co-operating with State and local governments . . .’. We heard fine rhetoric about civil liberties and civil rights. We find general statements about new initiatives. But we really have no indication of what the Government will do except in the first part of the Speech where the Government implies that it will do what it has been doing for the last two years. In those two years unemployment has crept up to 445,000. We believe there is nothing wrong with positive action to attack a very real social problem. We believe the attitude taken by so many people that all public expenditure is bad expenditure is a wrong attitude. We believe that public expenditure should be carried out with care. But we believe that the sort of activity which is being indulged in at the moment by the Department of Social Security is too broad and too oppressive and is acting in the wrong direction to do anything about unemployment in the community.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I rise with great pleasure to support the motion in relation to the Address-in-Reply. That pleasure is enhanced by the fact that we will be delivering the Address-in-Reply to the new Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen, a man who has by his career demonstrated that he stands for all things which I think we share in common in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, from whatever part of the political spectrum we come. If we look at Sir Zelman Cowen ‘s career as a lawyer, an academic, a vice chancellor and a commentator on public affairs, we find running right through that career a respect for democracy and for the principles of liberal democracy which I think is something which all members of parliament share with him. I hope the very fact of his presence will help the Government and the Opposition to ensure that the Government is able to live up to the words in the Governor-General ‘s Speech.

The Governor-General stated on behalf of the Government:

Its trust is to all the people of Australia, and its concern is for all- all sections, all groups and all interests who care and serve this great country of ours.

I believe Sir Zelman Cowen is a man to whom all groups, all sections and all interests can look and can profit by his example. I do not intend to discuss the latter part of Senator Grimes speech. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) was in the chamber for that speech and will no doubt, at a later time, take up the points he raised. A little later I shall touch on some of the institutional points which he mentioned in the first part of his speech.

The main part of the Governor-General’s Speech to which I wish to refer is the brief statement on page 9 of the printed document:

Further development ofthe parliamentary committee system will be promoted . . .

I think that is a matter of great concern to the chamber. That concern has been evidenced in the contributions made to the debate so far. A number of senators from both sides of the chamber have devoted their attention to the development of the institution of parliament. I believe that that is not a matter of simply enjoying looking in the mirror. I think it is a matter of great public importance that we should look to the improvement of parliament. I suppose all of us are used to being described in terms which indicate low regard. I pick simply as a sample of the sort of public comment about Parliament which is so readily available, an article in the Weekend Australian by one, George Negus. It is headlined: ‘The Canberra Farce is on Again’. I am sure that sort of headline reminds many honourable senators of oral comments which have been made to them about the sorts of people politicians are and how useless Parliament is. Like many honourable senators who have spoken before me I regard that as a matter of great seriousness. I do not believe we can maintain a sensible and good democratic system if people hold the institutions of democracy in contempt. Some people have more optimistic views about Parliament, and I am happy to say that I am an institutional optimist. In the course of this speech I shall explain why I am an institutional optimist and the direction in which I hope the institution might go.

I think it is a pity that people like Senator Grimes who, I am sure, have the interests of Australia at heart, feel that they have to express a cynicism about the operations of Parliament. It seems to me that if, in this chamber, we find a cynicism about Parliament, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to change the negative attitudes which exist in the media and out in the community. I think it is important that there should be institutional optimists among us. I thank Senator Rae for the speech he made a little earlier today in which he put forward some very positive views he has particularly about this chamber. I am pleased to say that the comments made by Senator Grimes indicate a concession that the Senate is not always the party house which he labelled it as being. He very properly referred to the committee system which has operated in this chamber over the last 7 or 8 years and which has demonstrated time and time again that party politics is not always practiced in this chamber.

I briefly remind honourable senators of a couple of examples; one in the life of the previous government and one in the life of the Labor Party Government which demonstrate the positive action which is possible in Parliament to advance the public welfare. We all recall that last year the Government introduced the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill. That Bill was regarded as a matter of some urgency. I think it was my colleague Senator Wright who drew attention, during the Committee stages of the debate, to what he saw as some very real difficulties in the legislation.

Senator Baume:

– And Senator Wheeldon too.

Senator CHANEY:

- Senator Baume reminds me that Senator Wheeldon also was active during the Committee stages. The Government very sensibly sent that Bill to one of the standing committees of the Senate. As we so often found in the past, on sober consideration of the legislation there was a unanimous recommendation that the Bill should be substantially amended. It is a matter of some puzzlement to me and perhaps to some other honourable senators that that piece of legislation has not re-appeared since the amendments were recommended. I simply cite that example as a demonstration of the sort of action which is possible in this place and which ought to be multiplied one thousand times if we are to create the attitude about Parliament which I am sure we all want.

Senator Missen:

– I think we should continue to be optimistic about that, Senator.

Senator CHANEY:

– I think we should be very optimistic. A far more substantial piece of legislation which was dealt with by the Senate during the life of the Whitlam Government related to a national compensation scheme. It was a large proposal which would have eventually involved an annual expenditure of some $2 billion. Purely through the accident of the Opposition having the numbers in this place the Bill was sent off to one of the Senate standing committees. It received close examination from that committee. The committee sat for about 68 days. Once again we find that the facts which came to the attention of the Committee overrode dogma. We wound up with a unanimous recommendation that the legislation should be withdrawn and reconsidered. I think there were 16 agreed areas requiring major amendments. It is true that as well as the 16 agreed reasons there were a number of individual reports from honourable senators expressing different views about the future of the legislation. Once again we had a situation where a major government program, subjected to what I would regard as proper parliamentary scrutiny, had to be withdrawn because it was shown that at least parts of it were either unworkable or not in the public interest.

So all this is possible and I would hope that honourable senators from all parties in this place- indeed even the senator who is not from any party- would join together in a common intention to multiply the sort of examples that I have mentioned.

I think it would be worth the time of the Senate if I were to take it through part of a paper which in January of this year was given at the Institute of Political Science Summer School in Canberra by a professor of political science, Professor Gordon Reid, who was once an officer of the House of Representatives and resigned that position to become an academic, a student of politics. His paper is quite lengthy and is doubtless available to all honourable senators. It would repay study, because here is a man who has a very positive attitude towards Parliament and the Senate in particular, but who sees some really serious defects in the system. From an examination of both the defects and positive aspects that he highlights the direction in which we should be moving becomes clear. Professor Reid said:

The relative decline in the significance of Parliament has been evident for many years. The reasons are complex but they relate mainly to Parliament’s lack of supporters (particularly in Canberra) . . .

May I say parenthetically that I assume he refers to the Public Service: . . and the lack of people or groups in Australia who will work towards its rehabilitation. The problems of Parliament also arise from its inherent division; not only is it divided by the Federal Constitution into two nominally powerful, and often conflicting Houses: Each constituent House accommodates competing factions- each of which is usually divided between the leaders and led. In addition, it is to the Parliament’s disadvantage that its official secretariat is fragmented into even more parts . . .

That is perhaps a sentence which might be of particular interest to you, Mr President- . . than the Parliament itself; and following the Westminster-style of government, both Houses grant important priorities in debate and decision-making to Executive Ministers of State. The outcome has been that the more numerous of the two Houses- the House of Representativeshas become the captive of the Executive Government of the day and is now a sadly repressed and debilitated parliamentary chamber.

I thought I would get massive agreement on that. He goes on to say of the Senate, however-

The Senate, due to a variety of circumstances, has developed the ability to check, to question, even obstruct the Government of the day but as a result it has become a widely criticised and frequently maligned and threatened parliamentary body.

I suggest that it is our job to ensure that it performs its functions; that it does not succumb to any threats that might be offered. The general lead into this paper is a fairly damning indictment of the parliamentary institution and the suggestion that, to a great extent, it is not operating in the way that it should. That is from a man who, as I have said, is basically sympathetic to the parliamentary institution. What is significant is that, later in the paper, having set out the failures of the House of Representatives, he goes on to point out where, in his view, the Senate has succeeded. I would think that most observers of Parliament would agree with most of the points that he makes concerning what is good about the Senate. If there is general agreement on these points, I think it is fairly clear that there is only one way in which we can go, mainly to develop these good points rather than to foster the bad.

May I say before I lead into Professor Reid’s good points that the sort of concern which has been expressed today in this chamber by the calling of quorums, the fact that few of us are prepared to sit and listen to each other’s boring speeches, is not one which I find to be of tremendous importance in itself. I think the main reason why nobody comes in here to listen is that most honourable senators know that very little flows from the debates that are held in this chamber; that the useful work we do takes place elsewhere, within the committee structure; that what we say here will change very little; that, in fact, most of us now in the Parliament do not like doing things which are meaningless and therefore would rather spend our time doing those things which are meaningful.

I say to my colleagues- and I respect their views- that those who believe it to be fundamentally important that more senators should be in attendance in this chamber must face the fact that that will only happen, with today’s parliamentarians, if the chamber becomes a place where meaningful things happen, that mere debate is not enough. My conclusion would be that we ought perhaps to spend less time here and more time doing the sort of work that we can generally agree is useful.

To return to Professor Reid’s paper, he quotes as one of the successes of the Senate the fact that since 1932 it has via its Regulations and Ordinances Committee borne Parliament’s responsibility for the scrutiny of the expanding volume of delegated legislation. That is a matter upon which there is great unanimity. Here we have a Senate committee which has operated since 1 932 and, according to Mr Odgers’ analysis, in his book on the Senate, has an impact on at least 7 per cent of the subordinate legislation which is passed by government, or promulgated by government in some way- a significantly higher figure I suspect, than the number of amendments made by either chamber to government legislation. So there is an excellent precedent, something that Professor Reid, and I am sure all observers, would say is a very good thing.

My immediate comment would be: Does that not point to a change that we could adopt? Why do we not subject all legislation in this Parliament to the sort of scrutiny that is given to delegated legislation? Why should not all legislation be referred to a committee which has the assistance of counsel, which looks at legislation from a purely technical point of view, which sees whether the liberty of the subject is transgressed, whether there are unnecessary averment clauses, whether the onus of proof is being reversed, whether the legislation is retroactive and so on. That sort of technical check of legislation could be conducted by a parliamentary committee and I would venture to say that if such a committee reported that these things were present in particular legislation we in this chamber would be prepared to do something about it. The fact of the matter is that few honourable senators have the time or the competence to subject legislation to that sort of technical scrutiny. According to the estimate of some of my colleagues, Senator Wright is the only senator in the chamber who actually reads all the legislation that we pass. So there is a job which is not being done. We have a perfectly sensible precedent to follow. Why do we not examine that as a way of doing one of the jobs which it is the duty of this chamber to do?

To return to Professor Reid’s paper, his second point concerning the success of the Senate is expressed in this way:

Since 1970-71 the Senate has been bearing most of the burden of providing a parliamentary oversight of Executive departments via it seven standing committees.

The work of all those committees is well known to honourable senators, and I shall not labour the point. I simply repeat that we have so many examples of Parliament behaving in a nonpartisan way with respect to even major pieces of legislation that we all ought to be urging an extension of that sort of consideration of legislation. It would be a simple step. The precedent is there. Why do we not get on and do it? Thirdly, Professor Reid says:

Only the Senate is attempting to subject the annual estimates of expenditure to scrutiny in parliamentary committees each year.

Again, we are all familiar with the work of the Estimates committees. It seems to me that the question which we now have to address is: Where do we go from here? We have devised a system which examines the Estimates, however imperfectly. We actually get public servants in this chamber telling us what is going on. If we review the speeches that have followed the reports by Estimates committees during last year or so we find actual examples of waste on disputed expenditure being raised by honourable senators. The question that presents itself to me is: What are we going to do about it? What is the use of creating this instrument unless it is put to further use? My point to honourable senators, and to you Mr President, would be that, again, logic points to a definite further development of Senate activity in that area. Professor Reid went on to say:

Only the Senate has referred proposed laws (bills) to small committees for detailed scrutiny and report- with some outstanding results.

This is a point I have covered. We should all agree that this is positive work which the public could respect. He went on:

Only the Senate is attempting to subject the annual reports of commissions, boards and instrumentalities to a systematic committee scrutiny.

Only today a further step in that process has been taken, with a notice of motion given on behalf of Senator Rae. The Senate is moving into an area which has been left untouched for decades. We have been setting up bodies which carry out very important functions in the public arena and not subjecting them to proper parliamentary scrutiny and control. We are developing the means to do so. Obviously, we have to push on in that direction. Professor Reid made a point that the Clerk will like. He said:

Only the Senate has produced a record of its voluminous precedents (J. R. Odgers, Australian Senate Practice)

I think that is worth mentioning. I believe it strengthens us as an institution to have our own document which sets out our history and to which we can all easily refer when we wish to examine what has happened in this chamber in the past. These things are all positive but to me their common advantage is that they are sensible because they are actions which have an effect and sometimes results. It is so different to speech making because however glorious that speech making may be and however important it may be in explaining the Government or Opposition position much of it is fruitless.

I have brought into the chamber one of my own better speeches. I thought I might even reread it as I liked it so much. I made that speech in the Senate on 2 November 1977. It was about a matter on which I had made requests to the Government. It affected the displacement of Aborigines from stations in the drought stricken pastoral areas of Western Australia. I was told that there were all sons of problems in the implementation of a relief program. I spoke to the public servants involved and to the Minister concerned. I considered all the objections and difficulties they raised. Because I thought it an appropriate thing to do I put down in this chamber what I saw as the way around the difficulties. I said to the Government that I was putting the suggestion forward in the hope that something could be done soon. I do not know whether anything has been done. I have had no response, not a word. That may well be a far too common experience.

What are we actually trying to achieve when we make a speech in this chamber? We are saying to the Government that we believe something should be done about a particular matter. Senator Withers is not even taking notes at the moment. My point is that if we want people to take an interest in these debates they must have a result. I say to the Ministers of this Government, and I am sure the same comment would apply to the Ministers of the previous Government- I even saw the odd nodd on the Labor benchesthat we ought to get a response from the Government when a point of view or request for action is put in this chamber. Otherwise all we are doing is sending 100 copies of the speech to interest groups and supporters to show what a good job we are doing. That means nothing.

Senator Baume:

– No response is a response.

Senator CHANEY:

- Senator Baume reminds me that no response is a response. I referred to only one example but I suggest that it could be multiplied many times. I do not believe that is good enough. It is an area in which the Government needs to sharpen itself up. I notice Senator Withers still has not taken notes but he may well take out the bat to me after the debate.

I believe that in a peculiar way this institution is able to meet the problems of present democracy. Some of the problems are that members of the community want inconsistent things. Different groups in the community are unwilling to face up to the fact that what they want must be reconciled with the wants of others. There is also a demand in the community for the right to participate in government. It seems to me that in many ways the exercise of the Senate committee inquiring into the national compensation scheme met those demands. The Government produced a scheme. It said: ‘What we want to do is compensate the sick and the injured’. That is a lovely objective for government. It is a nice thing on which we can all stand around and congratulate each other. The Government quite properly said: ‘Here is the way we believe it can be done’. When the proposal was subjected to public examination we found extraordinary facts. The most extraordinary was that the trade union movement, the legal profession and insurance companies were all in bed together. They put basically the same view about the national compensation scheme. It disturbed their interests but they also had substantial concerns about the implementation of the scheme.

That underlined the fact that this was not a simple partisan issue. It was not the bad Leftists against the good Rightists or the conservatives against Labor. All of those labels become utterly meaningless. Different groups in the community were able to show us that there were problems in what was being done. An insignificant group in public terms, the Physiotherapists Association of South Australia, came to a meeting. In public evidence it pointed out the implications of a particular clause which would have involved the Commonwealth picking up every hospital, medical and paramedical expense in Australia. We were lucky to have some public servants helping us on that inquiry, but they had not noticed that point. That huge area had not even been costed or taken into account. It was not picked up by any of the clever senators who examined the matter. It was not picked up even by any of our clever staff. It was picked up by a small group of people who for practical reasons said: ‘To whom will we actually be sending our bills?’ We said: When you read this clause properly you and everybody else will be sending your bills to the Government’.

That evidence opened up a new vista of what the Bill involved. The trade unions, the lawyers and the insurance companies all had their say. All that one can attribute to the committee which looked into the matter is that it discovered all the problems. But everyone with a serious interest in workers’ compensation and its imminent collapse would have been assisted in their examination of solutions to the problem by the work of that committee. Any interest group, whether it is the trade unions, lawyers or insurance companies would have to concede that its point of view must be meshed with equally serious points of view that must be taken into account by the Parliament.

The Government has nothing to lose and everything to gain by that sort of exercise, that sort of public participation and sensible nonpartisan examination of issues backed up by all means by a government definition of the objective but with a little humility on the part of government about the means of attaining it. I do not refer to Senator Withers. His humility is beautiful to watch. I refer to the humility of the public servants who provide the solutions for government to adopt. I think the solutions to Australia’s problems will not be solved by Canberra bureaucrats, many of whom are not closely in touch with the needs and aspirations of the Australian community. This Parliament can perform the function of allowing the people of Australia to have some input in relation to and influence on the proceedings of this massive and expensive bureaucracy.

I have tended to ramble and roam. I hope my point has come through. It is that this institution has useful forms. There are sufficient examples of its working successfully for us to want to capitalise on them. In any event, if we want our system of government to survive it must be open to influence from people. We, the representatives of the people, ought to be able to structure the system so that we respond to the people and to their needs. All this can happen. I believe it will happen not because government overtly and suddenly makes a decision radically to change its approach to parliament. It will happen only if we, as parliamentarians, change our working patterns. That is in our hands. Politicians who whinge about a lack of power and influence make me ill. The reason is that they have all the legal power in the world but they have not chosen to use it. We learnt in 1975 that this Parliament has the ultimate power to make or break governments. We know we have, with our voting ability, the power to control government. We have chosen not to use that power in most areas. If we change the way we operate, not by way of confrontation but co-operatively, we will increase our influence, the ability of government to respond to the people and we will have a much healthier functioning democracy and less of the sort of headlines which top George Negus’s column. That concludes my remarks to the Senate.

Senator Grimes:

– The lesson for the day.

Senator CHANEY:

– I regret that Senator Grimes regards it as something of a sermon. Having just been given the considerable privilege of not one-and-a-half or two-and-a-half years as the electorate or a combination of circumstances gave me before but six-and-a-half years in this place, a prospect which on some mornings horrifies me and on others delights me, I simply say that I am sure all other senators who have been given a six-and-a-half year term do not want to be here wasting their time. I hope that all of us can occasionally drop the partisan clash, which we enjoy but which turns the public off and makes them think we are a bunch of hotheads, get on with the job and have a very fruitful and productive six-and-a-half years. It is with that hope that I will help deliver the AddressinReply.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I rise to comment on that portion of the GovernorGeneral’s Speech which indicated the Government’s concern with women in this country. I know that to a lot of people this is a boring subject. They consider it divisive and rather silly and believe that there is an idiotic fringe which indulges in it and that every time we have a debate on a subject some silly woman has to stand up and say where women stand. However, I think it is time that people as serious as senators remembered that women are people and acknowledged that governments, employers, trade unions and husbands do not take seriously the very real problems of women in this community. I was disappointed to find that the only paragraph in the Governor-General’s Speech which dealt with women directly was the following:

My Government will continue its efforts to improve the status of women in Australian society and a permanent National Women’s Advisory Council will be established.

I would have thought that we were all very well aware that in the current situation women are rapidly being reduced in status and that this country needs something much more than a permanent council to give them status, maintain their status and raise their status as citizens and human beings. On this side of the Parliament we are certainly concerned with unemployment but I would have thought that even this Government would have taken into account the effect that continuing high unemployment has on women in the community. Not only has this Government up to this point blamed the right to equal pay, which women won under the Whitlam Government, for the high rate of inflation that we have been suffering but also it has peddled the myth that married women in the work force are the cause of youth unemployment. The reality is that the women who work have to work so that their families may survive. To maintain the economic and social needs of Australian families, families need two incomes and one of those income earners is a female. If under present circumstances that female can find a job she is confined to a restricted area of employment, usually the least attractive, the one needing the least training, the dullest, the most repetitious, the dirtiest and the worst paid of any area in the work force.

If she cannot find a job, as so many cannot and this number is increasing, then she who has been contributing to the productivity of this country is not treated as a person who has been contributing and so is entitled to the unemployment benefit while she is waiting for the next job but gets no unemployment benefit. As a result the family income is cut in half. She pays full taxation, gets no tax relief for the money she must pay to have her children minded while she works, gets minimal assistance for her retraining or even her initial training for a better, more fulfilling, and perhaps better paid job. Once she is an adult she cannot train as an apprentice even though when she was young she did not have the opportunity to take up an apprenticeship if it was available then in any field other than hairdressing. If her children are ill she is not entitled to any leave so that she may comfort and care for them. Neither is her husband, so it is a choice between leave without pay, which terrifies people in these days of unemployment because it might mean losing their job, or the kiddies are left at home by themselves or are sent to school ill while mum and dad worry themselves sick at work. In very few cases is she entitled to maternity leave, and it would appear that in the few areas where it is available at the moment, such as in the Commonwealth Public Service, it will be taken away shortly by this Government because it is supposed by some people to be a rort but more importantly because senior public servants, most of whom are men, dislike the provision intensely. She rarely can get superannuation and when she can usually it is not on equal grounds with her male counterparts.

When I consider the fact that 41.9 per cent of all married women 1 5 years and over were in the labour force in May 1977 and that those women were doing two or perhaps three jobs- being a housewife, mother and worker at the one time- I am tempted to say: ‘Stop; give it up. Give up the frantic struggle to keep doing all those jobs’. We hear people maintaining that women should stay at home and mind their children, that they should let others do their jobs. I am tempted to say: ‘Do just that. Until you can get some justice let them do it all themselves and let them pay your husband the sort of wage that will cover the needs of you and your family without you being sold into slavery all your life. Stay home and let one man ‘s wage pay for all the family necessities as once it did ‘. Trade unions, governments, and employers have let one man’s wage drift so far back that it will no longer keep a wife and family and so we have the family income made up of two people’s wages, and in my opinion one of those people gets less than justice in the market place. How would society like it if all those women stayed at home? How would it cope?

How could industry, which thinks that it can entice women out to work when it needs a cheap labour force and send them back to the kitchen when there is a recession, get on without those workers?

The May 1977 figures show that 43.4 per cent of all women 15 years and over were in the work force in Australia. These women made up 35.6 per cent of the total labour force. At that time 323,300 unmarried women- women who had never married, were widowed, divorced or permanently separated- were heads of families. That figure did not include the women who had sick or alcoholic husbands and spent their lives maintaining their husbands and families. The figures at that time showed that in Australia 36 per cent of families had one income while 42 per cent of families had two incomes. So if the working women of this country stayed home what would happen? What would happen in the general manufacturing area where women comprise the bulk of the work force? What would happen to the retail sales area? What would happen to primary teaching? Who would type? Who would be the clerical assistants and receptionists? Who would nurse? Who would be the waitresses, kitchen hands and machinists? Yet all those jobs are essential to keep the industries and the wheels of this country moving. Nevertheless, women can still be subjected to receiving less than equal pay and to having less than equal provisions and opportunities in the work force. Women now make up over 32 per cent of the work force. In some manufacturing areas they total 70 per cent of the work force. If they went on strike and stayed at home at the kitchen sink, this country would collapse. So I believe that the Government should pay due regard to them as adults contributing to this country’s wealth.

In August last year, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced the terms of reference for a study under the chairmanship of Sir John Crawford into the problems of structural adjustment. But those terms of reference did not seek details of the human and economic problems involved in transferring human and other resources from one sector to another. When one thinks of the problems for women who have the responsibilities of home and children as well as work, one is entitled to ask why those matters were not studied. Can female workers move from one place to another? If a male worker is retrained for work in an industry based on the other side of the city to where he lives or in another city, what happens to his working wife? Evidently, women are to be regarded as working solely to earn pin money.

Should we not see them as workers making a real contribution of which account must be taken? Why should not all workers- male and female- be entitled equally to the unemployment benefit, to training in all areas of work and to retraining. If this was the case, when women had fulfilled that most important and satisfying role of mother, they could contribute during the 30 years of vigorous life they have left. Why do they not have the right to provide for their old age in an independent way through superannuation enjoying exactly the same benefits as their male counterparts?

We need legislation to ensure that women are not ‘last in first out’ as is happening at the moment- last taken on and the first most easily sacked- because, it is argued, they have a husband to keep them. In many cases they do not have a husband to keep them and even if they do the husband cannot afford to keep them. Why do we not have legislation to ensure that they have some rights in respect of promotion as well as the same rights as men to be selected for a job? They should not be nodded at and passed over in preference for a male. Why are there not training schemes for women in areas where there is a serious and increasing lack of skilled workers, thus enabling women to fill those vacancies? The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has said that we hide our heads in the sand, that there is a shortage of skilled workers, that these positions cannot be filled by Australians and that skilled replacements must be brought from overseas. We bring these workers from overseas when we have independent capable people here who are made to feel less than equal, less than human, less than adult, unneeded and unnecessary because we do not provide training in areas where they could be employed as skilled workers.

In war time when a need exists for skilled workers we can institute programs that in a very short period turn out qualified people with the essential skills that are needed. Why cannot those sorts of programs be put into effect here and now and why cannot women play an equal part and have an equal opportunity to participate? There are many women in the community who want to work and who need to work but who do not even know some of these jobs exist. They do not even know what the worker in a particular area does. Why is there not some sort of imaginative information program so that women can select a satisfying job, decide to have a go at it and train for it? In this case we would have a happy worker, a happy human being- someone who is doing a very useful piece of work- contributing to the country.

There is a need for the community to take seriously the necessity for many more community based child care centres. I know that child care’ has become another expression which people tune out of their thinking in the same way as they do when one talks about women ‘s rights. But despite all that has been said in this place about child care needs, pitifully few child care centres are available. Children are still being locked up in rooms and tied to table legs. There are still grandmothers, barely able to look after themselves, caring for the children of working mothers. At the moment these difficulties place tremendous pressure on women. But what is the Government doing to relieve some of the terrible pressures put on women when they are unemployed? What is it doing about the effects that these problems have on the health of the family and the community.

We already know that more women are suffering heart attacks than was previously the case because of the pressure of being in the work force and of performing two jobs. But what will be the result of the worry caused if they are unemployed and the family income is halved? What will happen if their husband is unemployed? What of the worry caused by the collapse of his morale and the lack of family income? What about the unemployment facing school leavers and the loss of the bright promise of those children? What about the permanent damage that is being done to so many of them? What effect will all this pressure have on the health of the women of Australia? We know that people in this situation turn to props. They turn to alcohol. They drink, they smoke and they take analgesics. More women will drink, smoke and take analgesics because of this pressure that is being put on them. They will do so to meet the need to alleviate the pressure.

Some research of a minimal nature shows that, when women take the pill and drink alcohol, the alcohol becomes very dangerous because it stays in their systems longer. Research also shows that smoking by women who take the pill is extremely dangerous. Many women take the pill because they have to stay in the work force. They cannot afford to have children. This pressure is putting them in an intolerable position. We know that analgesics can cause terrible damage to kidneys and are evidently, according to a small degree of research, a factor in stillbirths. Where is there evidence that this Government is prepared to sponsor urgently major research in those areas to find out really what the effects are and what can be done? Where is there evidence that this Government is prepared to sponsor major research in many areas of health that concern women generally?

The pill has been introduced to free women. It has been introduced to free women from having children, so that they can be sold into slavery all their lives, doing two jobs I might suggest. But does anyone care that thousands of women have been used as guinea pigs because there are so many effects ofthe pill that are not understood? The need for research on this matter to be speeded up should be a matter of urgency because the health of almost half of the population ofthe country could be in question. The Government is showing concern about our near zero population growth and the ageing population of this country. It is concerned that there should be more babies born to Australian mothers. But what is the Government doing to investigate urgently the effects of chemicals and sprays on the foetus and the causes of deformities and stillbirths? Is the Government prepared to investigate the effect on mothers and babies of births induced for the convenience of doctors who want to sleep all night or play golf each Wednesday? All of these factors could be endangering the health of future generations. The GovernorGeneral in his Speech said:

  1. . my Government will strive to realise the hope and vision of every Australian- an Australia rich in opportunity for all its people to live the life they choose, fully and freely.

If the Government truly believes those words it will take urgent steps to provide employment for women. It will look to alleviate the difficulties families endure when the wife loses her job. It will look to alleviate pressure on women caused by unemployment across the community. It will ensure that working women are treated as workers with real equality of opportunity. It will remember that women are human beings and that their good health is important to this nation. It will see to it that serious research is undertaken into their health and their continuing health. It will remember that there is more to life than working, that too many women work too hard for too long; it is vital that they have some recreation. It is time governments looked to the recreational needs of women and did something in a very real sense about those needs.

I ask the Government to pay attention immediately to those important matters. Senator Chaney may have more influence with the Government than I have. I hope that his statement that governments really do look at some of the things we say and really do attempt to solve some of the problems is correct and that the women of Australia will be able to look forward to having a government that really meets their needs and does not just establish committees that may take submissions.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I rise to support the Address-in-Reply motion which was so ably moved by my colleague Senator Walters and which has been supported by a number of my colleagues from this side of the chamber. In doing so I take this opportunity to say that it has given me an added sense of honour to know that the Speech by the Governor-General was an address by a person who came to that office from my own State of Queensland. I had the opportunity of meeting Sir Zelman Cowen, the Governor-General of Australia, while he was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland. I recall meeting with him and talking to him on many occasions about many issues pertaining to the State of Queensland and Australia as a whole. I believe that he has made a very worthwhile contribution to the State of Queensland, as I know he will do to Australia in his office as Governor-General of Australia. I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Government for their wisdom in appointing such an honourable gentleman to such a high office in this nation.

I want to make some comments on the Speech of the Governor-General. I also want to refer to a speech that was made in this chamber last evening by Senator James McClelland. I can only describe that speech as the most vindictive, bitter tirade that I have ever heard directed against an honourable gentleman who contributed much to Australia prior to becoming the GovernorGeneral of Australia and while he held that office. I might add that this honourable gentleman was appointed by the Whitlam Government and was alleged to be a very close and personal friend of the man who delivered that bitter and vindictive tirade against him last night when he was not able to respond. I think it was an attack that did no credit either to Senator James McClelland or the party that he represents. I believe, without going into the pros and cons of what happened in 1975, that the GovernorGeneral of the day acted within the law and the Constitution of this country, despite the fact that there are some learned people in this country who say differently. In my humble opinion he took the only course open to him as the Queen’s representative. I believe that he did what he should have done.

As I have said, I wish to refer to certain aspects of the Governor-General’s Speech. Some of them already have been covered. One of them in particular was covered yesterday by my colleague Senator Collard. I refer to the situation of the man on the land- the cattle man, the sheep man, the grain grower and the dairy farmer- and the problems that he is experiencing at this time. I believe that Senator Collard covered this matter very adequately when he pointed out to this chamber the problems these people are facing at this time. The lack of understanding of lots of people, particularly some people in this chamber, of the problems being experienced by the man on the land never ceases to amaze me. One sometimes hears snide remarks being made about the man on the land, such as: ‘How much longer are we going to prop up the rural industries? How much longer are we going to give subsidies to them and do things like that?’ I can only say that this is because of a lack of understanding of the problems faced by the man on the land. He lives out in the back blocks, works for 14 to 16 hours a day for 7 days a week and receives a pittance for his work. He is not supported by unions. He does not have a superannuation scheme to fall back on. Rarely do such men ever have the opportunity of even falling back on a pension. I have worked on cattle and sheep stations and on grain and dairy farms and I know the struggle that those who work there have. They have to put up with droughts, locusts, fires and floods.

Senator Melzer:

– Blacks.

Senator BONNER:

– Even rats. I am afraid that there are some rats that are allegedly supporting them but in actual fact are not. But they are a different kind of rat indeed. The man on the land has to put up with all those sorts of things. The womenfolk and children of these men also suffer hardship. They are victimised in so many different ways. They do not have an opportunity to enjoy the kinds of things that we enjoy in the cities. Some areas do not even have television. Sometimes the man on the land has to pay onethird as much more for his petrol and fuel as those of us who live on the eastern seaboard and in the cities elsewhere. Whenever someone says that we must help the man on the land and the people in the back blocks by having an equalisation scheme for petrol one gets some people saying: ‘Why should you be doing that for the people on the big cattle stations?’ I say that we should be doing it.

How much petrol does a person who lives in a city use? He would probably fill his tank once a week. In some of the outback areas a journey of 100 or 150 miles could be involved in going to the nearest town to buy a loaf of bread. I ask honourable senators to work out how much petrol is required to do that. That is sometimes the case in areas where people have to pay one-third more than the people in the city areas have to pay to fill their petrol tanks once a week. I believe that the Government must give serious thought to this matter. Something must be done to assist the man on the land much more than he has been assisted in the past. I make a plea to the Government to press ahead with the petrol equalisation scheme. That would enable the people in country areas to gain at least some small benefit from what they are contributing. Let us not forget that when times were good they contributed much more in taxes and everything else than many of us who live on the eastern seaboard and in the cities elsewhere. I say that the Government must press on with doing more for the man on the land than it has done up until this time.

I felt a great sense of disappointment when listening to a speech in the adjournment debate last evening by Senator Primmer on a subject on which he and I have spoken on a number of occasions not only in this chamber but also outside it. It is an issue about which we have been very concerned and for which we have great sympathy, that is, the plight of the people of East Timor now and prior to their takeover by the Indonesian people. What disappointed me last night was that for the first time in any of the debates concerning East Timor the bipartisan attitude that previously had been adopted by members from both sides of this House was broken. Because it was broken last night, I believe that I should set the record straight. Unfortunately Senator Primmer saw fit in his speech last night to lay all the blame for Australia’s attitude at the feet of the present Government and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). I say that it is absolutely incorrect to do so. I have said previously in this chamber, and I say again, that it is not correct to do so. The previous Government and the present Government, the previous Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister, the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, must share the blame equally for the tragedy of Australia not doing what it should have done for the people of East Timor.

Let me recount in my own way my experience in relation to East Timor. The Senate will recall that I had the opportunity to visit East Timor in the company of Senator Arthur Gietzelt and Mr Ken Fry from the other place. I was so upset at what I saw, so concerned for the people and their plight and for many of the things that they said to me and asked me to do. that immediately I arrived in Darwin on my return to Australia I went to the nearest telephone and rang my secretary. I asked her whether she would contact the Prime Minister, then Mr Whitlam, to seek an appointment for me to speak with him and bring to his attention the things that I had learned and some of the requests that had been made to me by the people of East Timor. While I was en route from Darwin to Brisbane my secretary carried out my instructions. On my arrival at the airport in Brisbane there was a message for me to contact my secretary, which I did. She informed me that the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, had said that he was not prepared to speak to me, that he had no time to speak to me, regardless of the importance of the matter, but that if I wished I could speak to one of his officers. He did not say that I could speak to his private secretary or to someone from the Department of Foreign Affairs, of which he was more or less in charge, but that I could speak to one of his men.

That was the treatment I got: I believe that it was a complete brush-off. I felt insulted not only for myself but for the people on whose behalf I was making representations to my country. Members of the media contacted me and asked me about my trip. I told them exactly what had happened when I tried to contact the Prime Minister. The present leader of the Labor Party, Mr Bill Hayden, lives in the same city as I do- in a sense I am one of his constitutents and in another sense perhaps he is one of my constituents. Lo and behold, the day after I made that statement my local newspaper, the Queensland Times, contained an article in which Mr Hayden slated me and said that I had no right to want to speak to the Prime Minister, that I was naive and knew nothing about foreign affairs, and that I should come and talk to him. He had no concern for the people of East Timor. Where then does the blame lie? Does it lie only with the inactivity of the present Government or does it lie with both governments?

Senator Mcintosh:

– The present Government has been active. It has delivered the final blow.

Senator BONNER:

-As I said, up until last night we had adopted a bipartisan line. If Senator Mcintosh wishes to speak when I am finished he is welcome to do so. Perhaps Mr Hayden was right when he said that I was naive and knew nothing about foreign affairs. But one thing in which I do have expertise and on which I am not naive is the matter of human relations, human understanding, compassion for those less fortunate than myself. I believe that I have that expertise. Who would know better than I what it is like to live in a country where one’s people have been oppressed and denigrated? I know what it is like and I know how the East Timorese people are feeling at the moment. Do not tell me that my people were not shot, poisoned and hanged because they were, although perhaps not to the same extent as is happening in East Timor at the moment. Perhaps it did not happen to my people on the same scale because more people are involved in East Timor. There were only 300,000 Aborigines, and there are 750,000 East Timorese people. As I understand the position, 50,000 East Timorese were slaughtered by Indonesian troops when they arrived in East Timor. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Aboriginal people were only half wiped out. At the turn of the century there were 300,000 Aborigines, and we are now down to fewer than 70,000. 1 may not know about international diplomacy, but I certainly do know what it is to be a member of a deprived race of people and to be walked over by someone else.

Perhaps somebody is saying: ‘Finally he is getting around to it’. Yes, finally I am getting around to it. I intend to refer to some statements that have been made concerning members of my race and the land rights Act introduced by the Government to give the tribal lands back to many of my people in the Northern Territory. It is perhaps appropriate that I should bring up this matter today. At 4 o’clock this afternoon at Mount Isa in Queensland the last full-blood member of the Kalkadoon tribe will be put to rest. The Kalkadoon tribe owned the land in and around Mount Isa prior to the landing of the First Fleet in 1 788 and for quite sometime after. I think it is appropriate that I should bring up the matter of land rights and some of the statements concerning it at a time when the last member of the Kalkadoon tribe is being laid to rest at Mount Isa in Queensland. Mount Isa has one of the biggest and richest silver, lead and zinc mines in the southern hemisphere. The mine is on tribal Aboriginal land but the Aboriginal people of Queensland and the Kalkadoons in particular receive not one single solitary cent, not one little bit of compensation from it. The remnants of that tribe are still living in gunyahs on the banks of the river, in conditions of the greatest degradation that could be witnessed anywhere.

I turn to some of the statements that have been made recently. One which would certainly stand out is the headline which appeared in the Australian on 17 February 1978 in large black type stating:

Black council’s demands ‘will ruin N.T. mining’

Racial confrontation, industrial chaos and possible financial ruin were predicted yesterday for the emerging State in the Northern Territory if the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1 977 is not amended.

That statement was made by the Australian Mining Industry Council, one of the most influential groupings of mining companies in Australia, in a 1 5 -page submission to the Federal Government. I hope that members of this chamber will have an opportunity to read that submission. Certainly I would welcome the opportunity to debate it, either here or with the mining companies- wherever they choose. If that kind of statement is not going to cause problems in itself when Aborigines are being given their rights by a Federal government for the first time in the history of this country, I do not know what will. That article appeared in the Australian on 17 February 1978. It seems rather strange that it was followed on Monday, 20 February 1978- only three days later- by an article on the third page of the Brisbane Courier Mail headed in very big, black type: ‘Premier slates mineral rights law for blacks. Could lead to black State’. The article stated:

White Australians would be converted to second class citizens unless “mineral rights provisions were removed from aboriginal land legislation, the Premier (Mr Bjelke-Petersen) said last night.

Senator Ryan:

– Do you agree with him?

Senator BONNER:

– Patience, my dear, patience! The article continued:

He said legislation which gave mineral and land rights was pure Alice in Wonderland’ and had been drawn up on a misunderstanding. Aboriginal control of a vital resource such as uranium could lead eventually to an independent black State in the Northern Territory.

I will not read all of the article. I will read the parts on which I want to comment:

In Australia, minerals belonged to the Crown so that the benefits would be shared by all Australians.

Oh, what a fantasy to believe that the minerals will be shared by all Australians. That is not my understanding of the facts. When one realises that one of the largest mining companies in Queensland has just taken out of Australia an amount of $150m, one wonders how much of that honourable senators here are receiving as their share. How much are the unemployed in Australia getting of that amount? ‘Shared by all Australians!’ It is fantasy on the part of the Premier of Queensland to make that kind of statement. They would no more get a share of the benefits than if the minerals in Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory are mined and some work is created for Aborigines and nonAborigines. But who is going to get the profits? Are all Australians to get the profits? Phooey!

Mr Bjelke-Petersen also said:

A small group, prey to militant and do-good advisers, could hold mining companies and the entire nation to ransom on a vital resource.

Senator Ryan:

– It is already happening; but they are not do-gooders.

Senator BONNER:

– If that is the case every member of this chamber would fall into that category. We passed the land rights legislation here in this chamber. It was presented by the Federal Government in the other place, it was brought up here, it was passed in this chamber and it was supported by Bishop Rush of the Catholic Church in Queensland, Bishop Arnott of the Anglican Church in Queensland and the Moderator-General of the Continuing Church in Queensland. Are they all radicals, do-gooders and activists because they support Aboriginal land rights in the way they were identified in the Aboriginal land rights legislation introduced into this Parliament and passed by this Senate? If the land rights legislation is unaltered, Aboriginal people will have the right of veto over mining on their land, except when the minerals are being mined in the national interest. When dealing with Aborigines the white man always comes out on top. You cannot have a mob of blackfellows sitting on all this uranium, silver, lead and bauxite. In the national interest the white man must come out on top and the black man then has to go by the board.

The Premier went on to say:

They could use uranium and land control to demand an independent State . . .

. and

I take issue with that statement in itself-

China or Russia would be eager to step in to help.

My God! It brings me back to the debate on East Timor when so much was said about the Fretilin movement, that it was a bunch of Corns and that the Communists were helping it. When I spoke of this to the leaders of the Fretilin movement the answer I received from them was: ‘Senator, if you are drowning in a river or a pool of water and a hand reaches out to help you, do you question whose or what hand it is? You grab it and save your life’. If that is the case, perhaps the Fretilin movement has reached out to grasp the hand that has been offered to it by way of help because Australia had failed it dismally. That is the only way that Aborigines may sometime, somewhere find it necessary to accept help from people other than those who have the opportunity at the moment. That is not a threat on my part; that is a simple matter of what could happen as it has happened in other countries.

The article continued:

The Premier said it was a denial of basic democratic rights that any group could exclude other people from going anywhere in Australia.

How ludicrous! Try going through the properties of station owners, graziers and grain growers and see what will happen to you. You will be told to get off very smartly. All that the Aboriginal people are seeking in their land rights claim is the right to determine who shall come on to their lands and into their communities and for what purpose. I do not think that is wrong. I think it is a fundamental right that they should have. This would not relate to whites only. As the elders of the tribes said when I was Chairman of the Select Committee inquiring into Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory, they want the right to say who- whether black, white or brindle with green stripes- should come on to their property and who should not. They are not concerned as to colour or nationality.

Madam Deputy President, 1 think it is appropriate that the Northern Lands Council should be under the chairmanship of a tribal Aborigine- not some Sydney radical or some Melbourne radical but a tribal Aborigine- and made up of tribal men controlling the land rights in the Northern Territory. I shall quote from an article which appeared in today’s Sydney Morning Herald. Referring to the mining companies which are kicking up such a row about Aborigines having the right to determine whether uranium or other minerals should be mined on their properties, it states:

So they are trying to discredit the whole Lands Rights Act, which was passed in December, 1976, after two years of debate in Parliament and in the country under both Labor and Liberal/Country Party Governments. It was a debate in which the miners’ views were highly influential.

No one can deny that the mining interests had the opportunity to look at that legislation and to put forward their points of view. Now that the provisions of that legislation are a fact of life the mining companies see fit to denigrate the Aboriginal people and the Northern Lands Council and to make further demands so that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory will lose what little they now have.

Senator Missen:

– It is now the law of the land.

Senator BONNER:

– It is now the law of the land. It was passed by both Houses of Parliament. The Aboriginal people have so little and it took so long to get so little, yet we have mining companies and a Premier of” a State not in any way recognising land rights for Aboriginal people. This Premier will not recognise those rights in any shape or form; even to the extent that when a group of Aboriginal people were endeavouring to buy some crown lease land he stopped that from happening. A group of Aboriginal people in the Murray Upper, outside Cardwell, were trying to purchase some land to develop and to assist and help themselves. That was frustrated and was stopped by the Premier of Queensland. He now has the audacity to say that the Aboriginal people are endeavouring to set up a black State in the Northern Territory. I wonder whether one could use a quotation in reverse and state that what the Premier is actually doing is not drawing a red herring across the scene but drawing a black herring across the scene in order to take the powerhouse debate off the front pages of the Queensland newspapers. With those remarks, I again say how proud I am to have had the opportunity to speak in the Address-in-Reply debate and to support the motion.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise at short notice to participate in this debate, but I welcome the opportunity to do so. The theme of the Governor-General’s address in this place a couple of days ago was quite clear: It was a theme along the lines of promising respect for and re-inforcement of individual liberties in our society. Phrases like ‘individual freedom’ were used constantly throughout the address by the Governor-General. In response to the Governor-General’s Speech I think another theme has emerged in this place; that is, the theme of the disparity between words and actions and in particular the disparity between the words of a government and the actions a government is prepared to take.

It seems to me that those two themes are in a very telling juxtaposition to each other. We have a government which talks at great length about individual rights and freedoms, about increasing the freedom of choice, about putting money into people ‘s pockets and enabling people the choice of how that money is spent and so forth. We heard a lot of that for two years and then we heard it again in the Governor-General’s address in this place a couple of days ago. However, several speakers in the Address-in-Reply debate- not all those speakers have been from this side of the chamber- have pointed out that there is a very serious and distressing disparity between what a Fraser Government is prepared to say about individual freedoms and liberties and what it in fact does on this matter.

Senator Haines, who made her maiden speech in this place last night, is to be congratulated on stressing that very point. I think she took two very telling examples of the Fraser Government failing to act in the way in which it has spoken.

She took the example of Australian women and the example of the Australian Aborigines. She very tellingly described the situation which develops when a government says that it is going to act and in fact fails to act but adopts the misleading practice of establishing advisory committees, consultative councils and such like. I think you, Madam Acting Deputy President, in your words to the chamber this afternoon described the unsatisfactory nature of setting up a series of committees, councils and bodies which talk, represent no one and get nothing done. I believe that that has been characteristic of the Government in the past. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that the Government is going to change in this respect. Senator Bonner, who has just resumed his seat, a person of much greater personal experience in the matter than any other honourable senator, described more passionately than perhaps any honourable senator on this side of the chamber could do the situation which still prevails today with regard to the Aboriginal people. This situation is still an international scandal and is still a disgrace to this country. (Quorum formed).

Before the quorum was called I was pointing out to the Senate that during the AddressinReply debate speakers representing various political views have developed a theme, namely, the disparity between what the Government is prepared to say about individual freedoms and rights and what the Government is prepared to do. Senator Bonner made the point with great passion and from the heart and from personal experience that despite what has been said and, indeed, despite legislation which has been passed in this chamber with respect to land rights for Aborigines, those land rights have not yet been implemented. The Aboriginal people are still living in disgraceful poverty and ill-health and the very rights which we assumed we guaranteed by passing the land rights legislation are under attack by representatives of the mining industry, more particularly the multinational mining interests which are so anxious to use Australia as a quarry regardless of the wishes of the Aboriginal people.

I think it is very disturbing for those of us engaged in parliamentary life to realise that we can come here representing our electorates and our States and see legislation with which all honourable senators agree- I think that was the case with the Aboriginal land rights legislationpassed through the Parliament yet other more powerful institutions than the Parliament, which are not answerable to anybody and certainly not to anybody in Australia, are able to deflect and distort our wishes as expressed in the land rights legislation. I congratulate Senator Bonner, as a supporter of the Government, for rising and reminding the Government that the land rights legislation has not been implemented. I hope his words today will stiffen the resolve of Government members to resist the lobbying of the Mining Industries Forum and other selfinterested bodies and to persist with the good intentions which they all expressed at the time when the land rights legislation was introduced.

Nonetheless, it is the case that we have a new Parliament which is led by a Liberal-National Country Party coalition whose record with regard to action in the previous Parliament was a very poor one. The record of that Government was characterised by the establishment of committees such as the Women’s Welfare Issues Consultative Committee, the Women’s Advisory Committee which still has not been established but which we are told will be established one of these days and various other committees while, at the same time, the Government is cutting back on programs which were giving assistance to people in need.

I instance the legal aid program which has been cut back, dreadfully fragmented and now broken up legally into a series of State and territorial commissions. That is a great comedown for a scheme known as the Australian Legal Aid Office which was introduced at the time of the Australian Labor Party Government. We are aware of cutbacks in areas such as child care, women’s refuges, Aboriginal health programs and so on. In my view it is worse than useless- it is hypocritical- to talk about freedoms and about ensuring and guaranteeing the right of free choice and so forth if the Government is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is. If a government is not prepared to establish programs to make resources available for people to exercise their freedoms, those freedoms on paper are useless.

While I am on this theme of individual freedoms and the importance of basic democratic rights to us in the Parliament I shall mention briefly the situation of broadcasting in this country. I express briefly- I shall do it at great length at another time- my distress at the intrusion into the independence of the national broadcasting system in Australia, that is, the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Since the Fraser Government was first elected in December 1975 it has engaged in a continual assault on the independence of the ABC. That assault has taken different forms and it has waxed and waned. But it has never ceased. First of all there were the savage cutbacks in two successive Budgets which reduced in a very real and concrete way the ability of the ABC to carry out its various and very important statutory functions. But more insidious than that has been the apparent political interference in programming and in the content of various ABC current affairs programs. The disappearance of a well-known This Day Tonight reporter from that program after the last election is very distressing. I hold no brief for that reporter or for any individual reporter who may or may not carry out his or her duties with professional integrity. What I do find distressing is that the only national current affairs program which gave daily coverage of the election campaign found itself short of its main reporter at the end of the campaign.

I am investigating this matter. It has been alleged that that reporter was sacked because he dared to question the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) about matters of national importance during the campaign. I do not yet have adequate evidence to support that charge. I expect that I will be in a position to have that evidence and to produce it in this place at a later stage. I think that all persons who like to talk about the right of free speech, and the importance of an independent, objective broadcasting service in a democratic system should be disturbed by the changes which have taken place to the program This Day Tonight in the last two years. It seems now that no controversial subjects can be examined by the Australian Broadcasting Commission unless they have the blessing of the current Government. That is extraordinarily distressing. Similarly, one of the few radio programs on the ABC which engages in current affairs at a more than superficial level is the program Broadband. Again, it is distressing to find an unscheduled change in the Broadband programming to the effect that the time allocated to Broadband has been suddenly cut in half, apparently as a result of submissions from management, and certainly with the agreement of the Commissioners. I do not question that. But it seems to me that the opportunity for Australians to hear views other than those of the current Government on the national broadcasting system have been radically reduced. That fact stands in alarming contrast to the expressions of individual freedoms and so forth with which the Governor-General ‘s Speech was cluttered.

Of course, the basic freedom which we require in a society such as ours is the freedom to earn a living, the freedom to go out and get a job and to have income to dispose of as one wills. Persons who have no income are dependent persons.

They have no freedom of choice whatsoever. They may rely on a pension or on the goodwill of a spouse. If they do not have their own income they do not have a freedom of choice in this basic way. The right to earn a living seems to me to be probably the basic right in a political and economic system such as we have in Australia. Yet that right is now being denied to many thousands of Australians.

The national unemployment figures are quite disgraceful. We have a measured and reported unemployment rate of something like 7.2 per cent for the month of January. Everyone in this place is aware that the real unemployment figures are much larger than those which are measured because of the various inadequacies in the measuring devices used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and because of the various inadequacies in the data collecting procedures of the Commonwealth Employment Service. It was claimed in another place by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) that the real unemployment figure in Australia is about 9 per cent. Certainly, in my experience, that is by no means an exaggerated claim. Of course, that 9 per cent unemployment rate nationally is not evenly spread throughout the work force. Even if it were evenly spread throughout the work force it would be a cause for grave concern. But the fact of the matter is that it is most unevenly spread so that particular sectors of the potential work force suffer a much higher unemployment rate than the 9 per cent or the measured 7.2 per cent. For example, migrant workers are hit much harder in the current unemployment situation than nonmigrant workers. When we look at junior girl migrant workers we find a measured unemployment rate of 19.6 per cent. That is a matter of national scandal. I raise this matter at this stage of the debate because it seems to me that the Government has taken no specific measure to deal with the pockets of severe unemploymment. There is no specific program of assistance to the 19.6 per cent of unemployed migrant female juniors. There are a number of bandaid schemes to help the unemployed while away their time of unemployment or even to get taken on for a short time by an employer who is willing to participate in various schemes. But there is no specific employment, training or work oriented scheme aimed at the specific needs of those groups suffering the highest rate of unemployment. That is a lamentable failure on the part of the Government. This situation is one which I shall continue to criticise in this place in the hope that, finally, something will be done about it.

Here in the Australian Capital Territory, of course, we have a very clear example of the various failures of the Government to provide that freedom of choice which comes from having a job. There has been a steady contraction of job opportunities in all sectors since the Fraser Government was first elected. Subsequent to the imposition of staff ceilings, there has been a serious contraction of employment opportunities in the public sector. I must say in passing that the Government’s attempt to come to terms with the inefficiency which we all admit to be a characteristic of the public sector is really quite astounding. Its claim that there was inefficiency, perhaps under-employment, in some areas of the bureaucracy, is not one that we would bother to dispute. But instead of setting about a proper streamlining of the public sector, a proper workeffectiveness program for the public sector, it simply adopted the staff ceilings approach. Every Public Service department was ordered to reduce its staff ceiling by a certain number. Those reductions could come about by resignations, deaths or retirements, so there was no plan for the proper management of resources in the public sector- simply this crude trimming back of the numbers.

This has led, as honourable senators know, to incredible inefficiency in some sectors. There has been chaos in sectors dealing with the unemployed, and the recent industrial dispute that the Government has on its hands is, I would say, of its own making. By imposing staff ceilings, by reducing the resources available to the Department of Social Services and the Commonwealth Employment Service offices to deal with the problems of unemployment, it has brought about the atmosphere in which the current industrial dispute is taking place. By imposing such ceilings on government departments, many of which are of course here in the Australian Capital Territory, the Government has virtually said to many school leavers, to many graduates of tertiary institutions, to many women seeking to rejoin the work force in the Australian Capital Territory: ‘There are no jobs for you’. Previously, qualified people could expect to enter the Public Service and do a useful job, but now the doors have been shut in their faces. There has been only the smallest trickle of new entrants to the Public Service. This is a Public Service town. The Commonwealth is its largest employer, but the Commonwealth has shut the door of job opportunity in the faces of many thousands of Australian Capital Territory citizens.

The attack on the public sector is not the only way in which the Government has reduced job opportunities in the Australian Capital Territory. By condemning the public sector in such an irrational, prejudicial and unsystematic way it has also wreaked tremendous havoc amongst the various industries and activities that make up the private sector. For example, the activity in the building and construction industry has been reduced to something like one-tenth of that which obtained previously. That has meant that builders, builders’ labourers, trades-people, surveyors, draughtsmen, architects, engineers and so forth- all those who earn their living in the building and construction industry- have been severely affected. Unemployment there is extraordinarily high. Also, many training opportunities have been lost because when the work is not there, the opportunity for apprentices to be taken on and trained is not there either.

Also, the retail industry of the Australian Capital Territory has suffered terribly. If people are not building houses, have not money to spend, are not engaging in the sort of activity that they did in the time of growth in the Australian Capital Territory, they are not going out to buy things from the shops. Retailing has been extraordinarily damaged by the policies of the Fraser Government. Moreover, since there was nothing in the Speech of the Governor-General in this place on Tuesday to suggest that the Government had learned any lessons with respect to the situation in the Australian Capital Territory, one cannot expect that the position will improve.

Let me describe now in some specific detail the unemployment situation in the Australian Capital Territory and let honourable senators judge for themselves whether or not the freedom to work really exists here in this Commonwealth territory. There are now more than 7,000 unemployed persons in the Australian Capital Territory. There are this month nearly 1,000 more unemployed persons than there were last month. In January 1977 there was a decrease in the registered unemployed of nearly 200. The number of vacancies notified in January was 942, so we currently have a situation where there are 942 jobs for more than 7,000 people. I am aware that that disparity is probably reproduced in every town and city of this country, but those statistics should be borne in mind by people who like still, despite all this, to go about and say that the unemployed have only themselves to blame, that they are not seeking jobs. No matter how assiduous those 7,000 people might be in their pursuit of employment, only 942 of them will find it. There are seven people competing for every job that is available, so 6,000 of them are condemned to continuing harrassment by a Government which will not recognise its own responsibility to create employment, and is reluctant to recognise its responsibility to pay unemployment benefits to those who, through no fault of their own, are deprived of work.

Some 335 of those vacancies in the Australian Capital Territory are in the retail industry, an area which, because of the Government’s attack on the public sector, has shown a dramatic decline. Again, the opportunity of persons to earn their living in the private sector has been significantly reduced by the actions of a government which likes to speak of freedom of choice and extol the virtues of the free enterprise system. The irony, in the Australian Capital Territory, is that those persons who had been working in the free enterprise system, who had had their own businesses, are those who have been most badly affected by the actions of this free enterprise Government.

Some 3,237 juniors in the Australian Capital Territory are looking for work, but only 154 job vacancies are registered. So, when it comes to juniors, again the unemployment situation has a very unequal effect. There are 2 1 young persons competing for every job available. Despite this situation, the Government has taken no specific steps. It speaks of a desire to have training schemes, to have a manpower policy, but as yet we have seen no evidence of their being created. There is in Australia today no manpower policy. There is no proper work training scheme. Certainly, there are a number of subsidy schemes, a number of schemes which assist employers to take on juniors. There are a number which assist unemployed persons to pay for courses, or which pay them allowances while they undertake courses, at a technical college or something of that kind.

There are various forms, mean as they are, of financial assistance to various sectors of the unemployed, but there is no training scheme whereby people can learn a skill that they can be sure will be marketable. That, in my view, is what a training scheme is; it is not just a subsidy scheme for making available an allowance of a few dollars a week. A training scheme should impart marketable skills to those who genuinely seek them. We still do not have any such scheme in Australia.

We are, of course, awaiting with interest the result of the Williams inquiry. Perhaps, when that is presented, we may expect to see such a scheme develop. Of course it will not be until the

Government first develops a manpower policy; until the Government confronts seriously the reasons why we have such extensive unemployment in this country; until this Government stops pursuing its only, and single strategy with regard to unemployment which, as we all know, is the reduction of inflation. Until then we will not have a training scheme and we will not have a manpower policy. It is clear to the unbiased observer- and even to some who are biased that the manufacturing, primary industry and mining sectors of this country are out of kilter with each other. There were years and years of ad hoc development of the manufacturing sector, in which we engaged- doubtless in the name of free enterprise- in industries in which we should never have engaged. There were years and years during which the Liberal-Country Party coalition government knew that the European Economic Community would soon become a reality and would have a disastrous effect on our primary industry, yet nothing was done to create new markets for our products.

For a considerable time now, the Government ought to have been aware of the effect of the mining boom on the other sectors of the Australian economy, yet there has been no planning, forethought or manpower policy, no attempt to balance our resources, no attempt to ensure that if one sector, such as manufacturing, lost its viability, there would be other areas of productive activity into which workers and investors could transfer their resources. I think this Government is to be soundly condemned for its failure to confront realistically the basis of unemployment in this country, its failure to realise the need for a restructuring of the economy and its failure to implement a manpower policy on which training schemes can be developed.

I do not believe that any unemployed school leaver should be on the dole. My view is that if a person leaves school and cannot find employment he should be trained for employment. When the unemployment benefit was first introduced it was supposed to be a short term measure to tide people over for a few weeks or a few days when they moved from one job to another. It is certainly not adequate to cope with the present situation. What is called for is something similar to what is happening in Sweden, Austria and various countries which have a long history of social democratic government. Unemployed persons who want employment and do not have marketable skills are given marketable skills. I am afraid that message has not yet got through to the Government whose only response to the unemployed youth is to send out more quasi police agents to try to get a few of them off the dole. That is not good enough.

In concluding my remarks I repeat that in this chamber there has already been serious criticism of the Government for failing to act. In many instances what it has said has been acceptable. What it has done has not been acceptable. I hope that in the ensuing months those persons not on this side of the chamber who are aware of the disparity between words and actions of the Government will take steps to ensure that at least some of the sentiments expressed in the Governor-General ‘s Speech are acted upon and do not merely remain words on paper as did the Speech we heard 2 years ago.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Haines on her maiden speech. It is a memorable occasion for all of us when we make our maiden speech. I am sure that it will be just as memorable for her and that she will take the memory of it with her all her life. I cannot agree with her interpretation of some of the voting figures in the last election, but if she can take comfort from the interpretation she should do so by all means. I also mention her quest to limit pornography in Australia. There are pitfalls in having an opinion contrary to that of the leader of one’s party. If I were her I should check with my leader as to his policy on the introduction of pornography in Australia.

I am honoured to support today the motion for the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General ‘s Speech at the opening of the Parliament. I congratulate His Excellency on it. I assure him of the loyalty of myself, my Party, the Government and, I am sure, the Parliament to him and Her Gracious Majesty the Queen. The scope of the policies this Government wishes to implement is almost mind-boggling in size and breadth. I wish the Government well. I am sure that its policies will get this country back on its feet and make it prosperous, peaceful and profitable.

The portion of the Speech to which I shall pay attention is that in which the Government said that it will step up its program of scientific research and development in Antarctica in cooperation with the governments of many other countries. This matter is particularly topical. I note that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) this morning asked a very pertinent question about it. A big conference will be held in Australia next week on this issue. I took the trouble of informing myself about Antarctica. I think the Senate would be well advised to know something about it. It is a complex and most interesting subject.

The development of Antarctica could have far reaching effects on the climate of the whole of this earth. It is the coldest, driest, windiest, least accessible, least known and generally one of the most unpleasant of the seven continents. Since 1959 it has been administered by several countries. They are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It has been administered under a treaty which froze territorial claims. It banned military activity and established free and open scientific co-operation. It is one of the very few international treaties which has worked well for so many years. However, in the last few years there has been growing tension between nations, largely over the exploitation of the resources of the area. These are considerable. It has krill, a type of shrimp, which could be a huge business. It probably has off-shore oil and gas. It has iron ore, uranium and several other minerals.

The Antarctic continent itself covers one-tenth of the earth’s land surface. It is divided by the trans-Antarctic range into east and west Antarctica. The east is the larger part, often called Greater Antarctica. The west is the lesser. The east is a vast ice plateau 13,000 feet high. Curiously, geologically it is older than the western section. The western section is dominated by ridges of mountain ranges which press up through the ice and snow cover. The ice is more than a mile thick and covers over 98 per cent of the land’s surface. The area seems to have little or no daylight for 6 months of the year. The land mass itself is virtually lifeless, but the seas are amongst the most biologically productive in the world.

The word ‘krill’ is a Norwegian word. It means whale food. There are many species of krill, but one is dominant. It is a crustacean. Krill are herbivores. They feed on phytoplanktons and look similar to shrimps. Surprisingly, they light up at night. When they swarm they make a blue-green fire in the ocean. That is important to the ecology of the area. Because they swarm they are easy to harvest. They come in shoals which can be a few feet or many acres across. Catch rates are often as high as 40 tonnes an hour. It has been estimated by the various governments involved that it is feasible to harvest 50 million tonnes of krill a year without detriment to the population. This compares to a total world catch of 60 million tonnes in 1974. They are reasonably high in protein. The protein content is 15 per cent, which is similar to that of crayfish.

Senator Devitt:

– Some species contain more than that.

Senator SHEIL:

– Some species contain more than that. The dominant species contain around 1 5 per cent. A harvest of 70 million tonnes can produce 20 grams of protein daily for one billion people. That is a quarter of the earth’s population. However, commercial fishing has its problems. The swarming shoals are still difficult to locate. One of the big problems is that they spoil easily after catching. Japan and Russia have been investing heavily in research on catching these krill. Both countries use them extensively as a food. Experimental work is being done by many other countries such as West Germany, Chile and Poland. Thailand and Norway have expressed interest in that work. As yet no oil or gas has been found there but several smells of it have been found on the continental shelf. Recent United States reports claim that there are recoverable reserves of oil there similar to those in the Alaskan oilfields. The United States reports say that the extraction problems are not insurmountable.

Speculation about Antarctica’s mineral deposits revolves in part around the Gondwanaland hypothesis which holds that Latin America, Africa, India and Australasia were linked with Antarctica as recently as 100 million years ago. The theory is that similar deposits of minerals as those in the Andes, Australasia and the South African Rand may exist in Antarctica. Oil and gas such as are found off New Zealand, mainland Australia and Tasmania may be replicated in the Ross Sea where these finds have been made. At present no uranium has been found in Antarctica but similar rocks to those bearing uranium in Australia have been found in the Norwegian, Australian and French sectors of Antarctica. Coal was discovered by some of the earliest explorers in the Antarctica. It is found largely in the eastern sectors belonging to Australia, Norway and New Zealand and in those sectors could exist the largest coal deposit in the world. Unfortunately it is inaccessible and is relatively impure coal; nevertheless, it is there and if present world sources become depleted it may be won.

Iron ore has been found in huge quantities especially in the Prince Charles Mountains in the east and it is potentially winnable. It is estimated that there is enough iron ore there to meet the present world demand for the next 200 years. So the quantity is immense. Even ice from Antarctica has been tested as a resource. The ice cap contains 70 per cent of the world’s store of fresh water- I find these figures staggering- and 90 per cent of the world’s ice. Each year 1.4 trillion tonnes break off and melt. That is 350 tonnes annually for every human being. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 130

ADJOURNMENT

Whaling Inquiry- Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms

Motion (by Senator Webster) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise at the request of a considerable number of environmentalists in Sydney who seem to be of the opinion that the Government is having second thoughts about a pledge which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) gave that there would be a full-scale inquiry into Australia’s future whaling operations. I wonder whether the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) is in a position to allay the fears of these people.

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

– I thank the honourable senator for raising this matter. In its 1977 election policy speech the Government gave an undertaking that a public inquiry into the protection and conservation of whales would be made. Following Sir Charles Court’s agreement to the choice of Mr Justice Samuels as the person to undertake the inquiry some difficulty has been encountered in securing Mr Justice Samuels and it is now understood that he will not be available. So there is a delay. The honourable senator can be assured, as can his constituents who are concerned, that the Government definitely will proceed with this inquiry. The words of the Governor-General earlier this week as recorded on page 6 of the Senate Hansard to which I direct the honourable senator’s attention were: a public inquiry into whales and whaling will shortly commence and legislation will be brought forward to improve measures to control marine pollution.

The honourable senator need have no fear. It is the definite intention of this Government to proceed with the inquiry.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have a short request to make of you, Mr President, and will not keep the Senate long. Could you make inquiries into why no facilities were made available to the staff of Parliament House last Tuesday for them to have a meal or drink after 6 p.m.? I understand that the staff canteen was closed at 6 p.m. Some of the staff started work here in the very early hours of the morning and had to work until midnight. Some went to the canteen for a cup of tea or refreshments and were told that the canteen was closed. Therefore they had to remain on duty until midnight and whilst many hundreds of people attended this Parliament and were served with the highest quality food and drink, the people who did the real work around this place on that day were unable to be provided with refreshments or a meal. I ask you to make inquiries to find out who was responsible for that determination.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will make the inquiries that you request.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.32 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 February 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780223_senate_31_s76/>.