Senate
4 May 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

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

page 1391

PETITIONS

Medical Benefits Table

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 104 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is not removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

That this item which an estimated 49, 1 45 contributors claimed in the 1976-77 financial year, covers a legal and medically approved procedure.

That the removal of this item from the schedule would destroy the concept of universal health insurance, and would have the most serious repercussions for women and their health.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of Senator Brown, I present the following petition from nine citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members and ex members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces.

The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services.

This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia.

The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces.

Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medal”:.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force.

Petition received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

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

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members and ex members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces.

The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services.

This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia.

The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as aforesaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces.

Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Canberra: City Bus Interchange

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

  1. We support the construction of the City Bus Interchange as pan of the plan to upgrade Canberra ‘s public transport system.
  2. The facility will provide bus users with long overdue protection from Canberra ‘s extreme climate.
  3. It will also provide an information bureau and other amenities for bus users and drivers.
  4. That the proposed site at the corner of London Circuit and Northbourne Avenue is the most central for the majority of bus users.
  5. The site also gives the speediest bus access to Northbourne Avenue, the major traffic artery.
  6. It is envisaged that the Interchange, by encouraging greater use of public transport, will help to reduce car congestion, noise and exhaust pollution in Civic.
  7. We support first class landscaping around the buildings to ensure they blend in with the present environment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate take urgent action on the construction of the City Bus Interchange.

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

Petition received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members and ex members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces.
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, lire brigade and ambulance services.
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia.
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as aforesaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces.
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force. by Senator Lajovic and Senator Tehan.

Petitions received.

page 1392

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Notice of Motion

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

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

  1. 1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and times of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this period of sittings be as follows:

Monday, 8 May 2.30pmto6pm;8pmto10pm

Tuesday, 9 May- 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Wednesday, 10 May- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 1 1 p.m.

Thursday, 11 May- 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Tuesday, 23 May- 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Wednesday, 24 May- 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 1 1 p.m.

Thursday, 25 May- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Friday, 26 May- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Monday, 29 May- 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Tuesday, 30 May- 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Wednesday, 31 May- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 1 1 p.m.

Thursday, 1 June- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Friday, 2 June- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Monday, 5 June- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Tuesday, 6 June- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Wednesday, 7 June- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Thursday, 8 June- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Friday, 9 June- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

  1. That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.
  2. That, after Thursday, 11 May 1978, Government Business take precedence of General Business each Thursday.

Copies of the notice of motion have been distributed to all honourable senators.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, are we entitled to ask a question on the notice of motion at this time?

The PRESIDENT:

– Not at this time.

Senator McLaren:

– It is vital. I notice that the proposed sittings include part of the Queen’s Birthday holiday weekend.

Senator Withers:

– It is not a holiday in my State.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator may seek leave to ask a question.

Senator McLaren:

– I seek leave to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leave granted.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In view of the fact that in quite a number of States my Party will be holding annual conferences on the Monday of the Queen’s Birthday holiday weekend, and as I note that we are now scheduled to sit on the Monday, I ask: Did the Leader of the Government in the Senate confer with our leader before these arrangements were made?

Senator WITHERS (Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate)- I am quite prepared to talk to people, but I think that the obvious thing to do is to finish the sittings at about 10 p.m. on the Friday preceding the Queen’s Birthday holiday weekend.

page 1393

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1393

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. I refer to the current objection by the States to the lack of consultation between the Commonwealth and the States in respect of the uranium legislation presently before the Parliament to which I referred yesterday. I ask him whether it is a fact that in a letter of 3 1 August last year from the Prime Minister to the State Premiers the Prime Minister said:

I recognise the contribution which State authorities have already made in this field- that is, in reference to the nuclear code- and believe that it is essential that this task of developing further elements of the code take place as a joint exercise and to this end I invite participation in this work by officials of your State.

Is it a fact that the States did not receive any further communication until 3 April this yearthat is, eight months later- and that in that communication the States were advised that a meeting to brief appropriate State officers on the details of the Bill would be held four days later? Is this an example of what this Government means by consultation with the States?

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

-Yesterday Senator Wriedt asked me a series of questions to which his questions today are an extension. As yet I have not been able to obtain from the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Department specific answers to his questions. I think the best arrangement would be for me to add these questions and extra requests to yesterday’s questions. Obviously I cannot have in my possession the details of the letter from which Senator Wriedt quoted. Therefore I shall take the whole of the questions on notice and see whether I can get detailed answers as soon as possible.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. Yesterday the Minister indicated that he was a member of Cabinet and privy to all the discussions that took place. I put it to the Minister Is it not reasonable, as he is the Minister responsible for Federal Affairs, that he be in a position to answer the questions on this matter today? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister’s office should be able to provide him with the information that I am seeking? If the Minister cannot give the information to us after Question Time today will he give us an undertaking that tomorrow he will in fact answer the questions that I asked yesterday and the questions that I have asked today?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am making every reasonable endeavour to get information for Senator Wriedt but he could not have listened to what I said yesterday. The fact is that correspondence and consultation with Premiers are conducted at the Prime Minister-Premier level. Senator Wriedt asked for information relating to specific correspondence and specific approaches, in terms of nature and dates, from the Prime Minister to the Premiers, not from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. With the best of goodwill I undertook to get that and I have also undertaken to get, as far as I can, the information that he asked for today. I find it passing strange that Senator Wriedt, who was a member of a Government of intense centralist design and desire which never consulted the States at all, should now be saying that there is some offence against federalism. I can only remind him of the old saying: Physician cure thyself.

page 1393

QUESTION

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is it a fact that section 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act, introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1974, imposes a capital gains tax on profits made within a 12-month period and subjects them to a penalty tax at the taxpayer’s marginal rate of income tax as high as 60 per cent? Does the imposition of this penalty apply to all gains including those on homes sold for any reason other than forced sales in connection with changes of employment? Does this narrow definition exclude self-employed people and penalise people who, by reason of a change to their business operations or financial requirements, are forced to change their residential status? If so, is this not discriminatory? More generally, will the Government consider also the disincentive effect on investment of a tax of 60 per cent with a view to lowering the effective rate of tax applicable under this section?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware that the Whitlam Government in fact sought to impose a capital gains tax on every family by applying a capital gains test to the sale of a home. I am well aware that honourable members and honourable senators on this side of the Parliament had something strong to say about it. I am well aware that many parts of section 26, including section 26AAA, are controversial. I do not have a specific response to some of the nuances that have been raised but I will take them on board. I will ask the Treasurer to give me the information and let the honourable senator know.

page 1394

QUESTION

SPECIAL YOUTH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SCHEME

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I remind the Minister of recent statements by the Prime Minister to the effect that it is the responsibility of the business community to get the economy moving again and I refer the Minister to reports that the Special Youth Employment Training Scheme is becoming increasingly susceptible to abuse by companies. I ask: Is it a fact that employers are misusing the scheme by retrenching young people when the six months subsidised training period ends and replacing them with other people? What information does the Minister have in his possession regarding this practice? What does the Government propose to do to make it more difficult for employers to abuse this system?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-My attention and the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations have been drawn to an article in, I think, the Australian Financial Review of today in relation to this matter, which seems to be the foundation for Senator Button’s question. I understand that is the basis of the information which the honourable senator is seeking. I have before me some details about the Special Youth Employment Training Scheme which I think indicate that overall it has been successful. Since the introduction of this scheme more than 40,000 young people who previously had been unemployed have been assisted. As at 30 March of this year some 19,000 young people were being assisted by the scheme, compared with only 6,000 young people being assisted by it as at March of last year.

It is the view of the Government, based upon its monitoring of the scheme, that it has been a successful scheme and has provided practical onthejob training for a significant number of people. The survey conducted by the Department, which seems to be the one to which the article in the Australian Financial Review refers, indicates that 59 per cent of the youth trainees under the scheme have obtained permanent employment with some employer but not necessarily the employer to whom they had been assigned under the training scheme. Obviously there has been a wastage in the sense that the balance of the trainees have not obtained permanent employment. Nevertheless they have obtained a good deal of on-the-job training in skills which otherwise they would not have received. As far as their employability is concerned, another aspect of the survey in relation to the trainees themselves is relevant. The survey showed that by and large the trainees were poorly qualified and had worked in few jobs since leaving school. Twenty per cent of them had had no work experience at all. Therefore, I think, one has to have regard to the lack of skills amongst the trainees when they started under this scheme. It would be a bit unreasonable to expect the scheme to be 100 per cent successful in its efforts. However, the question as to whether employers are taking advantage of the scheme and disposing of people at the end of their six months is one that I know the Minister and his Department have been concerned to watch and monitor. I am quite satisfied that they will continue to do so.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question: Whilst the Minister’s answer is very interesting, the question was directed to the evidence the Department had of abuse, and what the Government proposed to do about it. That is something on which the Minister, with respect, did not see fit to touch.

Senator DURACK:

– I will direct that aspect of the question to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, but I did say that the officials of the Department had been monitoring the scheme. When I was last asked a question on this subject- admittedly some time ago- I indicated that there was no such evidence. I repeat that 40,000 or more people are being assisted under the scheme. I will ascertain whether there is now any need to reflect further on the answer I then gave.

page 1394

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES: DROP-OUT RATES

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Education whether he has seen a report in yesterday morning’s Daily Telegraph relating to a statement by Dr. A Healey of Wollongong University to the effect that Australian universities have one of the highest drop-out rates in the world; that many students are inadequately prepared for university study; and that a sizable proportion are not even literate, are incapable of making use of the facilities available to them, and are lost from the time they enrol. Does the Minister agree with these comments and, if so, will he indicate what action the Government can take to remedy the situation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I saw the report, which reflects the increasing number of comments being made throughout the community by both parents and academics that the quality of preparation of students, especially in the basic skills of numeracy and literacy, is not good enough for modern-day needs. The debate becomes clouded by arguments, offered in a defensive fashion, as to whether the preparation is worse than before or better than before. That is quite irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether we are producing students, at all levels of the education journey, of rising educational quality, and sufficiently effective to take the next step in the journey. Because the Commonwealth Government is concerned in this matter, a great deal of action has been taken to see what can be done. The Williams Committee of Inquiry itself, which will bring in its report in July or August, is looking at all aspects of education in terms of goals, both for human fulfilment and vocational training. No doubt it will have a lot to say on this matter of preparation.

The training of students will be a focal point of the national inquiry into all aspects of teacher education which the Government will be setting up in the immediate future. Discussions with the States have focussed on this matter. As I have repeatedly said in the Senate and elsewhere, the goal ought to be one of uplifting quality. There has been in the post-war years an erroneous belief that we gain better education by gaining more education. That is a fallacy in itself. We gain better education by increasing the quality and relevance of education. In regard to the failure rates in the universities, I do not have before me a comparison of world standards. I shall have a hard look at the whole question of the performance of students and universities. There are many reasons for drop-outs.

If my memory serves me correctly, the article suggested that universities and colleges recruit students of lower levels of education to keep up their numbers. I simply say this: There is no mileage for universities and colleges to do that. The grants from the Commonwealth Government to universities are based on levels of student load set by the Tertiary Education Commission and, at present, are based on constant intakes. The important point to make is that any increases in enrolments by individual institutions beyond these levels do not result in an increase in the levels of funds provided. So the inference that one is chasing numbers in institutions may be refuted by the fact that the Tertiary Education Commission is a watchdog which tends to watch that situation. Indeed there is no gain for the universities or the colleges as they have to carry the extra expense themselves. But I come back to the fundamental issue of this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

– Please be as brief as you can.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, Mr President. The whole situation is being looked at by way of a series of inquiries. They will report in the near future.

page 1395

QUESTION

CO-OPERATIVE FEDERALISM

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs whether he is aware of the statement made by the Victorian Premier that neither his Minister for Federal Affairs dealing with federal affairs nor the Victorian Government was consulted in the drawing up of the three Bills relating to uranium mining and that the legislation intrudes on State rights, is unconstitutional and centralist. Is this the Federal Government’s understanding of cooperative federalism? Can the Minister say what he understands by the words ‘co-operative federalism’?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen those statements. If Senator Gietzelt has them available, he might let me have them.

Senator Gietzelt:

– They were made on the AM program this morning.

Senator CARRICK:

-I take it that by way of interjection Senator Gietzelt is pointing out that he is relying on a direct statement by Mr Hamer.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Yes.

Senator CARRICK:

– Thank you very much. I have not seen those statements. I shall have a look at them and then I shall be able to respond. Lawyers can sort out whether the matter is a constitutional one. I think the focal point of Senator Gietzelt’s question was: What is the Commonwealth Government’s view on State rights?

Senator Gietzelt:

– Co-operative federalism.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, on federalism. I draw his attention to a couple of things. First of all, there is the Commonwealth Government’s approach to the seas and submerged lands legislation whereunder the High Court has given all power to the Commonwealth Government. Yet the Commonwealth Government says that because it believes many functions can be done better at the State level or by co-operation, irrespective of the constitutional position, there will be co-operative federalism. No better lesson than that could be studied by Senator Gietzelt.

I also draw his attention to the fact that operative federalism means that there will be the same growth rate in growth revenue, namely personal income tax, as in revenue sharing and allocation to local government. There are numerous examples. Suffice to say that by contrast with the bitter and corrosive centralism of the Whitlam Government there have been enormous strides in co-operation with the States. At least we have a dialogue with the States whereas there was a Whitlam brutalised monologue during a bitter and unhappy three years of centralism.

page 1396

QUESTION

DENTAL MOUTHGUARDS

Senator BONNER:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that under the medical benefits tables there is no provision for reimbursement for the purchase of dental mouthguards by sports men and women? As the use of mouthguards in contact sports almost totally reduces the incidence of dental damage and the resultant cost of remedial treatment, conservatively estimated at $300 per tooth for plugging and capping, does the Minister agree that preventive dentistry costing approximately $30 is sound economic sense? If so, I ask the Minister to give the most serious consideration to amending the schedule to include reimbursement of the cost of this essential equipment and thus encourage its use which to date has been restricted for financial reasons.

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

– I will draw to the attention of the Minister for Health the matters raised by Senator Bonner and ask him to give particular attention to the suggestion concerning the reimbursement of the cost of mouthguards and other dental preventive measures when he is reviewing the schedule.

page 1396

QUESTION

SCHOOL DENTAL CLINICS IN DARWIN

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. On Thursday, 13 April, Senator McAuliffe, on my behalf, asked the Minister what action would be taken by the Government to provide funds so that staff could be employed to operate the school dental clinics in Darwin which were standing idle because of lack of staff.

The Minister undertook to seek a reply from the Minister for Health whom she represents in this chamber. Can the Minister now provide the Senate with any information on this important matter?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I referred to the Minister for Health the question regarding the school dental scheme in Darwin. At this stage I have not received any reply from him but I will refer the matter to him again and try to obtain an early answer for the honourable senator.

page 1396

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he is aware of the concern expressed by- the wine making industry over the inaction of the Government in reintroducing section 3 1a of the Income Tax Act in accordance with an undertaking given in 1 974. Is the Minister further aware that had this undertaking been honoured the wineries would have been able to process much of the grape tonnage which constituted the surplus in the 1978 vintage? Will the Government now give favourable consideration to introducing this measure in the forthcoming Budget?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am aware of the difficulties faced by the wine grape growing industry in the processing of its total crop and the difficulties brought about by lack of demand for red wines as distinct from white wines. I am not aware whether, had there been the appropriate action under section 3 1a of the Income Tax Act, this would have resolved the problems partially or wholly, but since the honourable senator has expressed concern for an important industry in Australia I will draw the Treasurer’s attention to the honourable senator’s comment and seek a response from him.

page 1396

QUESTION

TIMBER TREATMENT

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Science. I draw his attention to a warning issued in Tasmania relating to the treatment of timber with copper chrome arsenate, or CCA as it is known. The use of this chemical as a preservative and white ant deterrent is becoming widespread and timber which has been treated with this chemical is used extensively in children’s playgrounds and in the construction of log cabins. Will the Minister have officers of the CSIRO issue a warning to the users of timber so treated at places where this timber is distributed that the timber scraps treated with CCA should never be used in indoor fires, household incinerators or barbeques as the fumes and smoke can cause extreme discomfort and even asphyxiation?

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

– I am unaware of the concern in Tasmania about this problem which the honourable senator has disclosed. I have certainly been associated with the burning of off cuts that have been treated with various preservatives. However, I am unaware of the problem that could occur as a result of the use of the preservative that the honourable senator has mentioned. I will take up his request and see that the matter is looked at. Should it be found necessary we will attempt to have warnings given, but I should imagine that that would be fairly difficult. Nevertheless, if it is shown that asphyxiation could follow the burning of such timber, certainly the honourable senator’s advice should be followed.

page 1397

QUESTION

SUNSET’ LEGISLATION

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of the existence in the United States of America of what is termed sunset’ legislation which was first instituted in the State of Colorado in 1976 and which is now followed in 22 other States? Is he aware that under this legislation all government agencies are automatically disbanded or placed under review after a set period of years and that this has acted to rid the country of a number of redundant, outmoded or forgotten statutory bodies? In view of this development I ask: Firstly, does any public list exist in Australia which details the statutory boards, authorities, commissions, committees and advisory councils currently in operation? Secondly, in the interests of keeping a constant check on the relevance of these bodies, is the Government willing to consider the relevance and applicability of America’s ‘sunset’ legislation to Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-There is nothing terribly new about ‘sunset’ legislation. As the honourable senator will recall, it was part of the settlement after the glorious revolution in about 1680 that the Army Act of England had to be renewed each year. I suppose that was one of the first pieces of ‘sunset’ legislation. I do not think that our American cousins in Colorado have been so clever in inventing this operation. As I understand it, the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation comes up for automatic inspection and renewal every 10 years. The BBC has a life of but 10 years at a time. The Parliament must investigate whether it ought to be renewed. As the honourable senator will know, it has been renewed a number of times over the last 50 years.

The honourable senator will also know that a number of Bills will be introduced in this session of Parliament, particularly those imposing levies in the primary industry area, which will operate for a year at a time. This applies to the pig slaughter levy and the levy on wool and wheat. To some extent that son of ‘sunset’ legislation exists within this Parliament. The honourable senator also asked whether there was any public list of statutory bodies. I understand that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations chaired by our colleague, Senator Rae, put together a list of all statutory corporations created by the Parliament which it was able to ascertain. My brief states that they can be found by looking through the Commonwealth Government Directory but I understand that this is what Senator Rae ‘s Committee did and that it did not discover all of them. The honourable senator may not be aware that on 1 1 April the Prime Minister answered a question by Mr Roger Johnston in relation to this matter. He said:

It will be intriguing to watch how the experiment works.

We have no current plans to introduce such laws, although I can think of some circumstances in which I could see considerable advantage arising if certain bodies were automatically to go out of existence.

In view of the Prime Minister’s words, I think it is fair to say that the Government is not opposed to the concept but the matter needs further work. This could bring about the interesting situation of statutory corporations really responding to Parliament in the last years of their current life.

page 1397

QUESTION

APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID

Senator RYAN:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has his Department received a request for legal aid from Mr Ivan Kayne the Victorian President of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association, who has undertaken legal action in the Industrial Division of the Federal Court in an effort to prevent the impending elections for the positions of Federal President and Vice President of the ABC Staff Association being carried out by rank and file ballot? If legal aid has been granted to Mr Kayne, according to what criteria has it been granted?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am unaware of any application for legal aid by Mr Ivan Kayne in regard to this matter or any other matter. In this case, of course, such an application would be made to the Central Office of my Department because it would come under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I will make inquiries as to what is the position.

page 1398

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister regularly hears, officially and unofficially, of situations in which people who collect unemployment benefit are also working, usually for cash, so that the Government loses not only from the payment of unemployment benefit but also by way of tax not being paid. In view of the cost of unemployment benefit to the taxpayers of this country, has the Government considered offering a reward to those people who help the Commonwealth Police to counter cases where people are breaking the law?

Opposition senators- Oh!

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I thought I would get that kind of reaction from honourable senators opposite. They would like these people to break the law.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– A person is determined to be eligible for unemployment benefit on the basis of the passing of a work test which is conducted by the Commonwealth Employment Service and an income test which is the responsibility of my Department. Where advice is received that a person does not comply with either of those tests he is not eligible to receive unemployment benefit. My Department is constantly aware of its responsibility to pay benefits to those people who are eligible and to terminate the benefits being paid to those people who are not eligible. Information is received by my Department from a variety of sources. Sometimes it is in the returns that are made by a claimant himself. In other cases field officer investigations reveal additional information. The Commonwealth Employment Service is also an agent for the Government in this matter.

People who work and receive cash payments for doing so should disclose that when making an income statement to my Department through the Commonwealth Employment Service. The failure to pay taxation on such cash payments is a matter for the Treasurer. I am sure that he has methods of ascertaining whether taxation is being paid on an equitable basis by all Australians. My Department has not considered offering rewards to people who provide such information. I believe there would be some resentment in the Australian community if a reward were offered by the Government in the cases mentioned by the honourable senator. However, there have been numerous occasions on which my Department has received, either anonymously or from named persons, information about other pensioners or beneficiaries. The Department, in its judgment, follows up the advice given to it and makes whatever inquiries are considered necessary. I believe that the matter of taxation is one that should be dealt with by the Treasurer. I will see that his attention is drawn to that part of the question.

page 1398

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNALS

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is also addressed to the Minister for Social Security. When will the Minister announce new appointments to the Social Security Appeals Tribunals which are below operating strength? On what grounds did the Minister refuse to reinstate Mr John Waters, who resigned from a tribunal to contest the Northern Territory seat as a Labor candidate, having been assured that normal Public Service procedure would be followed if he did not win the seat and that he would be reappointed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am at present considering appointments to the Social Security Appeals Tribunals in Victoria and Tasmania. There are vacancies on those Tribunals due to resignations and I expect to be making an early announcement about replacements. The Minister appoints persons to serve on the Tribunals. The requirements and procedures of the Public Service do not come into the appointments to the Social Security Appeals Tribunals. It will be recalled that these tribunals were set up by the previous Labor Government. Members are appointed to them by the Minister. They are not appointed for a particular time; they are appointed at the Minister’s discretion. In the case of some of the tribunals, opportunities have been taken to change the membership in order to provide a balance. The best and most effective tribunal appointments are made in all cases. I advise the honourable senator that the matter of Mr John Waters would not come within the ambit of Public Service procedure; rather, it should be understood that these appointments are made personally by the Minister.

page 1398

QUESTION

BEEF PRODUCERS CONSULTATIVE GROUP

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Does the Minister recall that the Minister for Primary Industry stated in a Press release dated 5 July 1977 that an interim beef producers consultative group nominated by producer organisations was to be set up to enable the October 1977 target date for the formation of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to be met, but that arrangements would be made for an elected producer consultative group to succeed the interim body by March 1978? Is it a fact that those elections have not been held? Is it also a fact that the Minister last month wrote to producer group leaders saying that those elections should now be delayed and reviewed at the end of 1978 on the grounds, firstly, that the cost involved was $250,000; secondly, that not all producer organisations supported the concept of an elected producer consultative group; and, thirdly, that the Stage 1 report on amalgamation of producer groups called for the establishment of a federal cattle council to provide the membership of the producer consultative group?

Was the Government prepared to meet the cost of these elections when the Minister promised an elected producer consultative group last year? If so, why does he now use that as an objection to the Government’s keeping its promise? Is it not a fact that the Government was aware at the time it promised an elected producer consultative group and set up the interim group that the proposal did not have unanimous support of producer groups but nevertheless had strong majority support? In what way has the situation changed that that objection is used now when it was not considered of sufficient importance last year to prevent the formation of a producer consultative group? Is it not a fact that the proposal for a cattle council is at this stage only a proposal, that its achievement is in the distant future and that there is some doubt that it will ever be achieved? If so, how can the Government justify using this as a reason for not meeting a commitment which should have been fulfilled two months ago?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator asked a fairly involved question of me in my capacity as the representive of another Minister. I accept the fact as put forward by the honourable senator that the Minister announced the setting up of an interim beef producers consultative group in 1977. I imagine it follows that if in March of this year the Minister indicated in writing that he did not think it appropriate that that proposal should go forward because he had been informed that there was not unanimous support for it within producer groups and it needed revision, that is why the group has not been set up. I think the main thrust of the honourable senator’s question was: If the Government envisaged 12 months ago that the cost of setting up a particular consultative group would be $250,000, why is it not prepared to go ahead with the proposal at the present time? I cannot answer that part of the question. I think I should seek a proper answer for the honourable senator from the Minister for Primary Industry. I will attempt to do that today.

page 1399

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S MAKINE RESOURCES

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science or perhaps to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it a fact that Australia has been neglectful in researching and developing its marine resources? If so, does this mean that Australia is at a serious disadvantage when it declares its 200-mile exclusive economic zone? Is Australia making any effort to overcome what appears to be an acute lack of knowledge and appreciation of the enormous food resources at its doorstep?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The honourable senator’s question has much truth in it. The development and a comprehensive knowledge of the oceans and their movement, a knowledge of the resources of the waters, a knowledge of the geology of the floor of the ocean and what is beneath the floor of the ocean obviously are most important matters for any country, and particularly for Australia. Further, I think it is obvious that at present there is no comprehensive knowledge of this enormous area of interest. To this point of Australia’s history, we have concentrated on developing the resources of the land over which we have control. It is certainly my view that there is a great void in our knowledge of the area over which we are likely to proclaim control in the near future. I do not think the answer can be taken to mean that Australia is neglectful of that responsibility, but certainly there is a lot to be done.

I refer to some of the important things that are taking place. I imagine the average person thinks of the food resources within the water. Over past years it has been my responsibility and that of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in particular to take action in this field. Some of the recent finds have been most important, particularly to fishermen in the honourable senator’s State of Tasmania. We have gained a knowledge of the tides, the currents, the wind action and the sediment movement in the ocean. At present fishermen are taking advantage of this knowledge. I understand that as a result of current research by CSIRO, tuna fishermen are now using sea temperature front information for the purpose of deciding when they will go out and catch fish. All fishermen should take note of this most important matter.

As honourable senators may know, currently Australia is expending sizable amounts of money, through CSIRO, to build up a knowledge of our marine resources. We have two vessels on lease which are working off the coast of New South Wales. One of these vessels has just completed a survey of the rock lobster resources in Western Australia. We have done quite a deal of work in the Northern Territory relating to prawns. At the moment CSIRO is putting forward a submission to Cabinet for the acquisition of a vessel for oceanographic purposes. It may take some years to get the vessel. In earlier statements I said that marine research is proceeding in the waters between here and our territory in Antarctica. We are seeking an ice strengthened vessel for that purpose. It will include a platform to study marine science and oceanography. In short, at present Australia is doing a great deal for this country in this important area of resources.

page 1400

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND

page 1400

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION: RESEARCH PROJECT

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Science in his own capacity and also as the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to research grants to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Fisheries and Oceanography Division. Is the study of the protective effect of selenium against the toxic action of mercury compounds in fish important? Is it the practice to permit the interruption of research projects such as this to give personnel engaged on them an opportunity to take sabbatical leave? If not, what were the circumstances which allowed the project supervisor of this study to take sabbatical leave during the course of it? Would it not have been better if he had deferred the sabbatical leave until the research project had been completed? What will be the additional costs to the project as a result of the rise in the consumer price index during this deferment?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to answer all the questions posed by the honourable senator.

Senator Wriedt:

– Why do you not do your homework?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Having some regard for Senator Wriedt in this matter, I suggest that Senator Lewis put the question on notice and I will attempt to gain an answer. As the question relates to the whole area of leave, so it would also concern my colleague the Minister for Education. I am not certain of this, but I do not think that sabbatical leave applies within the CSIRO. Obviously long service leave and other provisions would apply within that statutory authority. I am unable to say whether the leader of the project to which reference has been made has taken leave. I was not aware of any interruption to an ongoing program. I am confident that the CSIRO is capable of managing its affairs so that if the leader of a project were to take leave those who understudy him would be able to continue the project. I shall certainly take up the matter immediately and find out whether there is any disruption to the program mentioned by the honourable senator.

page 1400

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S MAKINE RESOURCES

Senator WRIEDT:

-My question to the Minister for Science follows a question asked by Senator Harradine. If, as the Minister claims, his Government and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation are concerned about the development of marine resources around Australia, why was the marine biochemistry unit of the CSIRO disbanded in June of last year? Was it because it was doing work which was not considered to be useful in the development of our marine resources?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to give the exact reason why a particular division within the CSIRO may have been disbanded. Senator Wriedt will know that the CSIRO is a statutory authority, and as a statutory authority- a magnificent one- it is able to realign its own internal management as it desires. Obviously since Labor left office an upward surge has taken place in the management of that Organisation. Instead of having those thrusts which Mr Connor in his day- and obviously with Senator Wriedt ‘s supportmade to try to tear the Organisation to pieces -

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Webster, as we know, masquerades in this chamber as an authority on matters scientific. I asked him a straightforward question about the marine biochemistry unit of a statutory authority for which he is ministerially responsible. He is now referring to areas quite extraneous to my question. Mr President, I ask you to rule that he either answer the question or admit that he has never heard of such a unit.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister is answering your question, Senator Wriedt. I ask him to continue with his answer.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, you can see that I am obviously terribly offended by what Senator Wriedt had to say. The suggestion that I pose here as a scientific authority offends me greatly. I have never done that. I have come into this place on many occasions and attempted to alert my colleagues to the fact that I am an accountant and not a scientist. The foolish thinking of Opposition senators often results in questions being asked for which any fool would be prepared with an answer. So it is possible for me to be alert with the scientific answers that they may seek. I am able to come into this chamber at Question Time with a great deal of knowledge of many things. Senator Wriedt asked about the marine biochemistry unit and I admitted that I was-

Senator Georges:

– Say you do not know and sit down.

Senator WEBSTER:

– One minute Opposition senators ask me to stand up and answer questions and the next they ask me to sit down. Mr President, if you asked me to sit down I would do so. I regret that that was the situation in which members of the Australian Labor Party found themselves while they were in government; they did not know whether to stand up or to sit down.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Webster, please answer the question.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I was trying to answer the question before Senator Wriedt came in with his second question. During the last year a number of units of the CSIRO have changed their names. The thrust of the importance of research at a particular time alerts an authority such as the CSIRO to decide whether its programs should be altered. I shall attempt to find the answers for Senator Wriedt later in the day and give them to him.

page 1401

QUESTION

REFUGEES: QUARANTINE REGULATIONS

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Whilst many people have considerable sympathy for migrants and, particularly, refugees coming to Australia, such as those from Timor and Vietnam, they are becoming increasingly alarmed at the continuous flow of foreign boats landing at Darwin or on the northern coast and escaping the scrutiny of our immigration and quarantine officials until they are close to shore or have actually made a landfall. With this in mind, is it correct that yet another vessel has arrived in the Darwin area? Considering the number of vessels that have already landed since the end of the monsoon season, does the Government expect possibly even larger numbers to arrive in the next few months with the consequent possibility of introducing serious and contagious diseases to both humans and animals? As these people are now deliberately by-passing immigration officials based in South East Asia, will the Government consider setting up a quarantine area, say on an off-shore northern island, to carry out full investigations as to quarantine and their backgrounds in an effort to safeguard Australia for the reasons I have outlined?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is a fact that a number of boats have arrived in Australia under the circumstances mentioned by the honourable senator but it is not entirely true to say that boats arrive undetected. They are detected at reasonable distances from Australia and they are escorted, as was the boat which arrived in the last 24 hours. The quarantine precautions, in relation to which the Department of Health is the expert authority, are regarded by that Department as being fully effective. Those who are members of the Estimates Committee dealing with the estimates for the Department of Health will recall that advice was given this week by the officers of that Department on the quarantine precautions that are taken.

The question of the setting up of a quarantine area in, say, an off-shore area such as a northern island is one of the options under consideration by the Department of Health and I do say on behalf of the Minister that the Department regards the quarantine precautions as being of primary importance at present. As I said, the Department regards them as being fully effective and it will have under consideration an off-shore island on which it may be able to undertake precautions with greater effectiveness than is presently the case.

page 1401

QUESTION

KINDERGARTEN SUBSIDIES

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct to the Minister for Social Security a question involving the Office of Child Care. I ask the Minister whether she is aware that parents of young children attending the Oakbank Kindergarten in the Adelaide Hills are greatly concerned that the hours of operation of this kindergarten have been reduced from a full day to a half day, that children under four years of age are no longer accepted and that staff are being relocated due to a reduction in Federal funding for the employment of kindergarten teachers. In view of the problems I have outlined, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be sufficient funding in this year’s Budget to restore the level of Federal funding to the 1974-75 level of 72 per cent from the now reduced level of 50 per cent for kindergarten teachers ‘salaries?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of the facts relating to the Oakbank Kindergarten as stated by Senator McLaren. Kindergarten hours and other details relating to kindergartens are matters for the State Government which is the body in control of the kindergarten system within the State. The Commonwealth Government, through the Office of Child Care, makes a contribution to pre-school education. It makes that contribution in the form of block funds and any State is able to decide which kindergartens will receive funding at a particular time. If there are the problems at the Oakbank Kindergarten that have been mentioned by Senator McLaren, it could be that that kindergarten should apply to the State Government for increased funds to enable it to provide a satisfactory service.

In relation to the forthcoming Budget, the Commonwealth Government will have these matters under consideration in determining what contribution it will make to pre-school education, but I would remind the honourable senator that the State of South Australia is always contending that its capacity to manage its financial affairs is such that it has a surplus of funds for many services which other States are finding it difficult to provide. It could be that pre-school education is not receiving the emphasis in that State that many people would desire.

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the change to block funding of the States has meant a reduction in funding of the salaries of teachers from 72 per cent to the 50 per cent level which I have mentioned?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The block funding arrangement was designed in such a way as to give the States in the past year precisely the funds that they had had in the previous year. How a State government applies those funds is a matter for its own determination. The block funding arrangement was introduced at a time when the new federalism proposals gave to every State government increased general grants which the States could apply as they wished. As I said earlier, it may be that the State of South Australia does not accord to pre-school education the priority that it is accorded in, for instance, the State of Victoria.

page 1402

QUESTION

BUTTER- MARGARINE: COMBINED PRODUCT

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by reminding him that on 14 March I sought information on the buttermargarine question. I wish to follow that up now. Does the Minister know whether any steps have been taken by either the dairy industry or the margarine industry to produce a combined product? Has the Australian Dairy Corporation taken any active steps in the matter, and if so what have these been? Is there any real or possible problem within the dairy industry that is retarding, or could retard, any such development?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I acknowledge that the honourable senator asked a question of me on this matter in March. It is my recollection that a letter went to him in April giving him an answer to his question. The Australian Dairy Corporation, in consultation with appropriate sectors of the industry, has been giving consideration to the introduction of a blended butter-vegetable oil spread for the Australian market. That consideration has been continuing for some time. My recollection is that some years ago a volume of this material was produced in South Australia, that some 400 tons were shipped to an overseas destination, that the consignment became rancid or otherwise unsatisfactory before it arrived at its destination and that difficulties in introducing a proper blend have been experienced since that time.

As the honourable senator will know, there has been considerable debate within the dairy industry over a number of years as to the benefits or otherwise that might flow to the industry through introduction to the domestic market of such a blend. I understand that after a close analysis of all available facts the Corporation decided at a meeting on, I believe, 30 March last, to seek ministerial approval for the provision of funds from, I think, the Dairying Industry Stabilisation Fund to enable a large-scale test marketing of the blended product to be made. The recommendations of the Corporation are presently being examined by the Department of Primary Industry. The major impediment to the development of” a blended product has been the uncertainty about consumer reaction to such a product and the difficulties experienced in obtaining from manufacturers details which would enable the likely costs of producing a particular product to be determined. If I can obtain any further information for the senator I will do so.

page 1403

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister will recall that about a month ago I asked him when the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on the whitegoods industry could be expected. He advised me at that time that he did not know but that he would seek the information and let me have it. I now ask the Minister: Has the Government considered further the IAC’s report of 21 November 1977 on the tourist accommodation industry, as promised by Mr Lynch and Mr Fife on 5 March last. Will the Minister ascertain and advise me whether the Department of Industry and Commerce has yet consulted the tourist accommodation industry on the IAC’s recommendations as was undertaken also by the two Ministers on 5 March? If so, can he indicate the result of those discussions on the matters that were outlined in the Minister’s statement?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I think the answer to the question is yes. I will endeavour to get the information and let the honourable senator see it as soon as possible.

page 1403

URANIUM MINING

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday and today Senator Wriedt asked for certain detailed information regarding essentially the nuclear codes Bill. I sought that information and I now offer the following advice that I have received: The Prime Minister wrote to all Premiers on 3 1 August 1 977 concerning the Government’s decision to develop a uniform code of practice to apply to all uranium mining activities in Australia and to any future nuclear activities. He also said that it was essential that the task of developing elements of the code should take place as a joint exercise with the States and invited participation by State officials. I quote the relevant paragraph of the letter:

I recognise the contribution which State authorities have already made in this field and believe that it is essential that this task of developing further elements of the Code take place as a joint exercise and to this end I invite participation in this work by officials of your State.

I draw attention specifically to the fact that it was the development of the elements of the code that should be the joint exercise. In the letter which I shall seek leave to incorporate in a moment there was no suggestion that the States would be consulted in terms of the legislative measures of the Bill itself. It is the codes that are important, not the Bill itself.

Senator Wriedt:

asked about responses from the States. Each of the six States has responded by asking for a deferral. The Government has looked at the responses of the States and agreed, in the light of these requests, that the important sections of the codes Bill, that is, sections 1 1 and 13 which give the Commonwealth the power to apply codes in the States, be proclaimed only in relation to the Northern Territory and not the States until there has been opportunity for considering the States’ views on the Bill. I repeat, therefore, that there will be ample opportunities in that regard. Comments on the codes Bill and any of the other uranium Bills have been requested urgently.

There are basic reasons, of course, for proceeding with the passage of the legislation through the Parliament now. It is important that the development of the Ranger uranium deposit be able to proceed this dry season. Quick passage is also important in the context of the Commonwealth’s negotiations with the Northern Land Council on aspects of the development of the Ranger deposit. When all comments have been received from the States and the Territory there will be a meeting of officials for CommonwealthState consultation. Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows- 31 August 1977

My dear Premier,

In my statement announcing the Commonwealth Government’s decision on uranium mining I referred to our decision to develop a uniform Code of Practice to apply to all uranium mining activities in Australia and to any future nuclear activities. The Government has taken this decision because of its concern to ensure nationwide protection of Australians and their environment from the hazards of such activities.

Initially, the Code will be developed to cover uranium mining, milling and transport. You will be aware that one element of this Code relating to radiation protection in the mining and milling of radioactive ores has already been prepared in consultation with State authorities, unions, and the mining industry. My Government is concerned to see radiation protection measures fully implemented nationwide and that further work be carried out to specify standards and control measures to protect the environment.

The Ranger Inquiry recommended that the existing element of the Code referred to above should be made mandatory by legislation. My Government has decided to accept this recommendation but to go further and, together with the States, to establish by legislation a uniform national Code which covers all aspects of mining and milling of uranium as well as any future nuclear activities.

I recognise the contribution which State authorities have already made in this field and believe that it is essential that this task of developing further elements of the Code take place as a joint exercise and to this end I invite participation in this work by officials of your State.

Because the Code will comprehend a number of different areas of concern at the Federal level, I have decided to establish a Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee to develop elements of the Code.

Arrangements will also be set in hand to ensure that industry is fully informed and consulted in the development of the Code. I anticipate that as the Code evolves satisfactory transition periods will be established for existing industrial activity in the field.

At the Federal level I have asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development to coordinate action on the development of the Code. However, the matter is one of such significance that the Ministers for National Resources, Health and myself will also be involved. I suggest that you might wish to designate a Minister in your own Government as the contact point for further correspondence on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

  1. M. FRASER

(Malcolm Fraser)

The Hon. N. Wran, Q.C., M.L.A., Premier of New South Wales, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000

page 1404

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES TO CHINA

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Yesterday Senator Walsh asked me a question relating to sales of Australian wheat. The answer to his question is that the Australian standard white is not traded on the Chicago futures exchange. The Australian Wheat Board can trade on the Chicago futures exchange but whether it does or not is commercial information and, further, no price has been announced. The honourable senator could see earlier comments relating to this matter. There were no discounts which would alter the earlier figures mentioned in the Minister’s statement. It is the policy of the board not to announce precise details of prices received for individual contracts.

page 1404

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the resolutions of the 103rd meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Adelaide, January 1978.

page 1404

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report by Mr J. D. Norgard on the review of the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1404

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on sporting and recreation equipment: Tennis and squash racquets (developing country preferences).

page 1404

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) For the information of honourable senators, I present a report on the operations of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The most stringent observation in the report is a recommendation to both Houses that the Standing Orders of both Houses be looked at in order to make it mandatory in some circumstances for Ministers of State to respond to reports of Committees tabled in the Parliament.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1404

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Motion (by Senator Thomas) agreed to:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources: The adequacy of quarantine and other control measures to protect Australia’s pastoral industries from the introduction and spread of exotic livestock and plant diseases.

page 1404

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Motion (by Senator Wood) agreed to:

That notices of motion Nos 1 to 3, Business of the Senate, for one sitting day hence, be postponed until five sitting days after today.

page 1404

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Suspension of Sitting

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That the sitting of the Senate be suspended until 1 5 minutes past 10 p.m. to enable Estimates Committees A, B, E and D to meet.

The PRESIDENT:

– The sitting of the Senate is suspended until 15 minutes past 10 p.m. to enable Estimates Committees A, B, E and D to meet. Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber at 12 noon; Estimates Committee B will meet in Committee Room No. 1 at 12 noon; Estimates Committee E will meet in Committee Room No. 5 from 12 noon until 6 p.m.; and Estimates Committee D will meet in

Committee Room No. 5 at 8 p.m. The bells will be rung for 2 minutes prior to the meetings of the Committees.

Sitting suspended from 11.43 a.m. to 10.15 p.m.

page 1405

COMMONWEALTH BANKS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act to enable the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia to lend to all kinds of businesses. The present restrictions which confine its lending to the rural, tourism and industrial sectors will be removed. The amendments will enable the Commonwealth Development Bank to extend its lending to the establishment or development of undertakings in business sectors such as retailing, wholesaling, professional services, entertainment and the service industries generally. As at present, the bank will continue to be required to give emphasis to the provision of finance for small business undertakings.

Honourable senators will recall that these proposed changes were first announced on 13 October last year when the then Treasurer and the then Minister for Industry and Commerce made a comprehensive statement on small business finance to Parliament. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Treasurer also released a Press Statement concerning the proposed amendments on 28 February this year. In the October 1977 statement, the Ministers announced a series of measures designed to assist small business, including extending the activities of the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the provision of equity finance by the Development Bank. These aspects are under close examination and consultations are being undertaken with relevant financial institutions. It is expected that a further announcement will be made at a later stage.

The Government has responded to the increasing concern in the business community about the adequacy of funds for small business growth and development. In May 1977, a task force was set up to investigate the question of finance for small business. A report was subsequently submitted to the Government. In its deliberations, the Government has been assisted considerably by the Government members’ Small Bussiness Sub-committee. This Government recognises the vital part played by small businesses in our economy. Their contribution in terms of employment, growth, innovation and enterprise has by now been well documented. The widening of the charter of the Development Bank provided for by this Bill represents a further step in a series of initiatives by the Government to ensure that small businesses are assisted towards realising their full potential.

It is expected that the Development Bank will be in a position to implement the expanded lending activities shortly after the legislation is enacted. As is the case under the Development Bank’s present charter, prospective borrowers will need to establish, to the satisfaction of the bank, that the finance sought is not otherwise available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. In determining whether to provide finance, the Development Bank will continue to have regard primarily to the prospects of the operations becoming, or continuing to be, successful and will not necessarily have regard to the value of the relevant security. To what extent additional funds may be required for the Development Bank’s entry into this wider field of operations cannot be determined at this stage, but the position will be closely watched.

I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. The Development Bank’s functions are set out in section 72 of the Act which, in brief, enables the bank to provide finance for persons for the purposes of primary production or for the establishment or development of industrial and tourist undertakings. The amendments to section 72 will enable the bank to provide finance for the establishment or development of business undertakings, by removing the present restriction which confines it to financing only industrial and tourist undertakings. Its function of lending for the purposes of primary production remains unchanged. The amendments to section 72 will also extend the Development Bank’s role of providing advice and assistance to the full range of business undertakings that will be eligible to borrow from it.

The Government regards this measure to expand the functions of the Development Bank as a substantial element in its overall program for the encouragement of small businesses. The Government has also decided to take the opportunity to introduce two further amendments to the Commonwealth Banks Act. At present section 84 of the Act provides that, except with the consent of the Treasurer, the Development Bank shall not borrow a total of more than $4m from the Reserve Bank of Australia and shall not borrow moneys repayable in a currency other than Australian currency. In practice the Development Bank has sought the Treasurer’s approval for all its domestic public borrowings; it has not borrowed from overseas. It is now proposed to replace section 84 with a new section 85 A that wil simply make the Treasurer’s consent a formal requirement. At the same time the new provision has been brought into line with the comparable standard provision in other legislation with respect to statutory authorities. To enable the Development Bank to continue to borrow from the Commonwealth Trading Bank or the Commonwealth Savings Bank for short-term liquidity purposes without having to obtain Ministerial approval on each occasion, the Treasurer proposes to give the bank a general authority for such borrowings.

The other amendment relates to section 1 1 1 of the Act. Section 1 1 1 provides for officers to borrow from the Commonwealth Trading Bank or the Commonwealth Savings Bank for housing purposes. It also provides for officers to borrow for other purposes from the trading bank where the managing director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation is satisfied that special circumstances exist. The latter loans are subject to a limit of $1,500 and are made upon such terms and conditions as the managing director thinks fit. They are normally provided to assist in the purchase of cars used by station or in connection with bank business. I emphasise that staff cannot borrow from the Commonwealth banks other than in accordance with these provisions.

In view of changed money values since the present limit of $1,500 was set in 1968, the Government has agreed to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation’s request to increase it to $5,000. The proposed limit would be consistent with the current standards for staff loans by the private banking institutions and non-bank financial intermediaries. In line with current practice, the amendment to increase the limit will provide for future changes in the limit to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1406

ADJOURNMENT

Iwasaki Land Deals in Queensland- Northern Territory Police Force

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to speak in the adjournment debtate for a few moments. I use as a subject the Iwasaki takeover in Queensland. I feel that unless this Parliament does something about the Iwasaki land deals in Queensland there could be a scandal of international proportions if the Federal Government does not intervene. The Queensland Premier has now become a dealer in real estate. He has used the notorious franchise agreement. This is the second time that the notorious franchise agreement has been used in Queensland. The other occasion when it was used related to the mining takeover of the Mount Larcom farming area, a subject on which I spoke here some months ago. In this case the Iwasaki Sangyo company has now taken control of over 20,000 acres of choice land on the Queensland coast at virtually bargain prices.

Senator Collard:

– A wilderness.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Senator Collard says that it is a wilderness. It is choice land. If Senator Collard would like to listen he will find that the area has some value, even if it is not the sort of place where he would like to grow beef cattle. Mr Iwasaki will pay a little over $3,000 an acre but only a few kilometres away land is available for $ 100,000 an acre. As it was Senator Collard who interjected, he might ask some of his friends in his own party in Queensland why they are suddenly speculating in a certain area. I include State members of Parliament. I did not propose to mention that aspect tonight, but if Senator Collard wants to be provocative he should have a look at some of his own colleagues.

The whole deal is very shady and has been carried out with the utmost secrecy. The greatest tragedy is that there has been no effective environmental impact study and the adjacent wet lands will be ruined. The wet lands constitute the main breeding area for a thriving fish and prawn industry which is currently worth about $3m annually and, totally unsubsidised keeps nearly 200 people in almost permanent employment. Two major requirements so far as this Government is concerned are foreign investment controls and the need to comply with federal environmental impact study legislation. There appears to be some reluctance by the Federal Government to intervene. Is this because of the political mauling it received at the hands of Premier Petersen over the Aurukun and Mornington Island affair? I received a telegram today from a member of the Northern Land Council which stated:

Present Qld Bill re Aurukun Mornington completely unacceptable to Aboriginal people in this State. Our people refuse to be brought with propositions of beads and trinkets. We demand Federal Government acquire all Aboriginal reserves in Qld. We will settle for nothing less than freehold land ownership.

It is signed by Monty Pryor, the President of the Land Rights Committee. I refer to the telegram because 20,000-plus acres have been sold to a Japanese national whereas in the case of Aurukun and Mornington Island there is no desire to do the same sort of deal. If the Federal Government fails to take immediate action in accordance with existing federal legislation, the Commonwealth Government will have to share responsibility with the Queensland Government for the social, cultural, economic and ecological disaster that will result from the IwasakiPetersen deal if it goes through in its present form. I have a map here which I am prepared to table if anyone is interested enough to have a look. It shows that the Thomasson area- it is known locally as the bog land- will be one of the areas in which the Iwasaki project will operate.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They will make canals out of it, as was done at Surfers Paradise.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will make reference to that matter in a moment. I will identify the area which is below the high tide mark where some 1 5 feet of fill is to be dumped. Obviously in the long term that will be a canal area. In simple terms 8,280 hectares or 20,687 acres will come under the control of this organisation. Some 4,700 hectares or 1 1,749 acres will be freehold. Provision is made under the new franchise agreement for this area to be extended considerably. The sum paid was in the vicinity of $3,050 an acre but the price offering in other areas is $ 1 50,000 per acre, as I mentioned a moment ago. I have photographs showing what will happen to the area. If anyone would like to inspect them they are available. I am prepared to table them.

Senator McLaren:

– Why do you not incorporate them?

Senator KEEFFE:

-Unfortunately Hansard has not the facility to be able to reproduce them. The photographs show the damage that will happen to this area. The bog lands area to which Senator Collard referred rather derogatorily a few moments ago is a breeding area for the local fishing and prawning industries. Up to 200 jobs are available on boats which operate as a result of the fish and prawns that breed in the area. In 1976-77 the industry returned $3m. New onshore freezing and prawn receival facilities are being installed. The Queensland Fisheries Service is doubling its capacity at present. The Queensland United Foods Co. is also increasing its capacity to handle the product. The fishermen have not asked for government subsidy at this time when the economy is running at a low level. The fishing industry, in fact, has trebled its output in the last three years.

The bog lands are a marine nursery for the prawns and produce 70 per cent of the catch for the fishing industry based on Yeppoon. The industry fishes an area 35 miles north and 35 miles south of Yeppoon. This fact has been confirmed by Mr Don Tuma, a marine biologist with the Queensland Fisheries Department. Mr Iwasaki has stated that the average elevation of the developable property is 1.3 to 1.5 metres below the high water mark. Mr Hinze, the Local Government Minister in the Queensland Parliament, says that this area will be land filled to a depth of 15 feet. This will destroy totally the marine nursery and, therefore, the prawn fishing industry. This is what Senator O ‘Byrne forecast a few moments ago.

A whole number of questions need to be answered. I will list a number of them which I think ought to receive some sort of public exposition. I will not speak at length. One wonders why Mr Iwasaki is so insistent that he have freehold land. The Aboriginals at Aurukun and Mornington Island have only a 50 year leasehold with no right of renewal. I wonder too why the Queensland Government, through its Local Government Minister, Mr Hinze, is resuming the 260 acres of beach front land for freehold sale to Mr Iwasaki when Australians, both black and white, cannot purchase it. This reminds me of places like Archer River and the caravan park at Ayr. I could speak at length on that too. The franchise agreement is overriding both State and local government requirements. This is precisely what has happened in the Mount Larcom area where the cement companies are trying to exploit the rich clays.

The development project cannot proceed despite the Queensland franchise agreement if the Federal Government is prepared to make sure that Federal requirements are satisfied. I hope that this will happen because I know that in this chamber, and particularly on the Government side, many smart remarks are passed about the

Queensland Government and its Premier, but there is a real responsibility on this Parliament and this Government to do something about this proposed development. The State environmental impact study does not meet the Federal environmental impact study standards, and until such time as the Federal standards have been met and a public inquiry has been held under Federal legislation no decision should be taken at the Federal level. As far as we know the only environmental impact study that has been carried out is that which has been done by the purchasing company. Maps of the area that were supposed to be readily available to people interested in the project are not available and the issue of them has been refused by the State Government. I and many other people in the area in particular would like to know why Federal Ministers have not had an opportunity to meet with the opponents to the project, when both Mr Iwasaki and the Premier of Queensland have had the opportunity to put their case. One could almost say that there might be some fear involved in view of recent confrontation about a Federal meeting.

We want to know what the impact of such a major tourist resort will have on the surrounding area in social and human terms. Yeppoon, the little town which is in the area, has a population of about 5,000 people, but the proposed project will cover a vast area and the employees will mostly be Japanese. I know that there have been stories to the contrary but there is nothing in writing, there is no documentation. So it appears that the Australian employees of the company will mostly carry out only the menial jobs. Will Mr Iwasaki run this operation as he runs operations in Japan, where he has a notorious reputation for being opposed to trade unions, with all aspects of the resort, including transport, hotels and everything else, under monopoly control? There is no guarantee that the development of the major hotel will go ahead because it first of all has to be shown to be a viable proposition. Under these circumstances one can ask what sort of employment will be available to Australians. I think the position will be as I said it would be a moment ago.

With regard to Federal requirements on foreign investment, has a proposal been received by the Foreign Investment Review Board? The responsible Minister has been very coy about this. He has not made any public statements on it at all, but if the Foreign Investment Review Board or the Reserve Bank of Australia has made any recommendations on this to the Federal Government we ought to know about them because these are the things on which the Premier of Queensland is being carried away. The Windmill Plains- a boglands area- is a habitat for a number of migratory birds. I hope that the Federal Government will stick to the JapanAustralia Migratory Birds Treaty, or will it allow the habitat of these birds to be destroyed? That is one reason why a Federal environmental study is vitally necessary. I have here a number of documents which shortly I will seek to have incorporated in Hansard. Earlier I tried to contact you, Mr President, and the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) but you both were engaged on other matters. I can assure you that there are no four letter words in the documents. They are in the main technical tables. I hope that when I ask for leave to incorporate them in Hansard it will be granted.

Senator Missen:

– Not too much racism in them, I hope.

Senator KEEFFE:

– There is no racism in any of them.

Senator Carrick:

– I intervene to facilitate the matter. If Senator Keeffe would be good enough to let you, Mr President, and me peruse them while he is talking we can decide on the question of their incorporation.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr Minister. Queenslanders want to know why the Iwasaki Company has been allowed to bulldoze a road through four kilometres of Crown land. This was done some weeks ago. If any Australian company, organisation or person had done that without the protection of the State Government umbrella it would have been severely penalised. We want to know what is the Tropico Syndicate. The Tropico Syndicate has taken up an area of the land, and apparently it is a front for the Japanese company. We also want to know how much land is owned by other organisations which may be acting as nominees or fronts for the company. The company has already shown contempt for State legislation by illegally bulldozing the road to which I referred over four kilometres of vacant Crown land at Sandy Point which already has caused the destruction of mangroves in the Corio Bay Fish Habitat Reserve and interference with Beach Erosion Control District No. 15. Some of the recommendations that have been made by the State Government recently have not been implemented, and it looks as though this may have been the result of a prior arrangement with the developing company. This action raises the serious question of whether the Government should be prepared to agree to a reduction in authority over the Crown land areas totalling 3,511 hectares which the franchise agreement will vest in the Iwasaki Company, particularly as freehold title is to be offered for most of this land, and that is a very important point. It also raises a very important principle so far is the sale of Crown land is concerned.

Almost the entire Crown land area is low-lying wetlands or unstable sand dunes. We know from past experience in my own State in particular that when sand dunes are disturbed by sand mining or for any other reason the local area is almost totally destroyed, particularly the indigenous plants and insect life. Frequently the bird life in the area is destroyed or otherwise disturbed. A map released by the State Minister for Local Government and Main Roads, Mr Hinze, indicates that proposed special leases may involve an area of Fishing Creek presently within the Fish Habitat Reserve. Fishing Creek is another very reliable breeding ground, as is set out quite clearly on the map. The special lease to be transferred from the Tropico Syndicate is almost entirely covered by dense mangroves and tidal channels. The Iwasaki plans to date indicate that this will lead to the total destruction of this area. It is not only the environmentalists who are disturbed; the local professional and amateur fishermen, boards, sportsmen and others are also disturbed about this aspect.

Freehold title is being offered for the extensive wetlands areas- this is the area that Senator Collard referred to a while ago as rubbish landpresently under grazing leases. Consequently damage to it at the present time is not great, but under the proposed development damage to the area will be extensive. Freehold lands held by the company contain wetlands and sand ridge areas which are unsuitable for intensive development and subdivision. Those are a number of the points that I have deliberately raised. I want to make reference to two or three short statements which have been made by organisations which are concerned about the proposed development. Firstly, the Littoral Society had this to say:

The area is presently of immense importance to the commercial fisheries of the Capricorn Coast. Corio Bay is the most important known banana prawn nursery area on the east Australian coast. As the Capricorn Coast is increasingly used for public recreation, it is also of rapidly expanding importance to recreational fisheries. The Corio Bay mangrove forests are extremely varied, making it one of the most scientifically and educationally important mangrove areas south of Ingham. The wetlands of the Bay are a stopover feeding area for at least 26 of the 66 bird species listed in the Australian Government Agreement with Japan to protect migratory birds.

Another point that I want to make is that apparently, unfortunately, there has been some prior arrangement between the Premier and the operating company. Just before I touch on that I want to refer to what the Queensland Conservation Council said in one of the papers that it distributed on the proposed project. It said:

Iwasaki Sangyo have already shown contempt of State legislation by illegally dozing a road.

Then it went on to refer to some of the points I made a moment ago. I want particularly to refer again to the Crown land area and the low lying wetlands or unstable sand dunes. If a deal has been made by the Premier, the Premier ought to come clean and not only tell the Queensland people about it but tell the Australian Government why he is doing these things and what the background to the deal is.

When the Premier went to Japan recently he was largely the guest of Mr Iwasaki. This is a small extract from the official itinerary that the Premier used on his trip:

All arrangements from 11.3.78 to departure for Hong Kong on 22.3 including accommodation and transport will be made by Mr Iwasaki, except transport to and arrangements for visits to Omuta Coal/SDC Conversion Plant, to be organised by Mutsui

When he returned to Queensland he was asked at a Press conference at the airport about a number of points. He was asked whether he believed the Iwasaki project would harm the environment of central Queensland. He said:

That is a lot of nonsense. Mr Iwasaki is the greatest conservationist in the world. He has donated five national parks in Japan.

When he was asked if he believed that the Federal Government would block the project, Mr Bjelke-Petersen said:

They had better not. Just let them try. They don’t want another Fraser Island on their hands.

So he has defied the Federal Government. In other words, he is challenging this Government to do something about it, and then he is going to set it up again, just as he did over Aurukun and Mornington Island.

Mr Allan Sorrensen, the National Liaison Officer of the Australian Conservation Foundation, sent a number of telegrams in recent days. One, to Mr Sinclair, requested an appointment with him for Messrs Harris, Vanderheiden and Howe on 9, 10 or 11 May in Canberra, indicating that they represented the Capricorn Coast Protection Council, the Capricornia Master Fishermens Association and the Yeppoon Fruit Growers Association; that the subject was the ‘proposed Iwasaki resort’; and that a letter was following.

Mr Sorrensen sent a similar telegram, slightly differently worded, to Mr John Howard, the Federal Treasurer, stating:

Strongly request appointment with you for Messrs Harris and Vanderheiden on 9, 10 or 11 May in Canberra. They represent the Capricorn Coast Protection Council and the Capricornia Master Fishermens Association. Letter following. Geoff Hodgkinson has details.

A third telegram went to Mr Macphee and was phrased similarly. The silence from the three Ministers has been stunning. Nothing has been heard from them.

The franchise agreement was originally introduced to stifle the local government body and to block six years of opposition by the majority of the local people. There is grave doubt as to whether this project will have long term benefits to the people living in that area. A number of other questions will have to be answered. I know that Senator Missen will be happy when I say that there is nothing racial in what I have to state in relation to large numbers of Japanese coming in to work this project, when our immigration policy has been seriously restrictive and when we have such a high unemployment content in the local population. There is no guarantee that the project will be proceeded with according to plans and if one looks at the Press statements made by the Premier, in particular, and by other people in general, that fact is quite clearly borne out. There is no guarantee that the Canal Estate will not be establishedthat is where the fill is going into the boglands area- and there is no guarantee that the beach will be open to the public in spite of a belated promise by the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads. As far as I know- certainly this is the case in Queensland- there is at the moment no beach that is not open to the public, even on the famous Gold Coast. If what is proposed does eventuate parts of that area which local residents, have used for many, many years will be closed to them.

Mr President, 1 have a number of other documents which both you and the Minister have looked at. They are, I think, self-explanatory. They are not deeply involved but they do set out the views of local people and organisations about this project. The people feel that there ought to be greater investigation of this project and, if it is proceeded with, certain safeguards should be introduced. I refer in particular to a public meeting of the Capricorn Coast Protection Council which 350 people attended, and at which the resolutions in this document were carried by 341 votes to nine. In other words, there were nine people in favour of the project and 341 opposed. I seek leave to have those documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

CAPRICORN COAST PROTECTION COUNCIL

Resolutions at meeting held in the Yeppoon Sailing Club Hall on Wednesday, 6 March 1974.

This meeting of concerned citizens of Central Queensland:

Hereby declares its grave concern at the acquisition of some 8,000 acres of freehold and some 9,200 acres of leasehold on the Capricorn Coast, (including some seven miles of beachfront), by the Japanese company, Iwasaki Sangyo, and the complete lack of any kind of Government check, information or control of any such acquisitions of Australian lands by foreign companies.

We declare, further, our grave concern that the said Company should be planning extensive developments of the area, having significant impact on the social and physical environments of our region, whilst we, the residents, and the people of Queensland generally, have found it impossible to obtain any precise and accurate information on the subject from our own Government.

This meeting therefore calls upon the Queensland Government to take the following steps:

To take immediate action to prevent any further acquisition of freehold land in Queensland by the Iwasaki Sangyo Company or any other foreigner or foreign company;

To ensure a full and open public disclosure of details of the acquisitions, and the nature and purpose of all developments planned for the area in question;

To insist upon an independent and impartial assessment of all social, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed developments, to be followed by an open public enquiry before an impartial tribunal, at which all interested persons shall have the opportunity to ask questions, to raise objections and to lead evidence as to the anticipated consequences of the developments, and as to the manner in which it will affect their lives and livelihoods, and the environment in which they live;

To ensure that if, after such enquiry, permission is to be given for the proposed developments, it be on the conditions:

that at least 51 per cent of the equity in the lands, and the developments and industries associated therewith, be vested in the Australian people;

that the Japanese company accept leasehold tenure only, thus ensuring an ultimate reversion to the Australian people; and

that the Japanese company surrender at cost, for dedication as a National Park or otherwise all lands surplus to the needs of the approved developments;

To ensure that appropriate conditions be imposed, furthermore, to protect local industries, and the interests of people on low or fixed incomes, and to protect the position of pensioners, and Australian tourists and visitors, so as to ensure that they are not driven from the area;

To take the necessary steps to ensure that this immense area of the national estate shall remain for ever, in substance and effect, part of Australia, and not some kind of foreign enclave on Australian soil.

This meeting also calls upon the Australian Government to use such powers as it possesses to ensure a like result.

And requests the news media to give maximum coverage to this issue and these our resolutions, so that Australian Governments and people shall be alerted to the dangers to this country which are inherent in a high degree, or a high concentration, of foreign ownership, and may thus be moved to take immediate and effective action to monitor and control such ownership before it is too late.

Kerr Street,

Yeppoon, 4703. 5thApril, 1978.

The Prime Minister,

Parliament House,

CANBERRA.

Dear Mr M. Fraser,

At a meeting attended by approximately 200 citizens in the Yeppoon Town Hall on the 4th April, 1978 to discuss the Iwasaki Tourist Project in this area, the following motions were tabled and passed by an overwhelming majority.

That this meeting urge the Government to repeal the Aliens Act No. 1 9 of 1 965.

That this meeting request that before taking this matter to Parliament for approval, the Queensland Government make public all details of the Iwasaki Franchise Proposal as well as all details of dealings of the Premier of Queensland, Mr Hinze, Mr Tomkins and Mr Sparks with Mr Iwasaki, and then to conduct a referendum of all electors within a radius of 60 miles of the Capricorn Coast.

That this meeting propose a motion of no confidence in the Queensland Premier Mr Bjelke-Petersen, that Mr Bjelke-Petersen be requested to resign on the grounds that he acted undemocratically on a franchise agreement with Mr Iwasaki, against a majority decision of 4137 to 50 against the Iwasaki Project tabled in Parliament in the Charles Barton report.

That the above motions be sent to the Prime Minister and the Federal Leader of the Opposition.

I trust that these motions convey to you the true feelings of the citizens of this area and that the wishes of the majority of the average Australian is democratically maintained.

Yours faithfully,

Mr J. Geissmann

CAPRICORN COAST PROTECTION COUNCIL

P.O. Box 323-Yeppoon.

Queensland 4703.

Telephone: 39 1790

39 1546

6th April, 1978

Dear Sir,

RE: THE IWASAKI ISSUE

Why is the Queensland Government contemplating giving so many concessions to the Iwasaki Co.? Why is this company receiving so much favoured treatment?

Land Deals. L.S.C. Beach Front Land.

Why is the Queensland Government obtaining this land to sell freehold to the Iwasaki Co. and denying Australians the same opportunity in a society that is supposed to be a private enterprise one?

Why shouldn’t Australians be able to purchase this land in their own Country?

The area is already divided into 10 beach front lots of from 11-16 acres each, with 3 areas behind this of approx. 30-40 acres each. Beach front land in this area is not available and many would be glad to purchase some of this land.

Sandy Point Crown Land.

Why is the Government proposing to give Iwasaki a special lease of this area?

Why shouldn’t Australians own and control and use this land? For years recreational fishermen have driven along this beach, camped on Sandy Point and fished the area. The surf board riders do the same, as do many others. If Iwasaki is given control they will all lose this facility. Why?

Why have all the recommendations of the Co-ordinator General’s report advocating an environmental park in all mangrove and fresh water swamps of Corio Bay, and in particularinPortions2111, 15, 1002 and 18 19 been ignored?

Why have these areas which all experts agree are vital to the Marine Nursery being freeholded or placed under the control of the Iwasaki Co.? Why?

Why are the interests of the Commercial and recreational fishermen ignored?

Why should the people and the life style of the area be overwhelmed by the proposed colossus?

Why should the recommendation of the Co-ordinator General ‘that a proposal including the smallest scale tourist resort which would be economically viable ‘ be ignored?

Why should the project be forced on the community when it is obvious the majority of the people in Central Queensland do not want it?

Why should leasehold Crown Land be freeholded for the benefit of the Iwasaki Co.?

Why shouldn ‘t the same conditions apply to Iwasaki that the Queensland Government via the L.S.C. places on Australians in this area?

The Rosslyn Bay Kiosk is the best example. The successful tenderer supplied all finance for the complete construction of the kiosk.

On completion the ownership reverted to the Livingstone Shire Council with tenderer receiving a 15 year lease subject to an annual rental.

On expiry of lease the lessee had no protection regarding renewal.

Similar conditions applied to the establishment of the fuelling facility, and were originally applied to the tender for the fish receival depot, the latter received no tenders and was later amended.

Today Mr Petersen criticizes Mr Fraser for creating a privileged group with similar rights denied to other Australians when talking of Aurukun, but he then proceeds to create the same situation with the Iwasaki Company. Why?

Why shouldn ‘t Queenslanders come first?

Yours faithfully,

HARRIS

Chairman, C.C.P.C.

Dear Mr Iwasaki,

I am writing to you in reference to your Company’s submission to the Commonwealth Government, through the Foreign Investment Review Board, concerning your proposal to establish and operate a resort and tourist area at Farn borough in Queensland.

As you are aware, this proposal falls within the scope of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act in view of its environmental significance and the need for Commonwealth approvals in relation to foreign exchange control.

On the basis of the information provided to my Department under paragraph 2 of the Administrative Procedures of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, I have determined that an environmental impact statement is required for the purpose of achieving the object of the Act. A copy of my direction is attached.

I wish to draw your attention to the requirement of paragraph 4.2 of the Administrative Procedures in relation to consultation with my Department on the matters to be dealt with by the environmental impact statement. In this regard, you should contact the Office of Environment Protection (Mr W. J. Atkinson, Canberra 46 9136) to arrange consultation prior to your submission of the draft environmental impact statement.

Yours sincerely, (Sgd) (RAY GROOM)

Mr Y. Iwasaki,

Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd,

P.O. Box 350,

YEPPOON.Qld. 4703

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

PARAGRAPH 3.1.1

DIRECTION REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Pursuant to paragraph 3.1 of the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures, I, Raymond John Groom, Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, hereby direct the preparation or obtaining, and submission to me, of an environmental impact statement in relation to the following proposed action, namely: the making of a decision by the Reserve Bank on whether to approve exchange control transactions in relation to the proposal by Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd to establish and operate a resort and tourist area at Farnborough, Queensland.

Dated this 13th day of January 1978.

(RAY GROOM)

Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

I thank the Senate. I will close on that note and make this final plea to the Government: That it take the initiative, under the legislation that is available to it, to ensure that before the project is proceeded with every possible safeguard in terms of the environment, foreign investment, immigration, and any other aspect that is to the benefit of Australia is properly investigated and safeguarded.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I would like to take two minutes to support the remarks of Senator Keeffe and to thank him for raising this matter. In Queensland there are strange aspects to this proposal which has stretched over a number of years’. It is necessary that this Parliament know what is being done in Queensland because I believe it affects us nationally as well. Senator Colston also raised the matter by way of question. In responding to that question Senator Withers said:

I should imagine that if there is to be such foreign investment in Australia it will have to run the gambit of the Foreign Investment Review Board.

I asked, by way of interjection, ‘Has it’, and Senator Withers said, ‘I do not know’. However, he did undertake to give that information to the Senate. I would like to impress upon honourable senators how important it is that such a careful investigation should take place.

Senator Keeffe has referred to environmental problems. Let me express my concern over what islikely to happen in Queensland- supported by the unusual patronage of the Premier. His patronage in a variety of directions has been well known, and in many cases has been misguided. I believe that in this case also it is misguided. What Mr Iwasaki is likely to do at Yeppoon is inject a certain amount of money into a resort and lift substantially the land values in the area. Mr Iwasaki has been given access to large tracts of land surrounding the intended resort and the value of that land will be increased immeasurably.

Senator Sheil:

– By him.

Senator GEORGES:

-Yes, by him, but what are the consequences of that act? It will mean that he will have the right to subdivide a large tract of land and sell it off in his own market- in Japan, Hong Kong and other powerful financial centres in the East. There is a possibility that Australian citizens will have to compete, for land surrounding this resort at Yeppoon, against the power of the yen, which is considerably stronger than that of the Australian dollar and, for that matter, the United States dollar. What has happened in Queensland, and what needs to be investigated from a national point of view, is that the facility of freehold has been made available to aliens. Without being racist, I think it is necessary to find out what is happening, because of that very alienation, in Queensland. Is our land being alienated? In what direction is this freehold control flowing? Is it strongly in favour of the United States? Will it be strongly in favour of Japanese involvement in regard to this project? To what extent are Australians particularly Queenslanders, being disadvantaged? Will Australians be in competition with foreigners for the purchase of their own land?

There are some unusual aspects of this proposition. For example, there is the closing of the beach, which is an aspect from which the Queensland Government has withdrawn slightly. It says now that the beach will be available from dawn to dusk. What will happen after that period? What is the definition of ‘beach’ under the contract? All these matters need to be investigated before the Australian Government gives the right of exchange support to this project. All I am saying is that it is necessary for this Parliament to debate this project and to risk, shall we say, charges, which comes strangely from Mr Bjelke-Petersen, that we are racist in our attitude. All I can say is that I would resist any section of Queensland or Australia becoming a special section in which people who are not Australian nationals have a definite advantage. I do not doubt that some honourable senators have travelled to Sri Lanka. They would have found that certain luxury developments have taken place in Sri Lanka for the benefit of foreigners and to the disadvantage of the indigenous people, who look from the outside at the luxury that has been developed for the benefit of overseas visitors. That is a concept that I do not want to see developed anywhere in Australia. Another concept I do not want to see developed anywhere in Australia is the concept of Australians being denied the right to benefits from and enjoy their environment. All these matters need to be taken into consideration. Originally the Iwasaki project provided for an exclusion, an unusual exclusion- from the beach front. As I have said, there has been a movement away from that. But the original intention was to exclude outsiders from the beach. I think that I have made the point that before this project is allowed to proceed it ought to be a matter of investigation, it ought to be a matter of debate and it ought to be the subject of a statement by the Ministers concerned.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I seek the indulgence of the Senate to raise what I feel is a very important issue. In the transfer of powers from the Federal Government to the Northern Territory one must expect that there will be some problems. It is an unusual situation and, of course, we have little precedence to guide us. It is about one of these problems that I wish to speak tonight. I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to help to resolve any of the problems that arise in this situation. I feel that it has a responsibility to what one might call the fledgling government of the Northern Territory- the Legislative Assembly- to assist it wherever it can with its expertise. The Federal Government has a responsibility also to individuals in the Northern Territory, particularly those individuals whom its departments have recruited over the past few years. Some of the individuals may suffer because of the actions of the transfer.

The matter I wish to raise tonight appears to be a case where an individual has suffered. An attempt has been made to resolve the situation locally. I am not raising it here without having done some work on it in the Northern Territory.

The Police Association has worked on this matter and representations have been made. But we have not been successful. I am raising the matter here tonight in the hope that the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) may be able to give some assistance as regards the responsibility that I see the Federal Government having in the matter.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate what I am trying to come to is to state the case of a particular individual. Others may be similarly affected, but I shall cite the case of only one person. I refer to the case of a constable who was formerly in the traffic section of the Northern Territory Police. He was recruited in 1974 and in 1975 moved, at his own request, to the traffic section. In August 1976 he was involved in a high speed emergency call which resulted in an accident. He was a passenger in the car involved and at the time appeared to suffer no injuries. Perhaps I should say that there were no visible injuries because a little later in that year- in October 1976- he found that he was getting recurrent headaches and pains in the neck and had suffered a loss of hearing. He then sought treatment from the Darwin Hospital and he was given some therapy for his problem.

By mid- 1977 he was instructed to attend the National Acoustics Laboratory. I have used the word ‘instructed’ carefully because he was told to do so by one of his senior officers. As a result of the tests made by the National Acoustics Laboratory, he was referred to the ear, nose and throat specialist at the Darwin Hospital. In September 1977 he was put on sick leave by the specialist. In November of the same year he was referred to the Commonwealth Medical Officer. Due to his condition- that is, the loss of hearing- he was told that he was to be pensioned out of the Police Force. He was put on sick leave and stayed on sick leave until 20 December 1977. On 20 December he was instructed by the Commissioner of the Northern Territory Public Service that he was to transfer to a position of Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 .

Let us look at the result of this transfer to the position of Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 from his former position as a constable with the Police Force. Firstly, he lost the job that he wanted. He had joined the Police Force and, at his own request, had been put in the traffic section where he wanted to serve. He was moved to a job which had no appeal to him. It was one which he did not like and which was not even in the same department. As a matter of fact, it involved putting plastic covers on library books- a job which had no appeal to him. He suffered a drop in salary from $10,195 to $7,550-a loss of over $2,500. He suffered the loss of a rent subsidy and also the loss of a subsidy for sewerage, water and garbage, a subsidy to which members of the Police Force in the Northern Territory are entitled. Obviously, having moved out of the Police Force, he was not entitled to be supplied with a uniform. Also he received no overtime or penalty rates. He claims, and I can understand his feeling in this regard, to have lost a certain amount of status. It is certainly not for me to cast aspersions on the status of Clerical Assistants, Grade 1, but this man personally felt the move to this position was a loss of status.

The outcome of the situation was that he resigned from the Public Service and left Darwin. As I have said, the job had no appeal to him. He found it difficult to live on his reduced salary. Whilst obviously one can say that other clerical assistants manage to live on their salaries and therefore he ought to be able to manage, I think many of us would understand that, having dropped $2,500 in salary plus these additional penalty and overtime rates as well as losing the provision of a uniform and the subsidies and so on, it would have been very difficult for him to move down the salary scale. At the time he made his complaint he was offered a 50 per cent pension, but to the present time he has not received it. At present he is unable to find work because of his loss of hearing. So we have the situation where he has no work, no pension and no compensation. One of the disturbing features of this case to me is that the man has been penalised for an injury which occurred while he was at work. He went out, of necessity, on a high speed emergency call, he had an accident and he is being punished for it.

Senator Sheil:

– Are you saying that the deafness was due to the accident?

Senator ROBERTSON:

-My understanding of the situation is that the ear, nose and throat specialist attributed the loss of hearing to the accident. It seems to me that if this is the case, an unfortunate precedent has been set. I wonder whether policemen who feel that they are going to lose their job if they have an accident and become incapacitated will decline to undertake dangerous activity. Are we going to have the farcical situation of a police officer saying: ‘No, I will not do that in case I get hurt. I will not enter into that situation in case I am shot at. I will not get into the car in case I have an accident’? Of course that would be a completely untenable situation.

Another disturbing situation seems to my to be the inappropriateness of police officers being part of the ordinary Public Service. It seems to me that special demands are made of police officers and therefore special conditions ought to apply to them. I ask the Minister to look at the case of the individual I have mentioned and to decide whether he has been unfairly treated. That is the first point. I ask him also to look at the Police Administration Ordinance to see whether the terms of that ordinance are in line with provisions in the States. Obviously we want in the Northern Territory the same provisions as exist in the States. He might then consider the present situation to see whether the Police Force can operate effectively if there is no compensation in these cases or if as a result of an accident a member of the force can be dismissed or reduced in salary. I think it is most important that we look at that and, while doing so, look also at the powers of the Commissioner of the Northern Territory Public Service because he would appear to have more power than other public service commissioners. It seems incredible that no compensation is available, but it appears that that is so. It appears that this man has received no compensation for what was a traumatic thing, the loss of hearing. It seems to me that we must get the best possible recruits in the Northern Territory, or in other police forces, but I am concerned only about this one at present. Obviously we cannot expect people to move into the service if the conditions which I have described tonight exist.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- Senator Keeffe and Senator Georges commented tonight on a project known as the Iwasaki tourist resort that is proposed for the central coastal region of Queensland at Yeppoon. My information directs itself specifically to questions raised by both Senator Keeffe and Senator Georges. My understanding is that late in April the Queensland Government introduced the Queensland International Tourist Centre Agreements Bill. This Bill provides for the establishment and operation by Iwasaki Sangyo of a tourist resort covering about 8,500 hectares. The Bill contains an agreement, referred to as the franchise agreement, between the company and the State, which sets out the obligations and rights of both parties. The main features of the franchise agreement are that Iwasaki is to build to an agreed schedule a resort to cater for a maximum of 22,000 people. It would own all the necessary land and the State would exercise control over most aspects of the proposal. The company would have the responsibility of ensuring that no adverse environmental effects resulted from the proposal. It is important for Senator Keeffe to note that on 1 3 January this year the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) issued an order requiring the company to produce an acceptable environmental impact study. That order has been issued.

Senator Georges:

– But you have not had a response.

Senator CARRICK:

– The important thing is that the Commonwealth Government has acted in this respect and the company is apparently working on the environmental impact study which is expected to be ready by mid- June. That will be an important document which will relate to those matters which Senator Keeffe in particular and also Senator Georges raised. On 28 April this year the company submitted to the Foreign Investment Review Board an application seeking Government approval on foreign investment policy grounds for the proposed tourist resort and related real estate acquisition. So on two thrusts the matter has come on to the Federal Government’s plate- on the environment thrust and on the question of foreign investment and its implications. Technically one could say that the Commonwealth has 90 days from 28 April in which to reach a decision on the proposal but that, of course, is a narrow view. While it may prove possible to reach a decision on foreign investment policy grounds by that time it should be noted that the proposal is clearly a complex one that is going to involve the responsibilities of a number of Federal Ministers. In accordance with established practice in such cases there will need to be consultation at Ministerial level once the Foreign Investment Review Board has reported to the Treasurer (Mr Howard). That is the advice which I have on those two fronts.

This is an important matter which should be put under the most detailed study. The governments of Australia, Commonwealth and State, have between them complete power to decide how any land, any project or any aspect of the environment shall be managed for the future, so if this project is developed complete control over it lies with the elected governments. The idea that foreign governments can come to this country and do something within their own power is wrong. They can operate only under conditions that are laid down by our government. It is not for me as a Minister at this distance to evaluate the pluses or minuses of the project and it is not for anyone else to do so without a knowledge of the environmental impact study, without a knowledge of the report from the Foreign Investment Review Board and without knowing what are basically the terms of the agreement with the Queensland Government and what is in the small print as to the nature of the undertaking, the involvement of the Australian people, whether it will be something that will create substantial employment for Australians and whether it can attract considerable tourism to Australia. If it can do those things and meet all the other qualifications then it must merit consideration. But that is not for me to say. It is for me to simply state the facts as I know them. Therefore I remind honourable senators that the Commonwealth Government and the State governments have within their responsibilities the task of ensuring that what is done in the development of Australia is in the total interest of the Australian people.

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

– by leave- Senator Robertson drew the attention of the Senate to an important matter in the Northern Territory. I think he placed his case fairly and I certainly will see that the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) is alerted to it. If the case requires reference to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) I will see that that is done also.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.2 p.m.

page 1416

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Queensland: Environmental Assessment (Question No. 37)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

What progress has been made concerning negotiations with the Queensland Government similar to those resulting in an agreement with the South Australian Government, outlined in the Minister’s Press Release entitled ‘Environmental Assessments- Commonwealth/State arrangements’.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

It is assumed that the Press Release to which the honourable senator refers is that released by the former Minster for Environment, Housing and Community Development, the honourable Kevin Newman, M.P., on 1 4 October 1977.

A meeting was held on 2 June 1977 between the former Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Newman and the Queensland Premier, who is directly responsible for the environment in that State. There has been a further exchange of views between Ministers of the respective Governments since then.

Public Service: Graduate Employment (Question No. 124)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many graduates of Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and Technical Colleges, respectively, are at present employed by the Commonwealth Public Service.
  2. What is the proportion of graduates of Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and Technical Colleges, respectively, of the total number of persons employed by the Commonwealth Public Service.
  3. How many Graduate Clerks have been employed by the Commonwealth Public Service in each year since 1 972.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information sought is contained in the following table:
  1. Excluding the Departments of the Parliament.
  2. Details of qualifications held are recorded only in respect of First, Second and Third Division officers.

  3. Includes members of professional or learned societies who gained membership by examination but who do not hold degree or diploma qualifications.

    1. The information sought is contained in the following table:

Note: (i) In August 1976 recruitment to the designation Graduate Clerk was discontinued and replaced by recruitment to the designation Assistant Research Officer.

  1. Excludes recruitment to the Departments of the Parliament and to the former Postmaster-General’s Department.

Commonwealth Government Centre, Brisbane: Car Park (Question No. 210)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

Do any organisations other than government departments, employees of government departments or Members of Parliament occupy parking space in the car park of the Commonwealth Government Centre, Brisbane; if so, what organisations do so and what rental do they pay for such parking facilities.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Trans-Australia Airlines occupies three parking bays. The rental charged from 1 April 1978 is $600 per bay per annum. The previous rental from 1 August 1976 was $360 per bay per annum.

Deferred Postage Stamp Issue (Question No. 274)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Was a new stamp issue originally planned for 22 March 1978; if so: (a) what was this issue; and (b) was the issue postponed.
  2. If the issue was postponed: (a) why did this occur; (b) is the Minister aware of the inconvenience which is caused to

Philatelists when stamp issues are postponed; and (c) what action is being taken to ensure that such a postponement does not occur again.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

    1. Famous Australian Aviators.
    2. Yes.

  2. (a) The release of the issue was postponed because the printer encountered unavoidable production difficulties as a result of a mechanical failure in a printing press.

    1. The desirability of issuing stamps on the planned issue date is recognised. However, in this instance, Australia Post attempted to minimise the inconvenience to philatelists by advising, in Stamp Preview at least one month before the original planned issue date, that the issue would be postponed.
    2. Every effort is made to ensure that stamps are produced in sufficient time to be available on announced issue dates. However, there is no guarantee that mechanical failures will not occur in production equipment. Because of the specialised nature of some stamp printing presses, alternative equipment is not always available to meet emergencies such as that which occurred in this instance.

Taxation: Free or Subsidised Housing (Question No. 309)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Has the Queensland Government made representations to the Federal Government concerning the Taxation Department’s treatment of free and subsidised housing, as was envisaged by the Queensland Treasurer, Mr Knox (BrisbaneCourier Mail, 8 March 1978); if so: (a) what are the details; and (b) what response has been made to the representations.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Acting Premier of Queensland, Mr W. E. Knox, wrote to the Treasurer on 8 March 1978 seeking his assistance in ensuring that the results of the action being taken in the Taxation Office to determine the amounts to be included in the income tax assesssments of certain employees as the values of accommodation provided by their employers would be thoroughly examined.

The Treasurer has written to Mr Knox in response to the representations received from him.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 323)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. How many interdepartmental committees are currently in operation.
  2. What subjects are being considered by each committee.
  3. What departments are involved in each committee.
  4. When is each committee expected to report its findings.
  5. When will the reports of the committees be disclosed to the public.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

It has been the practice of successive governments not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in answering questions, such as this, which seek generalised information on interdepartmental committees. I do not intend to depart from that practice. However, if the honourable senator wishes to know the composition and function of any particular interdepartmental committee and for what period of time it has been active, I shall be happy to see if he can be provided with the necessary information.

Local Government Borrowings

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 16 March 1978 (Hansard, page 657) Senator Wriedt asked me, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, a question without notice concerning Government borrowings. In responding to the honourable senator I undertook to refer his question to the Treasurer for a specific written reply. The question was:

Has the Government determined a maximum amount which it is prepared to allow the States, on behalf of local government and semi-government authorities, to borrow overseas without Loan Council approval?

The Treasurer has now provided the following information:

The size of borrowing programs for borrowings by semigovernment and local authorities, and the associated forms of borrowing, are matters for the Australian Loan Council to decide. The Prime Minister’s statement of 10 March 1978, to which the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate referred, related to proposed new guidelines for Loan Council consideration of proposals for special additions to the semigovernment borrowing programs approved by it (i.e., the programs for semi-government and local authorities borrowing in excess of $ 1 m a year) and for overseas borrowings by semi-governmental and local authorities.

Senator Wriedt further asked:

Does the Government intend to reduce its own borrowings on behalf of the Loan Council to offset this additional borrowing capacity that it now proposes to give to local government and semi-government authorities?

The Treasurer has replied:

Borrowings by the Commonwealth undertaken under borrowing programs approved by the Loan Council comprise borrowings for and on behalf of the State Governments and borrowings on the Commonwealth ‘s own account. The magnitudes of programs for such borrowings to be approved by the Loan Council in future years, and the actual levels of borrowings by the Commonwealth and their distribution as between the domestic and overseas markets, may be expected to reflect, as in the past, economic and financial requirements and circumstances of the time.

Senator Wriedt:

asked:

As the Government has repeatedly claimed that local government has never had it as good as it does under the existing arrangements, why is it now necessary to allow it this additional borrowing capacity?

The Treasurer has replied:

As indicated above, the reference to special additions to borrowing programs in the Prime Minister’s statement of 10 March 1978 regarding proposed new Loan Council guidelines is a reference to special additions to the ‘semigovernment’ borrowing programs approved by the Loan Council (Le., the programs for semi-government and local authorities borrowing in excess of Sim a year). In his statement the Prime Minister indicated that the proposed new arrangements while recognising the Commonwealth’s overriding responsibility in matters of national economic management, would allow such special additions where the proposed extra borrowings were necessary to finance development-related infrastructure normally provided by the public sector and which could not be accommodated within the existing Loan Council program.

As regards the local government sector, the present Government’s tax sharing arrangements have of course resulted in general revenue assistance from the Commonwealth for it increasing from $79.9m in 1975-76 to S 165.3m in this financial year.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 May 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780504_senate_31_s77/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant