Senate
25 May 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1819

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That Item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for the slaughter of thousands of unborn babies every year.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brown (4 petitions) and Senator Tehan.

Petitions received.

page 1819

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1819

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs and also as Minister representing the Treasurer in this place. I seek some clarification from the Minister as to the Government’s understanding of what constitutes total payments to the States and local government authorities over the past few years. I refer the Minister to pages 7 and 12 1 of Budget Paper No. 7 and also to page 121 of Budget Paper No. 1, the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. Do any of those tables represent what the Government considers to be total payments to the States? If either of those tables is correctand presumably the Minister will indicate that the figures appearing in Budget Paper No. 7 are the correct ones- would he agree that the total figures appearing on both tables are identical? Do they in fact represent total payments to the States over that time span?

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

– I will endeavour to give an answer to the honourable senator. It may be that having studied his question I may need to add to my answer later. In the 1977-78 Budget Papers the tables on pages 6 and 7 of Budget Paper No. 7 deal with total funds available to the States and local government. Table 102 on page 121 of Budget Paper No. 7 also deals with total funds available to the States and local government. The table which appears on page 121 of Budget Paper No. 1 deals only with payments to or for the States and local government. It does not deal with any specific purpose payments from the Government. These are allocated as to function elsewhere in the Budget Papers. Therefore, the first two tables show the total funds available to the States and local government. The third table deals only with part of the funds provided with respect to the tax sharing entitlements of the States and local governments, Loan Council programs and special grants. I should like to study Senator Wriedt ‘s question in more detail to see whether there should be anything added to my answer. I will do that and let him know.

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA · ALP

-I thank the Minister for that answer. I realise that he may wish to study the question in more detail. But in view of the fact that he has indicated that the first two tables to which I referred do represent total payments, I ask him whether he agrees that the totals shown in both tables are the same? If he could give an answer to that point now, I would be appreciative.

Senator CARRICK:

-Superficially, I think the answer is yes. There again, I want to have a look at the question. I will respond to it later.

page 1819

QUESTION

MATERNITY AND PATERNITY LEAVE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question, which relates to public service matters, to the Minister for Social Security. Can the Minister say what stage the proposed legislation regarding the abolition of paternity leave and the placing of restrictions on maternity leave has reached and when this legislation is likely to be brought before the Parliament?

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

– Last year the Government reviewed the maternity and paternity leave provisions for Commonwealth employees and undertook to consult with staff organisations concerning that review. Discussions have been held with the Public Service Board and peak trade union councils. The Government will be proceeding with some amendments following those consultations. With the Government’s heavy legislative program it has not been possible to introduce the amending Bill but it is the intention of the Government to introduce this legislation during the Budget session. I take this opportunity to mention also that the Government has before it extensive amendments to the Public Service Act on matters which also have been discussed with the peak councils and it is hoped that an amending Bill may be introduced this session with a view to consideration of it being stood over for public consideration in the winter recess.

page 1820

QUESTION

ELIGIBILITY FOR LEGAL AID

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: In the light of recent answers on legal aid matters, is it a fact that a large number of recipients of Commonwealth pensions and benefits is ineligible for legal aid? When was the means test last adjusted? Are there any automatic procedures for it to be adjusted according to a particular index? If so, what is the index? I add that this may be a matter which is partly within the bailiwick of the Minister for Social Security but nevertheless I direct the question to the Attorney-General.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

- Senator Button asked firstly: Is a large number of pensioners ineligible to receive legal aid? All I can say is that the strict application of the present guidelines certainly does render and has rendered a number of pensioners ineligible. Until this year, it was possible to exercise some discretion and under the present guidelines it still is possible to exercise discretion to assist pensioners or any person who is just above the guidelines but because of the unavailability of funds the guidelines have had to be fairly strictly adhered to throughout the whole of this year and certainly since I have been Attorney-General.

The second question that Senator Button asked was: When were the guidelines last adjusted? The present guidelines were brought in by my predecessor in, I think, March 1 976. It was in the early days of the present Government. Thirdly, he asked: Is there any provision in them for them to be indexed? The answer is no. As I have said, there is a discretion in them but that, of course, can be exercised only in relation to the availability of funds.

Senator Button:

– Against them.

Senator DURACK:

– It can be exercised in favour of them. In the past some discretion has been exercised to assist somebody who has been in fact just outside the guidelines and who otherwise would be a proper case. But, as I have said, because the funds have been very tight and will continue to be tight- probably there will never be enough funds available for legal aid- at the present moment the guidelines have to be adhered to strictly.

page 1820

QUESTION

BUTTER AND MARGARINE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether there are any restrictions, either State or Federal, that would prevent the manufacture of an edible oil-butter spread by any manufacturer of either butter or margarine. Are there any restrictions on adding flavourings, such as garlic or bacon, to either original product or a mixture of both? Is there anything that would prevent the purchase, holding, blending or manufacture of either product by manufacturers whose current business is centred on one or the other of the main alternative products?

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

-Legislation relating to the manufacture of foodstuffs in Australia for domestic consumption is basically the responsibility of State governments. In all States manufacturers obtain approval from the authorities to use premises for the manufacture of foodstuffs. Conditions governing the manufacture vary from State to State. I do not have precise details of the variations regarding the products mentioned by Senator Archer, but I can say that in Tasmania the manufacture of an edible oilbutter spread is totally prohibited. In other States there is no legislation which would prevent manufacturers of butter from being granted approval to use their premises for the manufacture of this type of spread. I understand that manufacturers of margarine are not permitted to bring butter into their premises.

I understand that in New South Wales this spread must conform with the labelling requirements of margarine and that in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia special legislation covers the manufacture of a mixture of butter and edible vegetable oil, which may be marketed as a dairy blend. State food and drug laws do not permit the use of flavourings in butter. Accordingly, it would be considered an offence to purchase, to hold, to blend or to manufacture flavoured butter for consumption on the domestic market. That basically answers the honourable senator’s question on the point of putting in some of those attractive flavourings. Flavouring of the dairy blend mentioned by the honourable senator is subject to the same restrictions as apply to butter. Flavouring of table margarine is permissible in most States under certain conditions.

The manufacture of dairy produce for export is subject to the provisions of the Exports (Dairy Produce) Regulations. Under those regulations, permission may be granted for the manufacture of an edible oil-butter spread in either a butter or a margarine factory. There are no specific provisions in the Exports (Dairy Produce) Regulations governing the addition of flavourings to butter, edible oil or a mixture of edible oils and butter. Should a manufacturer desire to manufacture such a flavoured product he would be required to furnish details of the ingredients to the Department of Primary Industry. Provided that the flavourings were permissible food additives, approval would be granted for the export of that flavoured product.

page 1821

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PILOTS IN SALISBURY

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. There was a reference in the Melbourne Age of 19 May to ‘Australian pilots in Salisbury’ presenting a pewter replica of a dust bin to members of the Rhodesian Air Force as a gesture of admiration. Can the Minister advise the Senate of the number of Australian pilots in Rhodesia? Are they members of the Royal Australian Air Force? What are their duties in Rhodesia? If they are not members of the RAAF, are these pilots in Rhodesia with the knowledge and approval of the Australian Government?

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

-To the best of my knowledge no members of the Australian Defence Force are in Rhodesia. I am positive of that. However, if that is not correct I will have the answer corrected. I hope the Senate will understand that it may be difficult to answer the balance of the questions because the Australian Government has no direct or indirect contacts in Rhodesia. It is a country with which we do not have any diplomatic exchange. Therefore, the information requested by the honourable senator, being information contained within that country, may be very difficult to obtain because we do not have any contact with Rhodesia.

page 1821

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the latest statistics available covering the motor vehicle industry? Is it a fact that total registrations in April, seasonally adjusted, were at their highest monthly level since July last year?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Lajovic has asked me two questions regarding motor vehicle registrations. I have here figures that were released recently. The lastest figures for April show that seasonally adjusted registrations of new motor vehicles increased by 8.8 per cent in April to a level of 48,800. This compares with levels of 44,800 in March, 48,000 in February, and an average monthly level of 46,000 in the first seven months of 1977-78. The seasonally adjusted increase in April comprised increases of 10.6 per cent in registrations of new motor vehicles and station wagons and 3.1 per cent in registrations of other vehicles. In answer to Senator Lajovic ‘s second question, total registrations in April were at their highest monthly level since July last year. The figures for the three months to April 1 978 indicate a steady improvement in registrations since the low levels experienced in the three months to October 1 977.I have some additional details of registrations of new motor vehicles in recent years. I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1821

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether his attention has been drawn to a High Court judgment handed down recently by His Honour Sir Keith Aickin, in which judgment His Honour declared null and void the granting of licences for two commercial radio relay stations in Queensland on the ground that the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its hearing had denied natural justice to the parties concerned? Has the Minister’s attention been directed particularly to the Judge’s comments that ‘it would be an unauthorised exercise of discretion to deny to all parties a right of cross-examination ‘. Because the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its hearings to date has been allowing- in my opinion, properly allowing- an air of informality in its public hearings on applications for renewal of licences and because there is so much public interest in the matter, can the Minister say whether the Tribunal intends adopting its existing practice or whether the High Court judgment now means that in all future hearings conducted by the

Tribunal the right of cross-examination must be allowed? If the Minister is not in a position to provide an answer immediately to the question, because of the great interest in the matter, particularly in the broadcasting and television industries, will he ascertain what is the position and provide me with an answer as early as possible?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not in fact seen the judgment by Mr Justice Aickin in the High Court to which Senator Douglas McClelland refers. Upon his description it is a significant judgment and it is one that of course the Government must–

Senator Button:

– All High Court judgments are significant, Senator.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am always willing to be better informed and Senator Button has added to the store of my knowledge. The Government itself must be interested in such a judgment as described by the honourable senator. I personally, both in my representative capacity and as one who has taken an interest in this field, certainly would be interested in it. I believe that the Government would study such a judgment, as would the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and of course reach decisions as to how the Tribunal should comport itself in the future so that its behaviour is in accordance with the High Court judgment. But since I talk not from first hand knowledge I will get in touch with the Minister. I will refer the question to him and seek a response from him. I also will invite the Minister to study the judgment in its relationship to the Tribunal and its present and future practices.

page 1822

QUESTION

PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Government recognise that there has been a tragic downturn in industrial development in South Australia? Does the Government realise that tremendous economic and employment benefits would be provided by the establishment of a petrochemical industry at Redcliff in the northern Spencer Gulf area? Does the Minister recall that on numerous occasions I have pressed for this petrochemical industry to be established and that several months ago I asked the Government to give favourable consideration to approving a loan amounting to about $250m to the South Australian Government for the infrastructure associated with the project? In view of the serious industrial situation in South Australia, will the Minister ask the Treasurer to give urgent attention to this request?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It is true- and I think that all honourable senators will agree- that there has been a significant downturn in industrial activity in South Australia. It is equally true that Senator Jessop has raised this matter in its various aspects in the Senate. For example, he has been very active in regard to Whyalla and the Gulf area itself. It is equally true that Senator Jessop has raised in the Senate the matter of the possible development of a very significant petrochemical industry at Redcliff. I think from memory that Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd was the main contender for this project. I do indeed recall it and it would be a very significant addition to the Australian component of industries both in a strengthening of those industries and of course in increasing employment opportunities.

The nub of Senator Jessop ‘s question is the matter of whether there will be approval for the raising of a loan of, I think he suggested, some $250m by way of infrastructure expenditure. I remind the honourable senator and the Senate that a major reform announced recently by the Federal Government has been that of infrastructure borrowing within the terms of the Australian Loan Council and the 1927 financial agreement and the gentlemen’s agreement following it. As I understand it, the States now are looking towards their likely requirements in infrastructure borrowing and are looking towards making submissions to the Commonwealth Government and the Loan Council so that programs can be put forward and accepted. I think that Sir Charles Court has been very smartly off the mark in this regard. It does require initiative and imagination and certainly Sir Charles Court has been very active. I think the correct step for South Australia is properly to assess the nature of the infrastructure necessary and to put the priorities that it considers necessary into a form of submission to the Loan Council. I have no doubt at all that the matter would be considered. My understanding is that the Premiers Conference will be held in the latter part of June which is only a few weeks off. I have little doubt that the Premiers will be looking to infrastructure borrowing as one of the main means of future development in Australia. The Government sees it as one of the significant methods of re-employment as well as national development.

page 1822

QUESTION

TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS OF PRIVATE PERSONS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister will recall that he recently advised me in an answer to a question on notice that at least one of the major Australian airlines will provide information to the Parliament about the travel arrangements of private persons. Does the Minister regard this practice as satisfactory or does he regard it as a serious assault on personal privacy? If the Minister does not regard the matter as satisfactory, will he take steps to ensure that the practice will cease?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not immediately recall the precise nature of the question and answer on this matter that has flown between Senator Colston and myself. I need to refresh my mind on it. Since this is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Transport in another place, my opinion is not to be sought on it. It is a matter for the judgment and advice of the Minister for Transport. Perhaps Senator Colston would indicate to me the previous question and answer. I shall then refer it to the Minister for Transport and seek an appropriate response.

page 1823

QUESTION

INTERSCAN

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. I refer to an article which I know has been drawn to his attention in the 1 May edition of Time magazine. It refers to the microwave landing system debate within the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It makes only passing and fleeting reference to Australia ‘s involvement. The article concludes:

Bui after technical presentations and demonstrations or both devices in Montreal -

That is the British system and what the article refers to as the United States system-

The 1CAO experts voted 39 to 24 in favor of the American system. The US scanning beam has won a crucial round in the quest for a prize that eventually may be worth $4 billion in equipment sales around the world.

Is it a fact that the microwave landing system known as InterScan approved by the ICAO on that occasion was developed in Australia by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Department of Transport? Will any action be taken to ensure that people writing about or reporting on this issue will have brought to their attention the fact that the system was developed in Australia because of Australian technological expertise and that Australia continues to have a very close interest in it?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator asks a question seeking to protect Australia’s interest in the origin of this particular equipment. 1 have no reason to disbelieve the information that has come to me about the original concept of InterScan and its development in Australia. My attention was directed to the article in Time magazine. I am unable to say who was the author of the article. I imagine that it is not an uncommon attitude for writers of various nations to take that their own country headed a particular development. I recall that within the last couple of years it has been said to me that various countries had joined with Australia on this matter and that they were working on a similar time reference scanning beam concept. I am unable to say whether that was correct.

I know, and certainly honourable senators would know, that over the past 2lA years I have instanced from time to time the importance I see in the allocation of funds by this Government to the development of such a landing system. Indeed, there might have been one other airport in the world where a similar system was working. But we certainly have had it in operation at an international airport at Tullamarine when 1 have flown into that airport. So far as I am aware, we had this system in operation before any other country did. We approached the United States to join with us in this project. I think that recently Russia approached the consortium and sought to join it. Recently the Federal Republic of Germany requested that it be allowed to join. I think that Australia was delighted to have the weight of the influence of these countries. Without the influence of the United States, probably a scheme such as the one Australia has been able to put forward would not have got ofl” the ground.

Yesterday we were prompted to go back in history by a comment made by Senator Sir Robert Cotton. His knowledge of this matter went back to the very early 1970s when the concept of a new landing system was being considered by the Department of Civil Aviation, as it was in those days. Undoubtedly the concept of a new international landing system might have been considered by many nations. But the fact is that the time reference scanning beam system was an Australian concept. It was developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I think that we can rest content that our country has been the leader in this field. I hope that industry, with the assistance now of the Federal Government, will be able to take advantage of this system to gain something for Australian industry and for the Australian community. An amount of $4 billion is said to be involved in the installation of this system throughout the world.

page 1823

QUESTION

INTERSCAN

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and follows the question asked by Senator Knight. I ask the Minister: Does not Senator Knight’s question indicate quite clearly the concern being felt by many people in the community about the manner in which Australia’s contribution to the InterScan program is being submerged by very powerful overseas interests? Did not the Minister himself on 30 March last year make it quite clear that the system was conceived by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and that it was developed jointly with the Department of Transport here in Australia? If it had not been for that work would the Minister not agree that the United States of America, Russia or any other nation today would not have any chance of benefiting from such an innovative scheme as InterScan? Will the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Productivity, give the Parliament a detailed statement of the negotiations which took place here over the past two or three weeks when a United States delegation came here to negotiate certain arrangements for the development of InterScan? Would the Minister not agree that we in the Parliament have not been informed what those arrangements are and that the Parliament is entitled to know what measures have been taken to protect Australia’s interests? As was quite properly pointed out by Senator Knight, at this stage there is no indication that Australia ‘s interests are being properly protected?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Mr President, it would seem to me that it might appeal to you that the question which Senator Wriedt asked certainly is not additional to the question asked by Senator Knight;, it is a new question relating to the matter raised in Senator Knight’s question and does not necessarily follow from the comments that have been made by Senator Knight. Senator Knight asked a direct question whether my attention had been drawn to an article which used words suggesting that the United States of America system had been adopted.

Senator Wriedt:

– Which is the Australian systemthat was the whole point of his question.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not think it is impossible for one to realise that countries throughout the world might, within their own contexts, suggest that they have a claim to some particular thought. In Australia we say that we are the leaders in solar energy research.

Senator Wriedt:

– Not according to what you said in this Parliament.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I see that America is spending $200m a year on solar energy research. Undoubtedly America may claim that it is the leader in solar energy research. But coming directly to the question, asked by Senator Wriedt–

Senator Wriedt:

– Great idea.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Wriedt says that it is a great idea. He makes many statements when he asks questions in the Senate.

Senator Wriedt:

– You waste so much time. I am just trying to get you back on the rails.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I noted six questions that Senator Wriedt asked me. I attempt to answer sensible questions sensibly. Really, I think I could stop there. Senator Wriedt asked me the most important question of whether I would be prepared to bring before the Parliament a statement relating to the negotiations with the United States’ company in relation to the development of the equipment that may be used in InterScan installations. I feel that that is not an unreasonable request. I think the public of Australia should be alerted, if it is not alert to it already, as to the basis upon which we are seeking to develop InterScan. I think a reasonable reading of the reports that have been released would reveal that a company in America has the main market in America for the installation of landing systems in that country. In fact, it has the ability to install 50 per cent of the equipment in the world. Australia should seek to negotiate with that company and attempt to get this comparatively small country involved in that work.

Points were raised in Senator Wriedt ‘s question in relation to the holding of the patents for this equipment. I could give an answer on that. That, perhaps, is an appropriate question. Senator Wriedt may be comforted if he knows where the patents are held. Surely he must realise that it was only recently that the International Civil Aviation Organisation decided that this type of equipment will be used as a world landing system and that it will not be until next year, at another meeting, before ICAO approves the type of development and hardware that is to be used in the installation. It is in that regard that Australia is endeavouring to contribute money towards the research and deveopment of this system, along with a similar contribution from overseas. We hope that we will be able to achieve something for Australian industry in this $4 billion market.

page 1824

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CONTENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It follows my question yesterday dealing with the requirement for an 85 per cent local content in the motor vehicles of Chrysler Australia Ltd, particularly in relation to the superficial value of the Australian content due to the current high value of the Japanese yen. Has the Minister obtained any further information for the Senate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the matter of Australian content of cars manufactured by Chrysler Australia Ltd?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Honourable senators will recall that Senator Young asked me a series of questions yesterday in relation to difficulties that manufacturers may be having in meeting Australian content rules and the ways in which they may be overcome. It is true that the problems currently being experienced by some manufacturers relate, in part, to the effect on the local content rules of the appreciation of the Japanese yen. In addition, Senator Young asked me yesterday about the production of the Astron engine by Chrysler Australia Ltd and whether that would be of assistance to it in meeting the local content rules. With the introduction of a significant item, such as a new locally produced engine, it follows that increased sourcing of such an important item will assist plan entrants, such as Chrysler Australia Ltd, to meet their obligations.

Earlier today Senator Carrick was asked a question in relation to motor vehicle registrations. His reply indicated that there are some encouraging signs of a steady improvement in the demand for motor vehicles in Australia. The introduction of a successful new model, such as the Chrysler Sigma, is reflected in this firmer trend.

page 1825

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION FROM VIETNAM AND LATIN AMERICA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs stems from revelations at the Estimates Committee hearings that our intake of Vietnamese refugees is in the ratio of six to one compared with those from Latin America. In view of the happenings in Lima, Peru, at the weekend, and the concern of the Sydney Peruvian community as to what the future holds for people under political duress in that country, can the Minister express a view as to the continuance of a high ratio of immigration from one area as opposed to another? Further, in view of the climate of increasing political suppression in Latin America, just what will be our policy for that area?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I recall the matters that were raised before the Senate Estimates

Committee. I am advised by the Minister th*”. the Government, in determining the responses which should be made to particular refugee situations, has not attempted to decide income levels by comparison of situations, and certainly not considered intake levels in terms of ratios. This would be unrealistic. The Government’s recently announced decision to adopt a program calling for 9,000 Indo-Chinese immigrants in 1978-79 reflects only its reaction to that particular problem. The number of refugees in Thailand is about 110,000 with 7,500 boat people in Malaysia. Refugees must outflow from Vietnam in the order of 3,000 a month.

There is also a need to take urgent action to reduce boat travel direct to our shores. As the Minister has announced, last year Australia took in refugees from 40 different countries. If they were all made subject to a ratio system the position would become quite unmanageable. I am not suggesting that the honourable senator advocates that. I can assure him that we will continue, quite separately, to view the problems of Chilean refugees with the compassion and understanding which are already reflected in the ongoing program for refugees from South America. The other remarks that the honourable senator has made are consistent with what I have said about Chilean refugees and our ongoing program for South America. We certainly would not be looking at a ratio of refugees as between one country and another, but rather would continue to look at the intake of refugees with compassion and understanding.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– As a supplementary question, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether we could ascertain from our embassy in Lima what would be done if someone sought sanctuary there, as has happened in other countries.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will seek the information sought by the honourable senator from my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1825

QUESTION

DIESEL POWERED MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs whether he is aware of the relative unavailability in Australia of energy saving diesel powered motor vehicles? Does the Minister realise also that there is a twofold problem in that there are no locally produced diesel powered cars, but strict import quotas on the diesel Volkswagen, Peugeot and Mercedes Benz cars? Is the Minister willing to consider relaxing the import restrictions placed on vehicles with diesel engines, at least until local producers can begin production of these fuel efficient cars?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and endeavour to obtain an early answer.

page 1826

QUESTION

TELEVISION: SPORTING PROGRAMS

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications is asked in my capacity as a Queensland senator interested in country people, although I must admit, as President of the Queensland Rugby League, that that organisation has an interest in my question also. Is the Minister aware that many country areas in Queensland are one station areas as far as television is concerned and that in these areas there is widespread concern at the drastic cuts in the sporting programs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, particularly regarding rugby league replays. Queensland country people believe they are now in a sporting desert and that they have been discriminated against as there do not appear to be similar reductions in sporting programs elsewhere. Will the Minister take the matter up with his colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, to see whether some improvement can be brought about?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am glad that Senator McAuliffe declared his special interest in this matter, which I think is well-known. He asked me, I think, three questions. He asked whether I was aware–

Senator Button:

– We should all declare our special interests, shouldn’t we?

Senator CARRICK:

-In rugby league?

Senator Button:

– In anything- pecuniary and otherwise.

Senator CARRICK:

– I thought Senator Button was declaring his peculiar interest in Australian rules football. It is perfectly true that in areas of the vast State of Queensland, as in other vast States such as Western Australia and my own State of New South Wales, there are difficulties associated with single station television. It is equally true that particularly with the advent and extension of colour television, spectator interest in viewing sport on television has increased enormously. I do not venture into what particular kinds of sport are observed. I am not aware that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has specially narrowed its transmission of sporting programs- particularly of rugby league. I will certainly draw this problem to the attention to my colleague in another place. I will take up the substance of the question put by Senator McAuliffe and ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to give it consideration and to respond. I am sure that everybody in the Australian community is interested to see the maximum transmission of good sporting programs in this country.

page 1826

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. Can the Minister inform the Senate what percentage of Australia ‘s gross domestic product is represented by State and Federal public expenditure on education? How does Australia’s public expenditure on education compare with that of other countries?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have in fact within my brief such figures because there is constant discussion here and elsewhere in the world about how one developed country compares with another. I am bound to say at the outset that there is some difficulty in making comparisons because some countries use gross domestic product and others gross national product. The GDP figure generally shows a lower percentage and therefore the comparison is not an accurate one. But it is possible to say that in Australia over a three-year period total outlays on education, represented as a percentage of GDP, were as follows: in 1973-74, 5 per cent; 1974-75, 6.2 per cent; and in 1976-77, as an estimated figure, 6.4 per cent. The figure is showing a very considerable movement and compared with the past it shows that in Australia a major and significant amount of the total budgets of Australia is being allocated at the State and Federal level to education.

As to the second part of the honourable senator’s question-that is, public expenditure on education as a percentage of either GDP or GNP- we have a variety of figures for Australia. On the basis of GDP, the figure for 1975-76 was 6.3 per cent and in the following year 6.4 per cent. The figure for Canada in 1 975-76 was 6 per cent. So Australia was yielding more. For the calendar year 1976, Japan, a country that has devoted itself intensively to education, spent 5.7 per cent of its gross domestic product on education. I must interpose here that we are dealing with the quantity of money and not necessarily the quality of outcome. For the year 1976-77, the United Kingdom spent 7.3 per cent of its gross national product on education which, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, shows that Australia’s expenditure compares favourably with that of the United Kingdom. The United

States of America spent 7.9 per cent of its gross national product and again Australia’s expenditure compares favourably. In the year 1976, France spent 4.7 per cent of its gross domestic product on education. Clearly on any quantitative measurement Australia in recent years has devoted to education a percentage of its gross domestic product which is comparable with or greater than that of any country. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

page 1827

QUESTION

IMPORTED PLUM WINE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. He will be aware that I have repeatedly raised in the Senate the plight of wine grape growers in Australia and have requested Government assistance for the growers because of the huge surplus this year, particularly in the Riverland of South Australia. One method of assistance I have suggested to the Government is import restrictions on cheap wine from other countries. I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an advertisement in yesterday’s Sydney Sun which referred to imported Japanese akadama plum wine. If so, will he inform the Senate of the name of the firm which has been granted the import licence for this product, the date of the granting of the licence and the quantity that has been imported. I can give the Minister a copy of the advertisement for this cheap plum wine so that he can have inquiries made.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– My attention has not been drawn to the advertisement but I would be interested to read it. I would be even more interested to taste some plum wine. I would have thought it unlikely that anybody who enjoys the wine of the grape, particularly that from the Riverland area to which Senator McLaren refers, would be seduced into drinking wine made from plums- but one never knows. I certainly will refer the matter to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, ask him to assess whether there is a problem here and, if so, what steps he intends taking.

page 1827

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. On the radio program AM this morning there was a report that the chairman of Pancontinental Mining Ltd has asked the Government to intervene in the financial talks between Pancontinental and the Northern Land Council with regard to uranium development and that that Council has now said that in view of this action it is unlikely that Pancontinental will be able to commence work at an early date. Will the Minister inquire into the matter and advise the Senate, because if the report is correct it could smack of intimidation and would require the intervention of the Government? Under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act has an arbitrator yet been appointed to review disputes?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am not aware of the appointment of an arbitrator but I will seek that information for the honourable senator. He has asked a number of questions but he will appreciate that only my colleague whom I represent in this chamber would have a detailed knowledge of the matters that he raises. I will get answers to the questions as soon as I can.

page 1827

QUESTION

HIGH COURT BUILDING

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Construction. The Minister will recall that yesterday I asked him a question concerning the windows in the new High Court building. I now ask whether the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, has insisted on security and noise standards in sections of the glass work in the building that cannot be met by materials produced in Australia and will require materials to be imported from South Africa.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I recall the honourable senator’s question, about which I obtained information yesterday from two sources. I obtained an answer basically from the Department in question, which informed me that it would need to look further into that matter and advise me later. One other report suggested that the honourable senator’s question was inaccurate. It was suggested that this matter was going to be the basis of an article in a newspaper but the writer found it was incorrect and did not proceed to write it. Those are the two pieces of information that came to me yesterday. I do not know whether Sir Garfield Barwick has made any comment on the security and noise standards. I shall put the question to the Minister for Construction today.

page 1828

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE OMBUDSMAN

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, concerns the Defence Force Ombudsman. I understand that the position has been vacant since the end of 1976 when Mr Hay left it to take up another appointment. I ask: Does the Government intend to fill this vacancy and, if so, when? In the meantime, have servicemen had any opportunity to lodge grievances with anyone? How have those grievances been dealt with? Finally, has the Government been subjected to representations from senior officers to leave the position vacant permanently?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I understand that the matter of the appointment of a full time Defence Force Ombudsman is presently under study by my colleague, the Minister for Defence. I understand further that the function is at present being performed on an acting basis. I do not know whether representations have been received from senior officers. I do not know what are the latest figures but I recall that over a period of, I think, 18 months when Mr Hay was Defence Ombudsman he dealt with five complaints. So one could hardly imagine that the defence forces are in a state of ferment. I shall see whether I can obtain the latest figures for the honourable senator so that he will have some indication of the work load which is being borne in this area by the person who is acting in this position. I understand also that my colleague is looking at the whole question of the redress of grievances for members of the armed forces. If I can get some further information on that I shall advise the honourable senator accordingly.

page 1828

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Does the announcement yesterday by the Minister for Health that there would be no bulk billing of doctors’ charges, except for pensioners, mean that Aboriginal people will now have to pay cash for any medical treatment they receive, when they receive it? What impact will this have on Aboriginal medical services?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware that the matter of Aboriginal health services was raised in discussions with the Minister for Health. In some discussions which I heard, he suggested that special arangements would need to be made for Aborigines. I am not aware of the details of those, but there was in his mind some way in which he could deal with the matter of Aboriginal health services. I shall seek from him any definitive arrangements he has been able to make or any consideration he has given to this matter and see that Senator Georges is advised about that.

page 1828

QUESTION

TARIFF PROTECTION

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Special Trade Representations, follows the question asked by Senator McLaren, which, as I heard it, was seeking protection for local wine as against plum wine. In the light of the representations contained in the earlier question, is it still appropriate for the Government to be seeking greater entry into the Common Market on behalf of our primary producers when there is such an obvious desire on the part of the primary producers of the Riverlands to be protected against any competition?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I am very wary about putting my toe in this water of dispute between free traders and protectionists. I thought that this dispute had disappeared from the Parliament in about 1910. It seems to be back, alive and well. As I merely represent my colleague, the Minister for Special Trade Representations, I think the best I can do is to seek his advice on how to answer that question.

page 1828

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINO SHEEP

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of numerous ministerial references to an impending relaxation of the embargo on exporting fertile merino sheep and other genetic material, will the Minister put a statement of Government policy before both Houses of the Parliament before they rise for the winter recess so that the matter can be debated?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I will put that proposition to the Minister whom I represent and obtain an answer from him.

page 1828

QUESTION

TRADING STOCK VALUATION ALLOWANCE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Is it a fact that the Commissioner of Taxation has decided that the trading stock valuation allowance does not apply to motor dealers who, by necessity, finance their stock by bailment arrangements with finance companies? As I understand the situation, it tends to be the smaller motor dealers who are forced to operate in this way and who are not able to create a wholesaling company as an intermediary. I also ask: Is it a fact that the Australian Finance Conference has expressed the view that it is impracticable for it to claim and to pass on the benefits of the trading stock valuation allowance to the motor dealers? In view of the fact that the investment allowance provisions were amended by the Government to permit, according to certain rules, lessees to benefit from that allowance, will the Government as a matter of urgency- an urgency created by the fact that 30 June is the relevant date for the trading stock valuation allowance- and as a matter of equity, make amendments to the provisions to enable motor dealers who finance their trading stock by a bailment plan, commonly known as a floor plan, to claim the benefit of the allowance?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of an approach to the Treasurer, by the Australian Finance Conference on the trading stock valuation allowance- TSVA, as it is called- regarding motor vehicles. I am advised that it is the view of the Commissioner of Taxation that where floor plan arrangements prevail the legal owners of vehicles at the commencement of an income year- usually the wholesale finance companies and not the dealers themselves- are entitled to claim the deductions allowable by way of a trading stock valuation adjustment. I am further advised that the result of the Commissioner’s decision is that the trading stock valuation adjustment deduction will be allowable in respect of stocks of cars in precisely the same way as it applies to trading stocks held in other industries. It will be the legal owner at the time who receives the deduction. It is a matter of negotiation between motor dealers and the finance companies whether all or part of the benefits obtained by the finance companies from this deduction are to be passed on to the dealers by way of a lowering of the interest charges or in some other way. Although the Finance Conference suggests that this course has practical difficulties, I understand that some companies have already indicated that they have made arrangements which will ensure that the benefits of the deduction will in future flow to the motor dealers with which they are associated.

The trading stock deduction is available to any dealers who do not operate a floor plan but finance their vehicle stocks from their own resources and who, as a result, have legal title to the stock at the beginning of the income year. This also is the situation where a finance company takes a floating charge over a dealer’s stock or some other form of security, leaving the legal title in the stock with the dealer or with the dealer’s own wholesale company. Representatives of the industry, I understand, have discussed this matter with the Treasurer who, after careful consideration, has advised them that he is not prepared to recommend an amendment to the relevant income tax provisions.

page 1829

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health refers to the current Medibank proposals which have been very unfavourably received by a large section of the community and by representative bodies. I ask the Minister In view of the promise and the undertaking by the Prime Minister before the election that the Medibank scheme would be retained in its then current form, how does the Government justify the current policy which chips away the benefits of the scheme and also the promises of future reductions in benefits?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I note that Senator Bishop says that the changes which were announced yesterday have been unfavourably received. I do not believe there has been sufficient time to explain or to interpret to the public at large the changes and to suggest that they have been unfavourably received on the basis of headlines in the newspapers overlooks, I think, what may be the reaction of the people when the changes are made known to them. The Government said that Medibank would be retained and that steps would be taken to improve the health care system in Australia. That is the reason for the changes which were announced yesterday and the reason for the previous changes which were made. It is believed that the health care system in this country is a first-class system but there are burdens of cost which need to be contained. Whilst we wish to see a health care system which makes health care available to all we need to look at the costs which are involved and when measures can be taken to improve the system or to contain costs action should responsibly be taken by government. This is what was done yesterday.

Senator BISHOP:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take up the point that the Minister raised about improvements to health care. Does the Minister consider that the present reductions in benefits and proposed reductions in benefits, particularly in the pensioner area, will in fact improve medical care?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The pensioners who have the fringe benefits will have no change in their circumstances. The cost of the changes announced yesterday will be borne by the community in accordance with capacity to pay. In respect of the change in the insurance gap that may exist or the proportion of the benefit which is payable, the decision that has been taken will affect all Australians. There is a sharing of the burden of costs, as I mentioned earlier.

page 1830

QUESTION

TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS, ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Mr President, on 9 May Senator Young asked me a question as follows: ls the Minister for Administrative Services aware that transport drivers who are required to go to the Adelaide Airport have no transport desk or telephone, unlike those in many other capital city airports? As this causes a great deal of inconvenience to both passengers and drivers, will the Minister give consideration to establishing at the Adelaide Airport a central contact point which has a desk and telephone?

I am advised by my Department as follows:

  1. There is a direct line telephone in the Adelaide Airport connected to the car depot. It was installed in June 1977.
  2. The telephone is situated at the end of the TransAustralia Airlines counter and there is an appropriate sign displayed ‘Commonwealth Car Enquiries’.
  3. There is no special desk for Commonwealth car enquiries because the layout of the airport terminal does not permit allocation of suitable space.
  4. Commonwealth drivers wait for passengers between the Ansett Airlines of Australia and TAA reception areas directly in the path of all passengers leaving aircraft.
  5. Until two months ago TAA and Ansett would page passengers on behalf of our drivers, but they have now ceased this service.

I suggest that honourable senators from South Australia take up with the airline companies the inconvenience they are causing both to them and to their constituents.

page 1830

QUESTION

PETROL FREIGHT SUBSIDY SCHEME

Senator DURACK:
LP

-On 11 May Senator Walsh asked me a question concerning petrol prices in Tasmania. He referred to a conference that was held in Hobart on 3 April which was attended by representatives of the Commonwealth and State governments and six oil companies which market petroleum products in Tasmania. He referred to a statement which was allegedly made by one of the oil industry spokesmen at that conference which conflicted with an answer I had given to him in the Senate on 1 5 March. I said that there was a problem in Tasmania in that there was a past agreement between the oil industry and the State Government concerning the price of petrol in Hobart. It was alleged that the oil industry spokesman denied that such an agreement existed.

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided me with an answer in relation to this conflict. I am informed that the statement attributed to the oil industry spokesman was not made. I am also informed that in the early 1960s an understanding was reached between the Tasmanian Government and the oil companies for lower prices in rural Tasmania. Under this agreement the wholesale price of petrol in Hobart was increased by one halfpenny per gallon which is equivalent to 0. 1 1 cents per litre to compensate for the price reductions in country centres. Prior to that agreement the Melbourne and Hobart wholesale prices were the same. Subsequent price increases have been applied to these base prices. The difference between Melbourne and Hobart prices which stemmed from that understanding still exist although there is a very small differential between them.

page 1830

QUESTION

DIESEL POWERED MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Missen earlier today asked a question with regard to the use of diesel fuel for cars in Australia. I have now obtained the answer. It is a fact that diesel cars have been receiving increased publicity in recent days. Senator Missen referred to an article in relation to the matter. Consumer demand for diesel cars continues to expand in Europe and in America largely due to increasing industry and public awareness of the environmental and energy saving advantages of diesel engines and also the generally lower price of distillate compared with petrol. However, there is not a significant difference between the price of distillate and petrol in Australia. Accordingly, there seems to be less pressure for the increased use of diesel engines.

Although diesel cars currently available on the Australian market are imported there is no evidence at this stage that the apparent delay in market acceptance is attributable to the import quota system applying in Australia rather than to the price factors I have mentioned. However, it is expected that the market acceptance for diesel - powered cars will develop in Australia. Holders of import licences are free to use those import quotas to import diesel-powered cars such as

Volkswagen, Peugeot and Mercedes Benz. Presumably, as the demand increases they may choose to devote a larger proportion of their quotas to diesel cars.

page 1831

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 14(1) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948, 1 present the fourth supplement to the twenty-fifth report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July 1972 to 30 December 1972, dealing with progress in the final actuarial examination of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund.

page 1831

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AUTHORITY

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 16 (2) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, 1 present the fifth report of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority, dealing with the general administration and working of that Act and of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1 948, other than Part III of the Act, for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 1831

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled National Highways Linking Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, 1978.

page 1831

RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 21 of the River Murray Waters Act 1915, 1 present the report of the River Murray Commission for the year ended June 1977.

page 1831

ABORIGINES IN THE PILBARA AND KIMBERLEY REGIONS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report by Mr N. M. Butcher on the greater involvement of Aborigines in the economy of the Pilbara and Kimberley regions.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

Leave granted, debate adjourned.

page 1831

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on metal working machine tools.

page 1831

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Report

Senator TEHAN:
Victoria

-On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, I present the report of the Committee on the consideration of annual reports referred to the Committee by the Senate.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator TEHAN (Victoria)-by leave-On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare and its Chairman, Senator Peter Baume, I have the honour to present the Committee’s report on the consideration of annual reports referred to it. It will be noted that six of the annual reports listed were presented to the Parliament more than six months, and three were presented more than 12 months, after the end of the period reported on. We are concerned at such delays in the provision of information which is essential to effective parliamentary scrutiny of the operations of Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities, and the Committee will continue to keep watch on the situation.

The Committee is concerned also at the lack of a comprehensive list of statutory bodies, especially those whose annual reports are required to be submitted to the Parliament. Such a list is expected to become available soon as a result of the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. In order to ensure that full and up to date information will be available at all times in the future, the Committee recommends that the Senate institute and maintain a register of statutory bodies in which should be recorded particulars of the authorities whose annual reports are required to be submitted to the Parliament, together with the date of presentation of each report in the Senate, and also particulars of all other statutory bodies and the reporting requirements applying to them.

The Committee also makes specific comment on two annual reports which were considered to require some follow-up. The Aboriginal Land

Commissioner, in his report for the year ended 30 June 1977, commented that a number of questions had arisen in regard to the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1 976 and the carrying out of his functions. In response to the Committee’s request for further information on this matter, the Commissioner has advised that he intends to elaborate his views in his next report. The Committee has therefore decided to await that report and to keep a watching brief on the matter.

The Commissioner for Community Relations, in his annual report for 1976-77, referred to varying responses to complaints relating to public administration. On seeking further information, the Committee was informed that, with the exception of the Queensland Police, whose co-operation had been excellent, the Queensland Government had failed to respond to any matter of racial discrimination referred to it by the Commissioner. His letter, dated 14 April 1978, is attached as appendix 1 to the Committee’s report. As we understand from further communication with the Commissioner’s office that developments are expected in a number of these matters, close attention will be paid to the Commissioner’s next annual report. The Committee is concerned, however, at the circumstances which have led to the Commissioner’s comment, indicating an almost complete lack of response by the Queensland Government, and brings this matter to the attention of the Senate for the consideration of any action which the Senate may desire.

page 1832

AUSTRALIA AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA: NEGOTIATIONS ON MARITIME BOUNDARIES AND ON OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO TORRES STRAIT

Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock).

Leave granted.

Senator WITHERS:

– Honourable senators will be aware that when I use the first person personal pronoun, I am referring to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In my statement to Parliament on 11 May 1978 I informed honourable members that in recent negotiations with the Papua New Guinea Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Ebia Olewale, we agreed upon the principal basic elements which are to be included in the treaty to be concluded on maritime boundaries between our two countries and on other matters relating to Torres Strait. In that statement I indicated that Mr Olewale and I would be presenting to our respective parliaments a fuller outline of those elements and that I would make available to honourable senators illustrative maps which would indicate the results of these important negotiations. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has written to the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, concerning the principal basic elements which are to be included in the treaty and my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) also has conferred with the Torres Strait Islander chairmen.

In this statement I wish to present to honourable senators an account of the principal basic elements which the Australian and Papua New Guinea Foreign Ministers have agreed will be included in the treaty. The Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea is presenting a similar account to his Parliament. Before proceeding to speak about the treaty elements, I wish to recall that Australia and Papua New Guinea have been engaged in these negotiations over a period of years, beginning before Papua New Guinea moved to independence. Both our governments have been determined to arrive at a permanent and equitable settlement which will meet the need to delimit our territorial seas and the seabed and fishing zones between the two countries. The settlement must also take account of intricate historical, cultural, social and economic factors of great signifiance to our peoples, including notably the people of the Torres Strait area. Both our governments have accordingly approached the negotiations with great care and concern in order to arrive at a solution which is equitable in human terms and lasting and beneficial in its consequences. We have sought an agreement which will stand the test of time both legally and functionally. We have been determined to achieve a treaty settlement which would strengthen the fabric of the relationship between the two countries and their peoples, which we both regard as of high importance.

It is against this background that I now present for the information of honourable senators a paper containing an outline of the principal basic elements which Mr Olewale and I have agreed will be included in the treaty, together with two illustrative maps which will indicate these elements graphically. At the conclusion of this statement I shall seek leave to have the text of the paper incorporated in Hansard. I commend this paper and the supporting maps to the attention of honourable senators. It is of necessity a long and somewhat technical document. I should therefore like to state some general points and then to summarise the main treaty elements on which agreement has been reached. Firstly, it should be kept in mind that certain outstanding points of substance are to be the subject of further negotiations. These points arise mainly from the principal basic elements which now represent common ground.

Secondly, the package of elements which is now emerging provides for a fair and equitable division of sea and seabed resources between Papua New Guinea and Australia across the whole area traversed by the proposed lines of delimitation. This is what both governments have been seeking to achieve.

Thirdly, the basic elements provide for access from both sides to the sea and seabed resources of the Torres Strait area on terms which will foster the development of the economies of the immediate areas in and on both sides of the Strait.

Fourthly, arrangements will be established in the Torres Strait area which are designed to meet fully the particular needs of the people of the area, including the people of the adjacent coastal area of Papua New Guinea, with regard to traditional movements and traditional fishing. In putting these arrangements into effect, the wishes of the people of the area will be taken into account by the two governments. There will be machinery to ensure that representatives of these people will be consulted about decisions that affect them.

Fifthly, there will be appropriate guarantees for freedom of movement for ships and aircraft in the area. In particular, these will ensure that internal sea and air services of the two countries will take place without delay, interference or inconvenience. There will also be provision for the passage of vessels using the strait to go to other destinations along routes normally used for international navigation.

The main treaty elements, briefly stated in non-technical and non-legal language, are as follows:

  1. 1 ) There will be a seabed resources delimitation line running through the whole area between the two countries and located as indicated on the two maps.
  2. There will similarly be a line delimiting the swimming fisheries resources jurisdiction between the two countries. In the central Torres Strait area, it will run to the north of the islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai as shown on the two maps. To the east and the west of that area it will coincide with the seabed line.
  3. In the treaty, Australia will recognise Papua New Guinea sovereignty over the islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa; Papua New Guinea will recognise Australian sovereignty over all the Australian islands in the Torres Strait shown on map II as lying north of the seabed line.
  4. As shown on the maps, the territorial seas of the Australian islands north of the seabed line, and of Papua New Guinea in the area between Boigu and Dauan, will be a maximum of three nautical miles, and a territorial sea boundary will be delimited between Boigu, Dauan and Saibai and Papua New Guinea. Neither country will in future extend its territorial sea across the seabed line.
  5. A Protected Zone will be established in the Torres Strait in the area shown on the maps. Within this zone the Torres Strait Islanders and the Papua New Guineans who live in the adjacent coastal area will be able to continue their traditional activities and to move freely about the zone for this purpose.
  6. There will be an embargo on mining and oil drilling of the seabed throughout the Protected Zone for 10 years from the date of entry into force of the treaty. This might be renewed thereafter by agreement.
  7. The treaty will include further provisions relating to the Protected Zone which will cover agreed principles, parallel measures to be taken by, and co-operation between, the two governments to provide for the following matters: (a) the protection and preservation of the marine environment; (b) the management and conservation of fisheries resources; (c) the protection of plant and animal life; and (d) the prevention and control of pollution.
  8. The treaty will make provision for detailed bilateral arrangements covering joint conservation, management and sharing of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries. Both governments will consult and cooperate in the issue and endorsement of licences. The licensing arrangements will have regard to the desirability of promoting economic development and employment opportunities in the Torres Strait area including the adjacent coastal area of Papua New Guinea, and the people of the area will be consulted about these arrangements.
  9. Subject to the phasing arrangements specified in the paper I have tabled, the sharing of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries will be on the basis that Australia will have an overall share of 25 per cent of the commercial fisheries in waters under Papua New Guinea jurisdiction; Papua New Guinea will have an overall share of 25 per cent of the commercial fisheries in waters under Australian jurisdiction. The share in the territorial seas of the Australian uninhabited islands north of the seabed line other than Turnagain, however, will be on a 50/50 basis and Papua New Guinea will have 100 per cent of the commercial barramundi fishery near the Papua New Guinea coast, excluding the territorial seas of Saibai, Dauan and Boigu. Each country will have preference against third countries to take up any surplus of the other country’s share of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries. Third state operators will not normally be licensed to exploit those fisheries unless agreed by Australia and Papua New Guinea.
  10. In relation to the Protected Zone provisions permitting freedom of movement by the local people in the carrying on of traditional activities, the treaty will provide for cooperation on immigration, customs, health and quarantine arrangements. However, each country will retain the right to implement national controls to prevent abuses or other possible adverse effects of those Protected Zone provisions.
  11. There will be liaison arrangements to ensure the effective working of the protected zone provisions of the treaty. These will include a body, which might be called the Torres Strait inter-governmental advisory and consultative committee, that will be responsible to the two Foreign Ministers. On the committee, State and provincial governments and the local people will be represented. In addition, senior national government officials will be nominated to facilitate, at the local level, the implementation of the protected zone arrangements.
  12. The treaty will contain provisions covering appropriate guarantees of freedom of navigation, passage and overflight.

What I have set out in this statement, and in the paper I have tabled, is an outline of the principal basic elements which Mr Olewale and I have agreed are to be included in the treaty. This outline is in summary form and not in formal treaty language. Certain consequential points of substance remain for discussion between the two Foreign Ministers and considerably more work remains to be done on the development of detailed treaty articles. The technical descriptions of the various points and lines referred to in this statement, and in the accompanying paper and illustrative maps, require further careful checking and calculation before being finally agreed upon for inclusion in the treaty. It is planned that Mr Olewale and I will consult again in a few weeks’ time in order to maintain momentum towards the completion of full treaty documentation. Meanwhile, I am confident that honourable senators will agree with Mr Olewale and me that the agreement we have now reached upon the principal basic elements to be included in the treaty text is an historic one. We and our ministerial colleagues believe that a treaty incorporating these elements will represent a mutually acceptable and equitable settlement which will meet the genuine concerns and interests of the Governments and peoples of our two countries. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the text of the paper to which I have referred containing an outline of the principal basic elements.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Outline of principal basic elements agreed upon on S May, 1978 between the Foreign Ministers of Australia and Papua New Guinea to be included in the treaty to be concluded on maritime boundaries between their two countries and on other matters relating to Torres Strait.

Notes:

This outline is a summary, not in formal treaty language, and does not include all the detail that will be necessary in the treaty.

Certain consequential points of substance are to be the subject of further negotiations.

The two illustrative maps are indicative only.

1 ) Subject to minor adjustment for reasons of technical computation and survey, there will be an agreed seabed resources delimitation line running through the whole area between the two countries and located as indicated on the two maps.

Similarly there will be a line delimiting the swimming fisheries resources jurisdiction between the two countries, located as indicated on the two maps. The run of that line will coincide with that of the seabed delimitation line except that, between the meridians 142° 03’ 30” East and 142° 51’ 00” East, it will run to the north of the three inhabited Australian islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai.

Australia will recognise Papua New Guinea sovereignty over the islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa and the smaller islands appurtenant to those islands and over their territorial seas, subject to delimitation as necessary to be specified in the treaty. Papua New Guinea will recognise Australian sovereignty over the inhabitated islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai and the smaller islands appurtenant to these islands, including Aubusi, Moimi and Kaumag and over the nine Australian uninhabited islands lying north of the seabed delimitation line, that is Turu Cay, Kerr Islet, Deliverance Island, Turnagain Island, Pearce Cay, Black Rocks, Bramble Cay, Anchor Cay and East Cay, and over the three-mile territorial seas or those islands, subject to an agreed description of the delimitation thereof which will appear in the treaty.

The territorial seas of Australia and Papua New Guinea between Boigu and Papua New Guinea, and between Dauan and Saibai and Papua New Guinea, will be delimited along two agreed lines as broadly indicated on the maps.

5 ) The breadth of the territorial seas of the Australian islands indicated on the map as lying north of the seabed delimitation line will be a maximum of three miles. No other Australian territorial sea will lie to the north of the line. The breadth of the territorial sea of Papua New Guinea along its southern coastline between the meridians 142° 03’ 30” East and 142° 5 1’ 00” East will bea maximum of three miles and will not extend south of the two territorial sea delimitation lines or the straight line linking them as indicated on the maps. The extent of Papua New Guinea territorial sea, which will not in any event extend into the area south of the agreed seabed line, agreed areas of Australian territorial sea to the north of the seabed line, or the agreed area of Australian fisheries jurisdiction north of the seabed line, will depend on the base lines or archipelagic lines adopted by Papua New Guinea in accordance with international law.

Australia and Papua New Guinea will not in future extend their territorial seas across the seabed delimitation line.

A Protected Zone will be established in the Torres Strait within the area indicated on the maps. The treaty will contain provisions which safeguard traditional activities, including in particular traditional fishing, by the people of the Torres Strait area, that is the Torres Strait Islanders and Papua New Guineans who live in the adjacent coastal area, and which provide for continued freedom of movement about the Zone in pursuit of these traditional activities.

8 ) There will be an em bargo on mining and oil drilling of the seabed throughout the Protected Zone for 10 years commencing from the date of entry into force of the treaty. The embargo may, by agreement between the two countries, be extended beyond the end of the 10 years period. The treaty will provide for equitable arrangements to be made by Papua New Guinea in respect of the holders of the Australian petroleum permit Q/10P in those parts of the permit area that will fall on the Papua New Guinea side of the seabed delimitation line. The treaty will also contain a provision along the following lines:

If any single accumulation of liquid hydrocarbons or natural gas, or if any other mineral deposit beneath the seabed, extends across a boundary line so as to come within the jurisdiction of both countries, and the part of such accumulation or deposit that is situated on one side of the line is recoverable in fluid form wholly or in pan from the other side of the line, the two Governments will seek to reach agreement on the manner in which the accumulation or deposit shall be most effectively exploited and on the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from such exploitation.

The treaty will incorporate further provisions relating to the Protected Zone which will cover agreed principles, parallel measures to be taken by, and cooperation between, the two Governments, to ensure: protection and preservation of the marine environment; management and conservation of fisheries resources; protection of indigenous flora and fauna (including endangered species, notably the dugong and certain species of turtle); prevention and control of pollution.

The treaty will also contain detailed provisions on agreed arrangements in respect of commercial fisheries within the Protected Zone, including those fish of stocks belonging substantially to the area of the Protected Zone which occur outside but near the Zone within limits to be agreed between the two Governments. In respect of such commercial Protected Zone fisheries the treaty will contain provisions covering the following points:

The conduct of commercial Protected Zone fisheries will be subject to the provisions that will be made in the treaty for the people of the area to continue to engage in traditional fishing. This will mean that traditional fishing will have precedence over commercial fishing.

In the context of conservation, management and sharing-of-take’ arrangements in respect of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries, the fisheries authorities of both countries will consult and cooperate in the issue and endorsement of licences.

In the administrative process of issuing licences, the relevant authorities of the two countries will have regard to the desirability of promoting economic development in the Torres Strait area including the adjacent coastal area of Papua New Guinea and employment opportunities for the people of the area.

There will bc periodic consultation with the people of the area on the licensing arrangements.

The responsible authorities of each country will issue licences to their own nationals and endorse when necessary the licences of nationals of the other country.

In allocating licences, and in deciding upon other jointly-agreed management and access arrangements in respect of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries, regard will be had to existing levels of ‘take’ by each country prior to the date of entry into force of the treaty but subject to sub-paragraph (g) below. Provided these levels remain within the optimum sustainable yield of the fishery concerned, they will not be reduced for five years from the date of entry into force of the treaty but, over the subsequent five years, levels of ‘take’ may be adjusted progressively so that Papua New Guinea will have an overall share of 25 per cent of the ‘take’ of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries in waters under Australian jurisdiction and Australia will have an overall share of 25 per cent of the ‘take’ of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries in waters under Papua New Guinea jurisdiction, subject to the following:

In the territorial seas of the Australian uninhabited islands north of the seabed line, other than Turnagain, the ‘sharing-of-take’ formula will be 50 per cent Australia/50 per cent Papua New Guinea.

Papua New Guinea will have 100 percent of the take’ in the commercial barramundi fishery near the Papua New Guinea coast: excluding the territorial seas of Saibai, Dauan and Boigu, and this ‘take’ will not be included in calculating the overall percentage share of’ take’in the commercial protected Zone fisheries under the agreed sharing-of-take ‘ formula mentioned above.

The ‘take’ by each country in individual fisheries will be a matter for agreement between the two countries in accordance with the abovementioned principles and in the context of subsidiary joint conservation, management, access and licensing arrangements negotiated in respect of individual fisheries and will not necessarily, in any single fishery, be the same as the overall percentage shares of the ‘take’ mentioned above.

In the event of the optimum yield not being taken up in a Protected Zone fishery or part thereof under the jurisdiction of one country because that country in any year or season after the entry into force of the treaty does not propose itself fully to exploit its share of that fishery, the other country will be given preference as against third countries to take up all or any portion of the surplus in that fishery or part.

Vessels of third State operators will not normally be licensed to exploit the commercial Protected Zone fisheries unless agreed by the two countries.

For the purpose of fisheries jurisdiction and the sharing provisions and subject to conservation, management and protection provisions, the following categories of living resources will be recognised:

swimming fisheries resources (all living marine resources with the exception of sedentary organisms within the meaning of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf);

seabed fisheries (most sedentary organisms as so defined);

other living resources of the seabed (corals, seaweed, etc.. and, outside the territorial seas of Australian uninhabited islands north of the seabed line (except Turnagain), pearl shell).

Fisheries jurisdiction will apply to (a), and seabed jurisdiction to (b) and (c). As a general rule, the fisheries conservation, management and sharing arrangements will apply to (a) and (b). The position of (c) from the latter point of view will need to be further considered, except for pearl shell in the areas indicated.

In relation to the Protected Zone provisions which will permit the continued performance of traditional activities by the local peoples and continued freedom of movement about the Zone for that purpose, there will be cooperation on immigration, customs, health and quarantine arrangements, although each country will retain the right to implement national controls to prevent abuses or other possible adverse effects of the Protected Zone provisions.

There will be liaison arrangements between the two countries to ensure that the Protected Zone arrangements work effectively. These will include both a high-level Torres Strait Inter-Governmental Advisory and Consultative Committee responsible to the two Foreign Ministers, on which State and Provincial governments and the people of the area will be represented, and also the nomination of senior national Government officials to facilitate, at the local level, the implementation of the Protected Zone arrangements.

The treaty will contain appropriate guarantees of freedom of navigation, passage and overflight in the Torres Strait area.

Senator WITHERS:

-I present the following paper:

Australia and Papua New Guinea: Negotiations on maritime boundaries and on other matters relating to Torres Strait- Ministerial Statement, 25 May 1978. and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition welcomes the statement which has just been put down by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and which sets out the details of negotiations of new boundaries between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The statement follows an earlier statement a fortnight ago in which the Foreign Minister indicated the nature of the agreement which the two countries had reached. This statement provides the substantive details of that agreement. We on this side of the chamber welcome the fact that the two governments have been able to reach a satisfactory settlement of the difficult maritime boundaries question. We would agree that the arrangement must stand the test of time- both legally and functionally- and should it do so we accept it will strengthen the relationship between our two countries.

It seems to us that it was unnecessary that there has been a considerable degree of secrecy in relation to the details of the negotiations. We know that the negotiations have been made more difficult because of the attitude of the Queensland Government. Nevertheless the arrangements have a substantial effect on Torres Strait Islanders and we feel that perhaps more time should have been taken to discuss the measures prior to any firm agreements being reached. That the issue is complex cannot be doubted by anyone reading the Minister’s statement. The treaty, when it is concluded, will provide for a complex set of arrangements dealing with boundaries. In particular there will be a seabed resources delimitation line, another line limiting the swimming fisheries resources jurisdiction and a large area described as a protected zone. The overlap between these concepts, the physical territory of the two countries and the territorial seas of the two countries will create an arrangement which could be extemely difficult to administer and lead to rather unknown complications which as yet would be difficult for us to foresee.

In particular, the protected zone provisions of the treaty will permit freedom of movement by the local people within the protected zone, but at the same time the treaty will provide for immigration, customs, health and quarantine arrangements. This will be an extremely difficult concept to translate into action and, unless the whole issue is handled very sensitively- not only at the treaty stage but also on an on-going basis- it could lead to friction between the people of the Torres Strait and ultimately between ourselves and Papua New Guinea. I have no doubt that this is something which none of us would wish to see. I feel certain that the Government will be mindful of the inherent problems that may well arise in making this agreement functionally successful.

The treaty also provides for a very strange concept- that is what is known as a swimming fisheries resources jurisdiction which involves the Talbot Islands, Saibai and Dauan. It is not clear what is being provided by this concept. Those islands have their separate territorial seas and presumably access to them will be guaranteed to them under other parts of the treaty. It seems clear we will not be able to make a detailed appraisal of these complex provisions until we see what is involved in the treaty. The arrangements for sharing fisheries resources within the protected zone are complex and will need to be administered with a high degree of sensitivity to avoid difficulties arising between the fishermen exploiting the areas. As these provisions will affect the livelihood of many people in the area, the Opposition will be interested in whether the people in the Torres Strait have been sufficiently consulted about the issues and whether they are satisfied that their interests have been adequately looked after.

The Opposition welcomes a number of the matters to be included in the treaty, particularly the co-operation between the two governments on mining and oil drilling, the protection of the environment and the magement of the resources in the area. The co-operative licensing arrangements may provide difficulty but the joint administration of these issues could well lead, if handled properly, to a strengthening of the ties between the two countries. As the Minister for Administrative Services points out, much work needs to be done. It is clear in the time available that the Opposition has not had time to form a concluded view about many of the aspects of the treaty. In substance, the treaty appears to be a very satisfactory one from the Australian point of view and also from the Papua New Guinea point of view. But we still need to know a lot more about specific issues before it would be possible to make a final judgment on that question.

In concluding my remarks I indicate that the Opposition generally would be sympathetic to the basic proposal that has been put down in the Parliament and we trust that the Government will exercise every discretion and precaution in the exercise of this treaty for the benefit of not only the Torres Strait Islanders but also for the people of Papua New Guinea and Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1837

ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill Tor an Act to amend the Acts InterpretationAct 1901.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1837

ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1978

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in consequenceof certain administrative changes, and to provide Tor related matters.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1837

LOAN CONSOLIDATION AND INVESTMENT RESERVE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill Tor an Act to amend the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Act 1955 and for purposes connected therewith.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1837

ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS (NOTIFICATION) BILL 1978

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the notification of the making of certain Ordinances, regulations and other instruments.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1837

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend section 12 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1838

STATUTORY RULES PUBLICATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill Tor an Act to amend the Rules Publication Act 1903.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1838

ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the question with regard to the several stages of the passage through the Senate of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1978, the Administrative Changes (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1978 and the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Amendment Bill 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

The Administrative Changes (Consequential Provisions) Bill and the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Amendment Bill make necessary textual changes in legislation following the administrative changes of 20 December 1977, and write into the statute book the deemed’ changes made by the orders under section 19B and 19BA of the Acts Interpretation Act made on and after that date. The Administrative Changes (Consequential Provisions) Bill makes the principal changes and the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Amendment Bill makes some associated provisions which were found necessary in consequence of the changes in the administration of the Audit Act. The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill plugs a small gap found in the provisions inserted in the Acts Interpretation Act in 1976 to facilitate translation of references to Ministers following administrative changes.

The schedules to the Administrative Changes (Consequential Provisions) Bill specify some 550 separate amendments of some 180 Acts which need to be made because of the ministerial and departmental changes made following the election last year. It is important that these changes be made so that the proper references will appear on the face of the respective Acts and will not be merely left to follow from a general ‘translation’ provision in orders under the Acts Interpretation Act.

With a few minor exceptions, the amendments made by the Bill and its schedules merely give effect to the orders that were made under the Acts Interpretation Act or make associated amendments which were not able to be made by such orders, for example, renaming the body corporate established by section 62B(2) of the Audit Act. In one or two cases other minor administrative changes that have been agreed as desirable have been made; for example, in the case of the Criminology Research Act, the reference to the Treasurer in one provision, section 28 (4), has been changed to a reference to the Attorney-General.

The Bill provides for a number of saving provisions that are necessary because of the change from Treasurer to Minister for Finance, particularly in the Audit Act and in regulations and directions under that Act. Because of the extensive ramifications of the Audit Act and those regulations and directions throughout the whole fabric of the control of finances, it is vital that these saving provisions be made. Clause 7 of the Bill makes a necessary saving in relation to payments and other actions by the Treasurer before 20 December 1977 in respect of statutory corporations that need to be treated, after that date, as having been made by the Minister for Finance.

The Bill makes provision in clause 8 for the various orders under the Acts Interpretation Act to which the changes made by the Bill relate to cease to apply except in relation to regulations or directions. The reason for this is that all the amendments of Acts that are necessary should have been identified and dealt with in the schedules of the Bill. All Departments have been consulted to ensure this. However, there could be some provisions of regulations or directions that have not yet been identified and these will need to be dealt with by amending regulations or directions when they are identified.

The December order under section 19BA of the Acts Interpretation Act and the confirming changes now being made to section 62B of the Audit Act by the Administrative Changes (Consequential Provisions) Bill would, if no special provision were made, have the effect of transferring power of investment of moneys standing to the credit of the reserve from the Treasurer to the Minister for Finance. The Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Amendment Bill makes such special provision. It proposes to ensure that the Treasurer will continue to have full responsibility for the reserve, and to that end provides specific investment powers for the Treasurer and creates a separate corporation, consisting of the Treasurer and his successors. The Minister for Finance will, however, continue to be able to invest in treasury bills moneys of the reserve that are not required by the Treasurer for investment or other purposes. By virtue of the Bill, the reserve will cease to be a trust account under section 62A of the Audit Act, but will remain part of the trust fund. The Bill includes some necessary saving’ and machinery provisions, including a power of delegation by the Treasurer in respect of his powers under section 6- investment of the reserve- corresponding with the power to delegate already given to the Minister for Finance by section 70 A of the Audit Act.

The provisions made by the several Bills I am sure will commend themselves to honourable senators. As I have indicated, they are of a machinery nature and will up-date the statute book. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1839

ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS (NOTIFICATION) BILL 1978

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages of the passage through the Senate of the Ordinances and Regulations (Notification) Bill 1978, the Statutory Rules Publication Amendment Bill 1978 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Amendment Bill 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorney Genera] · LP

– I move:

These three Bills constitute a ‘set’ to deal with a situation that has arisen because there have been occasions when copies of regulations and other statutory rules and ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory have not been available for purchase at the place specified in the notice in the Gazette of the making of the ordinances or statutory rules, at the time the notice was published.

The validity of such notices in these circumstances has been raised in proceedings in the High Court in respect of alleged offences against the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations and the purpose of the Ordinances and Regulations (Notification) Bill is to remove the possibility of invalidity flowing from the unavailability of copies. In the particular case, the offences in question occurred more than a year after copies were, in fact, available. The point in that case is, consequently, a technical one, and the Government is greatly concerned about the effect of its success. If successful a whole range of regulations and ordinances would be struck down. However, the Bill expressly provides that the validation it provides for is not to affect existing prosecutions under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations, thus excluding the High Court proceedings referred to from the scope of the Bill. Those regulations will nevertheless be validated for the future so that in any new proceedings the technical point will not be available as a possible defence.

Whilst the Ordinances and Regulations (Notification) Bill will ‘validate’ any existing ordinances and statutory rules that might conceivably have otherwise been held invalid, the other two Bills are directed to achieving a more satisfactory situation for the future. In summary, they provide:

  1. Copies of ordinances and statutory rules are to be made available for purchase at the time a notice of their making is published in the Gazette, or as soon as practicable thereafter, at the place or places specified in the notice;
  2. where there are no copies available for purchase on the date of publication of the notice, the Minister for Administrative Services is to lay before each House of the Parliament, within 1 5 sitting days, a statement explaining why copies were not available;
  3. failure to comply with these two requirements is not, however, to result in invalidity of the notice or of the ordinance or statutory rules.

The combined effect of the two latter Bills will be to ensure for the future, so far as is practicable, that copies are available for purchase at the time of notification, whilst recognising that special cases will arise where subordinate legislation has to be made to have immediate operation, notwithstanding that copies are not immediately available for purchase. The Bills ensure that Parliament will be informed of cases where copies are not available on the date of notification and of the reason for this.

Honourable senators will appreciate that the provisions made by the Bills in relation to the future position will be more satisfactory than the existing position. A positive direction to have copies available at the time of notification is provided for, supported by a requirement to explain any failure to do so to the Parliament. At the same time, the validity of subordinate legislation will not be in jeopardy on a technical ground. I believe the provisions now before the Senate will result in the best practical solution to the difficulties that have arisen. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1840

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages of the passage through the Senate of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

Bills (on motion by Senator Durack) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The Bill, which contains 34 schedules, is necessary to enact tariff changes made since April 1 977. All the changes were incorporated in Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 1 to 32 (1977) and Nos 1 to 12 (1978) which have been introduced into the Parliament at different times since April 1 977.

In the main, the amendments give effect to decisions by the Government in respect of the following reports of the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority:

Australian Olive Industry

Multilateral Trade Negotiations: General Rates of Duty

Certain Paper and Paperboard: Tariff Quotas

Monochrome Television Receivers and Certain Electronic Components

Orange Juice

Umbrellas

Pharmaceutical and Veterinary Products

Plywood and Veneer (Thick Plywood)

Sacks, Bags and Certain Polyolefin Fabrics

Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles

Review Enquiry No. 12: Clothing Children’s Knitted Tracksuits, Playsuits, Rompersuits and Like Garments: Tariff Quotas

Batteries Part B: Primary Batteries

Tyres

Pumps and Compressors

Electrical Control Apparatus and Insulating Fittings

Carpets

Measuring, Checking, Precision Instruments and Apparatus, etc.; Clocks and Watches, etc.; Medical Apparatus, Lenses, etc.; Cine Cameras, Projectors, etc.

Tyre Cord Fabrics

Vices

Manually Operated Chain Hoists, Chain Pulley Tackle and Chain Winches

Brandy, Whisky, Gin and Vodka

Stranded Wire, Cables, etc. of Copper- Insulated Electric Wire, Cable, etc.

Rubber Tyres and Tyre Cases

Potatoes and Processed Potato Products

Ceramic Tableware

Certain Spun Yarns and Wool Textiles and Other Goods

Glucose and Glucose Syrups

Transformers and Inductors

Certain Internal Combustion Engines and Parts Therefor

Further Short Term Assistance Arrangements for Textiles, Clothing and Footwear

Luggage

Fork Lift Trucks- Not Battery Operated

Brandy and Whisky

Files and Rasps

Tyre Cord Fabric

Commercial Motor Vehicles, Parts and Accessories

Screws for Wood.

Honourable senators will recall that when the tariff proposals were introduced in another place a comprehensive summary in respect of each of the proposals was circulated to senators which set out the nature of the change in duty rates and the origin of each change. A consolidation of those summaries has been prepared and copies may be obtained from the Table Office. I commend the Bill.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1978

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to enact the excise tariff alteration introduced into the Parliament on 22 February 1978 by Excise Tariff Proposal No. 1. The alteration, which has effect from 18 November 1977, restructures item 1 7b of the excise tariff to clarify the duty liability in relation to condensate included in the Government’s crude oil absorption scheme.

Prior to the alteration, some producers of condensate in remote locations had interpreted the excise tariff as excluding such condensate from duty under item 1 7b. This interpretation is contrary to the Government’s policy in relation to the absorption of indigenous crude oil and condensate and the resultant liability for excise duty.

The overall effect of the alteration, and of the crude oil absorption policy in relation to condensate, is beneficial to producers of the condensate and to small inland refineries which process the condensate. Producers receive import parity price for their product and refiners can obtain feedstock at the average Australian price for indigenous crude oil. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1841

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1978-79

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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

I present Supply Bill (No. 1) 1978-79. This Bill, together with the companion Bill, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1978-79, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1 978 to 30 November 1 978, by which date it is expected that the Appropriation Bills forming part of the 1978-79 Budget will have been enacted.

Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling approximately $3, 844m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $332m or 9 per cent greater than the amounts provided in Supply Act (No. 1) 1977-78 and, taking both Bills together, the increase over the last year is $ 1 79m or approximately 4 per cent. I wish to emphasise that the Supply Bills are not to be interpreted as in any way anticipating what amounts might be included for any particular service in the 1978-79 Budget. The provisions in these Bills are based wholly on current expenditure levels and have no regard whatever to policy decisions to be taken in the context of next year’s Budget. When the Budget is passed the appropriations in the Bill will be subsumed by the appropriations in the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1978-79. The Bill includes $100m for the advance to the Minister for Finance, which is the same amount as the provision in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1977-78.I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1841

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1978-79

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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

This Bill seeks interim appropriations for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and certain other services totalling, in all, approximately $5 92m, for the period 1 July 1978 to 30 November 1978. The Bill includes $ 100m for the advance to the Minister for Finance- the same amount as was provided in last year’s Supply Act.

As I emphasised when introducing Supply Bill (No. 1 ) 1 978-79, the provisions in the Bill are not to be interpreted as in any way anticipating what amounts might be included in the 1978-79 Budget. I commend ,ne Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1842

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (ALLIGATOR RIVERS REGION) BILL 1978

Second Readings

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

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I should like to continue the remarks I was making last evening when the Senate was debating these Bills. These three Bills are a part of the package of Bills that the Government has brought before us to enable uranium mining in the Northern Territory to proceed. The Opposition is, of course, opposed to uranium mining. We have not been successful in our opposition to the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill which in fact permits uranium mining to proceed. However, we continue our opposition to the three Bills before us now because, although they pur.poit to provide machinery and measures whereby the environmental and hazardous effects of uranium mining can be controlled and regulated, we find that the provisions are not satisfactory.

In particular I will address my remarks to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1978. The Opposition cannot support this Bill in its present form. We genuinely support the concept of the Kakadu National Park. We genuinely want this unique, exotic and highly significant region- part of which is to become Aboriginal land- to be protected from despoilation. But we strongly oppose any and all uranium mining within the catchment area of the Alligator Rivers Region within the Kakadu National Park. Of course, the Bill -

Senator Peter Baume:

– I thought the Opposition opposed it everywhere, Senator.

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Baume seems to be confused about the nature of our opposition. The Opposition supports the declaration of the Kakadu National Park. It cannot accept the concept, as embodied in this legislation, of a national park which will have three uranium mines within it. In chapter 5 of the second Fox report, the known and unknown dangers of mining to the region are discussed. It is evident from that discussion that there can be no guarantees of containing the effects of mining within the region to the mining lease areas. The whole ecosystem of the Kakadu National Park will be vulnerable to destruction from the three mining leases which are permitted to proceed within the National Park area. The Bill excludes three mining sites from the declared park area, even though they are physically within the area. They are the Ranger, the Pancontinental and the Noranda leases. It is the view of the Oppositionindeed, it was the view of the Ranger inquirythat mining of this kind within the National Park area will detrimentally affect the entire parkland area. There will be pollution of the waterways. There will be contamination of the air.

I draw the attention of the Senate to one particular consequence of uranium mining in the area- the production of radon gas. My colleague Senator Melzer in an earlier debate on uranium spelt out in great detail the nature of radon gas and its disastrous consequences in all sorts of ways. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 May this year Sir Mark Oliphant gave his expert view on the nature of radon gas, and said:

Rich uranium ores contain a gram or more of the daughter substance of the slow radioactive decay of uranium, radium, together with all the subsequent radioactive substances it produces, including the gas radon.

Radon is one of the rare gases, without chemical properties, and the only way to remove it from the environment is to freeze it out with a coolant like liquid air. The radon itself undergoes sponstaneous radioactive decay into a series of substances, themselves radioactive, ending up finally as ordinary lead.

Radon will be released into the air from the ore as it is mined, crushed, and dissolved in acid, while the other radioactive products of the radium series, being solid, will bc present in any dust. All, in sufficient quantity, are potentially lethal. Oust masks should give reasonable protection against the solids, but cannot remove the radon . . .

As with asbestosis, the effects of these low doses of radiation, which can be well below the officially prescribed limit, can be delayed for decades. There is now growing evidence in the United States, as told to the Congressional inquiry in February last, that those who have been in contact with uranium, for instance in mining, in reactor operation, and in the maintenance of nuclear reactors for submarine propulsion, may develop leukemias and other forms of cancer, 20-30 years after initial exposure.

Radon is the gas that will be released into the environment of the Kakadu National Park when mining proceeds on these three leases. We have a further objection to the legislation that is before us with regard to the Kakadu National Park. We object to the existence of two privately owned leases- Gimbat and Goodparla- within the region. The existence of these pastoral leases poses a further threat to the environment of the National Park, for reasons which will be evident to the Senate and which have been discussed in detail in the Fox report. We urge the Government to follow the Fox report’s recommendations on these leases, that is, that the Government should acquire the leases and add them to the proposed National Park.

The Bill is further inadequate in the provisions for consulting with and recognising the wishes of the Aboriginals in this area. I remind the Senate that the declaration of the park became possible only after the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Council let it be known to the Ranger inquiry that local Aboriginals would agree to Aboriginal land becoming part of the national park. I believe- and the Opposition believes- that the Aboriginals in that area are entitled to better protection of their interests than is provided for in this Bill. Certain provisions in this Bill override the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and we believe that that is a breaking of faith with the Aboriginal communities in this area which have gone to so much trouble and have been so co-operative as to agree to have certain parts of Aboriginal land incorporated in the national park.

In summary, the Opposition cannot support the Bill in its present form. We are very anxious to see the declaration of a national park; that is, one free of uranium mining. We do not oppose the Bill in its entirety. However, on behalf of the Opposition, to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time, I move:

I proceed now to the third of this series of Bills which the Senate is now debating and that is the Bill relating to the enforcement by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia of certain provisions for the protection of the environment in the Alligator Rivers region. The purpose of this Bill is to confer jurisdiction within the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in relation to the enforcement of the requirements for the protection of the environment in this area. The Opposition cannot support this Bill. We do support the principle that a jurisdiction should be established in relation to the enforcement of certain legal requirements for the protection of the environment in the Alligator Rivers region, but we do not agree that this jurisdiction should be in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. It is the view of the Opposition that jurisdiction for this enforcement should be in the Federal Court of Australia. Similarly, it is our view that the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill should be in jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia, and one of my colleagues will explain our position on that at a later stage. Our reason for wishing the Federal Court and not the Northern Territory Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over these matters is that uranium is a national issue and the regulation and control of it should be a matter of national responsibility. It is not simply a territorial matter or a State matter. It is a national matter. The legislation enabling uranium mining to proceed is a matter for the national Parliament. So we believe that the matter of jurisdiction, of enforcement of regulatory procedures should also be a federal responsibility and a matter for the Federal Court. In our view the same laws and the same interpretation of those laws regarding the regulation and control of uranium mining should apply throughout Australia. Putting the jurisdiction, as this legislation does, in a territorial court is a failure on the part of the Federal Government to accept federal responsibility in this matter.

A further specific objection to the Bill is this: Access to the court which will have jurisdiction in this matter is too restrictive. It is restrictive in fact to two people- the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. Of course, both of these people should have access. We do not query that, but all other people and groups are denied access and in the view of the Opposition this is wrong. The Land Council itself finds it wrong and has communicated this view to us. The Bill as it is currently worded provides that the Chairman of the Land Council and the Director of the Wildlife Service will have entire responsibility for taking action when there have been any breaches of the regulatory procedures. A whole new body of uranium law is being developed at this time.

The Opposition of course is very unhappy about the nature of that law; nonetheless we recognise the reality that this law is being developed to control this highly hazardous industry. Yet individual members of the public or concerned groups will have no access to this law. In our view there should be a single federal court with access for all concerned citizens to deal with breaches of the law relating to uranium. The Bill does not provide this, so the Opposition will oppose the motion that the Bill be read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bonner)- Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Mulvihill:

– Yes.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I support the Bill. I also support the amendments which I understand the Government will be putting forward at a later stage. We have a number of amendments. I certainly reject the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. When the legislation was first drafted I certainly had my doubts about the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill because very little regard had been paid to the role of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. In fact, there was no mention of this body in the Bill at all. I now notice that it is the intention of the Government to repair what I believe to be an oversight and that is that the Commission will be involved in the day-to-day management of the Kakadu National Park and that consultations will be carried out on a regular basis between the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Northern Territory people. I think this is highly desirable. I also was very pleased when the Government appointed Mr Bob Fry as the supervising scientist.

I have had the opportunity together with members of the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment to discuss his role as he sees it in the supervision of this very important national park area. Mr Bob Fry, I believe, is well qualified to oversee environmental matters associated with the park and certainly with the mining that hopefully will be taking place in the near future. He was educated at the same school as I was- the Unley High School. I know the gentleman personally and I can vouch for his integrity and his capacity to be able to deal with environmental matters associated with the Bills under discussion. He has been very prominent in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights. He was a senior officer there. He has chaired many international committees involved with safety management and technology associated with the nuclear industry.

Mr Fry spent quite a long period of time in the United States of America where he worked in the radiological department of a prominent hospital. He is well informed on matters relating to possible hazards to human beings in this important area of energy development. I congratulate the Minister on choosing a man of the calibre of Mr Fry. His department already has a laboratory in the Ranger area and the Bill itself provides for the establishment of an Office of Supervising Scientist and a Scientific Research Institute. From what Mr Fry has told me they will be comprehensive and will comprise personnel who will be very capable of dealing with matters and safeguarding the environment in the Kakadu National Park region.

I was very impressed when I visited the Lucas Heights establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission to learn that the Commission itself has been studying the environment of the Kakadu area over a period of years and certainly recognises the fragility of the environment, particularly in the wet season when the floods can occur. Certainly the Commission is very conscious of the need for proper management as far as the mining companies are concerned to ensure that pollution will not result from future mining operations that have been proposed.

The previous speaker, Senator Ryan, referred to the emission of radon resulting from the mining of uranium. It always amazes me that people tend to over-react in this situation because radon itself dissipates very rapidly in the environment and remains for only a very short period of time. The radon liberated during coal mining and superphosphate mining, for example, is far in excess of the quantity of radon that is liberated as a result of uranium mining. But we do not seem to worry too much about that. We seem to accept that as being OK. However, as soon as someone mentions nuclear energy the Opposition and the opponents of this bridging source of energy tend to become very emotional about it. They disregard other hazards associated with conventional mining. That ought to be borne in mind when we are discussing this subject.

I said earlier that the Government was proposing amendments. These will largely satisfy my original objections to the Bill. However, in the future it may be necessary for the Government to re-examine the Bill itself. Should there be any problems associated with the joint management program in this area I am sure that the Government will recognise the need to introduce future amendments if necessary. I was reading a book the other day on the question of nuclear energy.

It was written by Petr Beckmann. It is entitled The Hazards of Not Going Nuclear’. I found some of the points made quite interesting.

Senator Ryan:

– Who is the author? Can you tell us a little about him.

Senator JESSOP:

-He is Petr Beckmann. I understand that he is from the University of Pittsburgh. He is a reasonably competent chap.

Senator Ryan:

– More so than Sir Mark Oliphant?

Senator JESSOP:

-Sir Mark Oliphant does not regard the mining or processing of uranium to be hazardous. His view is that there are no problems.

Senator Ryan:

– I just quoted him saying the opposite.

Senator JESSOP:

– I have spoken to him.

Senator Ryan:

– He is on record.

Senator JESSOP:

– He is on record as saying that there are no problems associated with the mining and processing of uranium.

Senator Ryan:

– It produces radon gas.

Senator JESSOP:

-I shall quote Petr Beckmann. He said:

They Tear this danger not because it is great-

He is referring to radioactive waste et cetera- but because it is new. They are used to millions losing their lives in wars, to thousands losing them in famines, and to hundreds losing them in railroad and airplane disasters, mine explosions, floods and hurricanes. But radioactive poisons underground, threatening somehow to get into ones food- no matter how absurdly small the probability, it’s new, it’s a danger that was not there before.

The hell it wasn ‘t. There are some 30 trillion cancer doses under the surface of the United States- the deposits of uranium and its daughters. They are not sealed in glass, they are not in salt formations, they are not deliberately put where it is safest; they occur in random places where Mother Nature decided to put them.

From the large amount of information on the presence of various radioactive isotopes in different parts of the human body, plus some other well known information, it has been found that the mean number of Americans killed by ingesting uranium or its daughters from natural sources is 12 per year.

On the subject of plutonium Mr Beckmann said:

Plutonium is often called the most toxic substance known to man.

Plutonium is toxic, and must be handled with care, but the rest is just horror propaganda. It is primarily an alpha emitter, which means that its radiation is absorbed in the air after a few inches, and a sheet of paper is sufficient to shield oneself against its radiation at close quarters. It is far from being the most toxic substance known to man. When eaten or absorbed in the bloodstream, it is 10 times less toxic than lead arsenate and hundreds of thousands of times less toxic than some biological poisons such as diptheria of botulism toxin. Caffeine is only 10 times less toxic than plutonium. Relative toxicity is measured by comparing the weights of 50 per cent lethal doses given to the same type of mammal. The 50 per cent lethal dose ‘ is the amount that will kill half of the experimental animals.

However, though ingestion of plutonium or its absorption through the skin is dangerous, the real danger of plutonium is breathing it in the form of fine dust particles. Plutonium is insoluble in water, and fine particles may stay long in the lung, eventually causing lung cancer. Even so, this danger, which undoubtedly is a serious one, has been exaggerated beyond all reasonable bounds. There are radioactive substances produced not by the Pentagon, but by Mother Nature, which are far more dangerous than plutonium.

I think people ought to start reading books like that to inform themselves on the relative toxic effects emanating from natural sources. Perhaps we would then be concerned about breathing the air in Canberra. I said to the Minister that in the light of experience it may be necessary to review the Bill and perhaps bring forward other amendments. I am satisfied largely with the proposed amendments and I support the Bill.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the amendment proposed by my colleague Senator Ryan. I do so because I believe that this Bill is lacking in National Park and environment protection. I noticed that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech referred to the vision of the Kakadu National Park. In the past conservation always seemed to play second fiddle to so many other interests. In the second Fox Report Mr Justice Fox said that national park demands had equal rights with mining and pastoral needs. If the vision splendid envisaged in the second reading speech becomes a reality I shall be quite happy. However, in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 17 May Paul Phillips, the Executive Director of the Australian Mining Council, said that national parks ought to be opened up to mining. I know that three areas of the Kakadu National Park have been excluded as potential uranium sites. Unless I am mistaken and unless the amendments to which Senator Jessop referred are specific, as a conservationist I cannot see that our national parks will be as well protected as those in the United States of America.

I took the trouble to provide the Minister with an extract from a weekly Congress report dated 11 March. It is an article dealing with the current United States Congress debate on the cutting up of Alaska. I seek leave to have this extract which is headed ‘Conservationists Win Alaska Wilderness Vote ‘ incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Interior Committee:

CONSERVATIONISTS WIN ALASKA WILDERNESS VOTE

The House Interior Committee March 8 defeated a move to reduce by more than half the Alaska acreage proposed for protection as wilderness.

The 20-24 vote was a key victory for conservationists. But it followed their tactical sacrifice of the 2.4 million acre Misty Fjords area in the Tongass National Forest from the proposed wilderness. Mining, exploration and development of oil and gas reserves and logging are barred in wilderness areas.

Conservationists on the committee are expected to make another sacrifice when markup of the bill (HR 39) resumes March 14- evidence that development interests are continuing to chip away at the conservationist position. However, developers have been defeated on most major votes. (Background, Weekly Report page 377).

The next confrontation will be over how much area to designate as wilderness in the existing Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an 8.85 million acre tract in northeast Alaska. The refuge, called a range because it is vast and harbors diverse wildlife, has been pegged as the possible depository of from 6 to 20 billion barrels of oil and possibly 1 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Plan to Cut Wilderness

The proposal to cut the Alaska acreage proposed for wilderness designation was offered by Lloyd Meeds, D-Wash. It would have put only 33 million acres from the entire state in the wilderness classification. The Interior Alaska Lands Subcommittee voted to place about 73 million acres in wilderness.

Lobbyists for oil and gas interests, mining companies and labor groups had rallied behind the Meeds proposal, a lobbying combination conservationists and even the Carter administration found difficult to counter.

At one point in the debate. Interior Chairman Morris K. Udall, D-Ariz., sought to clear up an argument used by Meeds’ supporters that logging jobs would be lost if large areas were designated as wilderness.

A lot of my friends are being misled ‘, Udall told the committee. ‘They’re being lobbied by labor unions, lobbied by timber companies … I don’t want to see them join the wrecking crew on this. The people who don ‘t want any bill are using the labor unions to act as a battering ram for them’.

Instead of voting for the Meeds proposal, which would affect wilderness designation throughout Alaska, those concerned about timber-related jobs in the southeast should support a more narrowly focused amendment, Udall said.

Misty Fjords. The amendment to delete Misty Fjords from wilderness classification, offered by Bob Eckhardt DTexas, apparently served that purpose for some members. It quieted the argument that jobs would be lost.

Eckhardt used Forest Service figures to show that adequate timber would be available from non-wilderness national forest lands to keep timber production in southeast Alaska at existing levels with room for growth.

The amendment was passed 8 March on a 27-15 vote. It deleted nearly 2.5 million acres of proposed wilderness area.

These deletions will assure that not a timber-related job will be lost in southeastern Alaska as a result of this legislation ‘, Eckhardt said.

Conservation v Energy Development

The anticipated fight over designation of wilderness in the possibly oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is perhaps the best example in the Alaska lands legislation of the conflict between the natural value of land and its potential for development.

Sources predicted that a ‘sacrifice ‘ amendment likely to be offered by conservationists would make it easier for the federal government, and possibly private developers, to find out more about oil and gas reserves in the Arctic range- the first step toward development of the resources.

Wilderness designation for the range is supported by the administration and the Interior subcommittee.

The range is a calving ground for Alaska ‘s healthiest caribou herd, a key stopping point for millions of migrating birds and a home for some 31 species of wildlife. The administration reasoned that those factors outweighed the immediate need for the oil and gas. President Carter himself was involved in the decision, which pitted the Interior Department against the Energy Department.

If in fact the area does have high oil and gas potential, then we are saying to you, let it be the last place that America develops if we need it’, Interior Secretary Cecil D. Andrus told the committee in fall 1 977.

As another administration official put it, ‘The oil won ‘t go away. The best place for it now is the ground ‘.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, and others want better access to the Arctic range for oil and gas interests and plan amendments to open it up. -By Ann Pelham

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I want to prove that in the debates between the developmentalists and the conservationists in the United States the real argument has been whether certain areas in Alaska will be defined as wilderness areas. The United States Secretary of State went on record as saying that at present the United States appears to be deficient in petroleum and natural gas resources but the last place in which exploration would occur would be these wilderness areas. My fear is that even if we placate the mining interests with the three suggested uranium mining sites that will not be the end of it. I know of the dedication in the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commissions and its Federal counterpart but management plans have to be produced. If we let mining interests carry out a little more prospecting they will come back with an exciting vision of more minerals. The temptation will build up. There will be all sorts of suggestions about mining just one more little area. I came into the Senate in 1 966. 1 can recall asking Senator John Gorton a question on 20 April 1966 about a brochure prepared on the proposed national park in the Northern Territory. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate page four of the brochure in Hansard.

Leave granted.

THE HISTORY

The Northern Territory Reserves Board administers National Parks in the Territory. There are not many. Briefly, the following is what happened on and from 6 April, April when the Board proposed to the Commonwealth Government the establishment of a national park of 2,473 square miles. The area originally proposed is shown on map ‘A’.

1965

The Board wrote to the Administrator of the Northern Territory seeking his approval, in principle, to the dedication of a large area of land as a National Park. In addition, the Board asked that consideration be given to extending the area to include the Woolwonga Wildlife Sanctuary, Mudginberri Station and the part of Munmarlary Station east of the South Alligator River.

The total area, including Woolwonga, Mudginberri and Munmarlary, was about 2,475 square miles. At this stage no pastoral leases had been granted over Mudginberri or Munmarlary.

The Board stated that it was ‘anxious to acquire a large tract of country in the northern portion of the Northern Territory whilst it is still available, so that it could be developed as a National Park for the enjoyment of the public and preservation of its natural features. 20 April 1966

In the Senate, Senator Gorton, representing the Minister for Territories, replying to Senator Mulvihill, stated:

  1. The N.T. Reserves Board has requested the reservation of a Northern National Park. Two areas are involved, one of 1 , 1 85 square miles and one of 1 ,290 square miles, both immediately to the west of the western boundary of Arnhem Land.
  2. The Government is sympathetic to the creation of more national parks but in this case the reservation is complicated by an Aboriginal Reserve, a wild life sanctuary, special purposes leases, and pastoral and mining activities in the area. No decision will be possible until these have been investigated thoroughly.’ 14 July 1966

The Board wrote to the Administrator expressing grave concern at ‘the possibility of all suitable land being alienated before a national park is created.’ The Board submitted an alternative proposal for an area of about 800 square miles to the south of Mudginberri, thereby overcoming the objections from commercial buffalo interests, but making the proposals far less attractive. 12 April 1967

The Board wrote to the Administrator with a lengthy submission in support of the original proposal, and making (in desperation) four alternative proposals:

  1. . The original proposal of 2,475 square miles.
  2. The second proposal of 800 square miles.
  3. A third alternative of the 800 square miles plus 200 square miles to the north with a large adjacent area to the west to be run as a restricted game hunting reserve in conjunction with the Wild Life Advisory Council.
  4. The area in proposal 3, plus the Cannon Hill area immediately south of the East Alligator River from Cannon Hill to the Coast.

This proposal was to exclude Mudginberri and the park would have consisted of two separate areas.

January 1968

Following discussions between the Board and the Administrator, the Acting Administrator wrote to the Secretary, Department of Territories, recommending reservation of an area 1,000 square miles, stating ‘there are no barriers to this reservation. ‘

Senator MULVIHILL:

-John Grey Gorton and I shared a vision but I did not think that we would have to wait until 1978 before the park was declared. There were several efforts to declare the park region. When the present Minister for Health, Ralph Hunt, was Minister for the Interior, the pastoral interests and the mineral interests were told to look at alternatives. Surely if a national park is created it should be there for evermore. It should be off limits to any mining whatsoever. When I say that people say that I am against any development. I say that that is not so.

A classic illustration of this is an event which occurred in my State of New South Wales some years ago when it was alleged that a deficiency in limestone resources existed. The then Premier, Mr Askin, said to the conservationists and people such as myself: ‘You will sound the death knell of the cement industry in New South Wales ‘. Of course, he was wrong. When the conservationists remained solid the Colong Caves were protected and other limestone sources were found. The result was that we had our cake and were able to eat it as well.

In this respect, dealing with mining, I find myself with an unusual ally in Sir Charles Court. Recently he preceded me to Japan. Speaking as a member of an Australian Labor Party delegation to Japan, I told the people there my views. They said: ‘That means that we will never have access to uranium’. Then I saw a smile and one chap said: ‘Of course, Sir Charles Court has an alternative. He said you can extract your uranium from desolate regions of Western Australia and you will not get involved with the conservationists who want to protect the Alligator Rivers system ‘. It is a case of where there is a will there is a way. This is so even from the Government angle.

I shall await with interest the reply by the Minister for Education to see whether he will be able to give me an iron clad assurance that if the Government has its way with the three mining enclaves it will not in either phase 1 or phase 2 of the project mine in areas which will destroy the concept of a national park but that it will be influenced to emulate the feelings which prevail in the United States of America. As will be seen in the extract which I have incorporated in Hansard, even the developmentalists do not say that they will mine anywhere in Alaska. The developmentalists in that situation are prepared to retain 33 million acres of land in a wilderness state, while the conservationists want 73 million acres of such an area so preserved. This wilderness area contains caribou and a host of other animals. I think it contains about 1 10 different types of birds. I fear that, whatever assurances we get in respect of the Kakadu National Park, these mining vultures will go up into the Cobourg Peninsula and will want to commit their degradations there.

I say, as a person who has always been in the centre of the political spectrum in his Party that I know that the Government talks about compromise, but nowhere does it state that, irrespective of the management procedures of a national park, a certain area will be off limits. I have never heard either the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) or the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) echo the sentiments of the present United States Secretary of the Interior, who has said that, whatever America’s fuel demands might be, wildlife refuges will not be mined. Such an undertaking does not appear in this legislation. Even the Sydney Daily Telegraph castigated a mining spokesman who put forward opposing views.

On one memorable occasion, when the Minister for Education took carriage of legislation dealing with the environment he indicated to me- I accepted it in good faith- that the national view on the custody of the Kakadu National Park would prevail. I said: ‘You will have deadlocks on the way’. I think that at that time the present Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) was Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Mr Adermann was the Minister for the Northern Territory. Senator Carrick said then that those Ministers would be the supreme arbitrators. I thought that that was all right.

History has caught up with us. The Northern Territory virtually has statehood. I do not want to have a shot at the honourable senator from the Northern Territory who probably will follow me in this debate. I shall give an analogy. During the Kennedy era, the United States had a problem about the rights of negroes to enter universities in the southern states. If the United States Attorney-General Kennedy had not put the federal marshals into Alabama, they would never have moved. I feel that unless we have Federal control we will have people in the Northern Territory who are beholden to mining interests making decisions. The demands- the appetite- of mining interests are insatiable. Will the people in the Northern Territory be strong enough to say No’?

This brings me to another point, to which I am surprised Senator Jessop did not refer. We know that there has to be constant vigilance from the national capital. I say this because constant efforts have been made by US Army engineers to meddle with the Florida Everglades. I refer to the United States Army reclamation engineers. They had ideas which would affect the water levels of Florida. It was only with Washington ‘s supervision and that of the Senate Committee that these engineers were made to pull their horns in a little.

I think that Senator Jessop on reflection will nod his head on what I have to say now. We talk about co-ordinating committees to watch over proceedings in the Northern Territory. With Senator Jessop, I was delighted to meet the officer designated the ‘Chief Scientist’. He has to rely on the loyalty and support of a number of departments. I know that the fateful day will come possibly in three years when someone has to open a valve and release waste water into the Alligator Rivers system. I know that the theory is that if it is done when there is heavy rainfallflash flooding- the system will be perfect. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard pages 2 and 3 of what was known in parliamentary Labor circles as the ‘Mulvihill-Lamb F.P.L.P. report’. Tony Lamb, the former Member for La Trobe, and I went to the Northern Territory with Dr Patterson. In this report I quoted extracts from a paper on water surveys which, among other things, stated:

The quality of water and the sediments carried by it are determined by the source of the water. If it has percolated throught rock masses before emerging as springs it is likely to be harder and depending on what rock it has infiltrated it may be relatively high in heavy metals and in radioactivity.

I am not a Doomsday man; I am simply saying that without adequate soundings we do not know the full extent of the impurities from uranium mining operations which the river system will have to accept in flow offs. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard pages 2 and 3 of the Mulvihill-Lamb report. It has been scrutinised by the Minister. It confirms my warnings about water impurities.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

It was also claimed that the Magela Creek System to which in extreme cases mine water waste might enter was not a continuous link across the plain to the major rivers. Nevertheless several questions on the holding pond and the size of the actual mine shaft by my colleague Representative Lamb did indicate that more positive details were needed on monitoring methods in the Magela Creek and that the Department of the Northern Territory must have ready access to such readings which must be taken frequently. In any case even if the Magela Creek System does provide a buffer area to combat possible water pollution it is doubtful if the Noranda project can claim the same defences. It is quite apparent that your Committee will need detailed consultation with the Minister for the Northern Territory on the acute dangers that exist in polluting the Alligator River Systems. The concern of your Committee in this direction is well and truly vindicated in the following extract taken from the recently released Alligator Rivers Study Part 6 (IV. Drainage Tracts) 6-10:

Seasonal changes in water quality

The quality of water and the sediments carried by it are determined by the source of the water. If it has percolated through rock masses before emerging as springs it is likely to be harder and depending on what rock it has infiltrated it may bc relatively high in heavy metals and in radioactivity.

If it has entered the stream as direct run-off from the land surface it is more likely to be soft, low in heavy metals and low in radioactivity, unless it has passed directly over a radioactive deposit.

In the wet season the waters of most streams are soft, slightly acid and poorly buffered, low in heavy metals, and low in radioactivity.

When stream flows decrease after the wet season, the local contributions from springs and seepages become proportionately greater and their influence on the chemical constituents and radioactivity of the water may be considerable.

Heavy metal and radioactive elements are carried downstream either in solution or absorbed on suspended solids. The fate of these, and the manner and extent to which man and other biota in the environment may be subjected to them are important matters on which some information has been sought. This information will assist in predicting the fate of any waste materials which may be added to the drainage system, and in estimating how much material could be added without serious damage to man or other biota ‘.

The Committee gained the impression from discussions with the mine operators that the Bureau of Mineral ReSources can play a vital role in determining areas in which mineral exploration can be intensified.

In view of the recent NSW Coolong limestone deposit dispute it is thought desirable that the Bureau of Mineral Resources might seek to encourage uranium exploration in more arid regions of the Territory where conservation conflicts would be at a minimum.

In setting conditions for mining operations it is essential to remember that the mining companies benefit greatly from knowing the exact conditions under which they can operate. In setting effective anti-pollution safeguards not only is the environment protected but mining companies immediately know the standards which they must maintain and will know if and when they can operate so removing speculation from their acitivities. It is essential that mining companies can move in a predictable environment in which to make decisions and that governments do not leave them (up in the air) as to their rights and obligations.

R ECOM MEN DATIONS

That early discussions be held with the Minister for the Northern Territory on methods and standards which will bc applied to uranium mining operations to ensure effective anti-pollution safeguards:

Future Bureau of Mineral Resources’ operations with emphasis on arid regions of the Territory.

Additional Land Acquisitions Sought by the Northern Territory Reserves Board

A perusal of Appendix A shows a wide variety of regions which could immeasurably strengthen the Northern Territory parklands system. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the Kakadu project these supplementary plans deserve early consideration.

In the face of continuous pastoral and mining demands 1974 should be the year when an overall evaluation is made on all Northern Territory land usage and the Appendix A list should be given immediate attention. With the principle accepted in the 1 973 Budget of Conservation Minister Cass having funds available for disbursement for the procurement of additional land for conservation purposes one of the early recipents should be the Northern Territory Reserves Board or the new authority which may supersede it.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– This brings me back to what I said to Senator Jessop. We are going to have a form of co-ordinating committee. The Chief Scientist will have to rely on the loyalty, the dedication and the sense of fair play of people within an organisation which might be called the Northern Territory resources bureau or something equivalent. He will have to get all the data together. He will be guided in a decision to open the valve and let water flow into the Alligator Rivers system. I do not think that I would be breaking confidences if I were to say that, as an extremely dedicated and competent officer, he will be more or less sailing in uncharted seas. He will have to evaluate the information and make those sorts of decisions. In point of fact, I think that the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended that water impurities be not released for three years. I think that it was a good characteristic of the Chief Scientist that he favoured five years. We are finding that all of the three mining companies in the queue want to get into the act. The big danger that arises is that the river system will be burdened with outflows of impurities.

In the chain of command- the co-ordinating committee- about which we are talking I would like to see the inclusion of a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment. I know that, since we started agitating, the Government has had to throw out crumbs to certain Northern Territory semi-State instrumentalities. I know that there are officers in the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission who were in equivalent Public Service positions in Sydney and that there is no question about their dedication. But we are all subject to pressures, large and small.

I would like to believe that an unfettered watchdog from this Senate was a member of that co-ordinating committee. Then, if he felt that a big rort was being perpetrated he could come into this chamber and tell all. I mean that. Some queer happenings occurred in Florida with the United States Army reclamation people. They thought they were doing the right thing. They lowered the water levels through certain channels and created havoc for the reptiles and other inhabitants of the Florida Everglades. These are the fears I have, I believe that we have not had the clear-cut responses that we should have had to some of the documentation to which I have referred. The question of Aboriginal land rights extends beyond the concept of the Kakadu National Park, phases one and two. There is the question of the use of the Cobourg Peninsula which, I know is bound up with the question of the ultimate control of Aboriginal land rights. I know of nothing to cause me to question the suggestion that the Aborigines will more or less lease the land back in the national park concept. But I do have certain fears.

The State national park services are often under seige about local rules, interpretations and exemptions. Senator Carrick, as a New South Welshman, would know that there has been a form of guerrilla warfare concerning the right of graziers to graze cattle on the lower reaches of the Kosciusko National Park. Occasionally they have wanted access to the higher areas. Whenever they have done so the Labor or Liberal Minister for Conservation or Lands in New South Wales has found that the graziers have the local member on side. Often the local member has led the agitation, citing the United Nations Bill of Rights, when in fact it is only a thinly veiled attempt to cause erosion. I do not want to see that sort of situation occur in the Cobourg Peninsula area. I return to my original criticism. While mining interests have the right to go to the mining warden in Darwin and get the green light to mine they will succumb to the temptation. At a given time they will say to the Government: Look, we can give you $Xm in royalties and you will be able to keep the masses in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide quiet by providing better social services and other things’. I do not think that is the right way to do it. I believe that the bulk of Australians do not want to see it done that way. That is why I have these distinct reservations. That is why I believe the amendment put forward by the Opposition is an apt one.

Part (b) of the amendment put forward by my illustrious colleague, Senator Ryan, deals with the two pastoral leases that were mentioned. Again, I am not happy with the answers that I have received at Estimates committee hearings. I know that Sir William Gunn is short of dollars. I am amazed that we do not jump at the opportunity and buy those pastoral leases. If Mr Justice Fox says that national park needs are on a par with mining and pastoral needs, I cannot see how we have had a real victory. I have coined the term ‘a national park pock-marked with mining excavations’ to describe the area. Government supporters can say to me that mining operations will not leave the disfiguring marks that, perhaps, open-cut coal mining would leave. I accept the fact that there are some young, highly dedicated scientists on the payrolls of these mining companies. But there has been exploration for uranium outside the national park itself. I can see gaps in the case put forward by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech, but I fear most of all the sinister figure of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). I think that Senator Carrick would go in to bat for the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Groom, in the Cabinet discussions but I know enough about numbers to know what will happen. I have been to a few mining meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, along with my colleague the Honourable Paul Keating, and when I have looked at the audiences I have thought that I did not have many friends there. It is part of the National Country Party’s philosophy to say: ‘Where there is a head, kick it’. That is a football term to some extent but that is the way in which the National Country Party operates.

I know that in the general chain of command, the Chief Scientist could go to Mr Groom and say: ‘Look, we are being overloaded with mining operations. I want a couple of years breathing space’, and the Minister could then take the suggestion to Cabinet. He may, in line with what I call the Carrick declaration of several years ago, have summit talks with the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann). What I fear more than anything else is that at least one of the members of the National Country Party from the Northern Territory will get on the hot line to the Deputy Prime Minister and he will take the matter to Cabinet because I have grave doubts about whether the environmentalists in the present Cabinet will have the numbers to bring about the creation of the national park that we really want. I cannot speak too strongly about this matter. I believe that some of the amendments may allay my fears, but at the moment I have been unable to get any clear-cut answers.

The Northern Territory Reserves Board has had some very fine people as members of it, such as Colonel Rose. In many ways he was a rough diamond but he was a fundamentalist. On reading the last report of the Northern Territory Reserves Board, I noticed that there were many other areas that could be added to the national park. I fear that we lost too much in the mid-1960s as a result of dilly-dallying. We should have established this area as a national park and said to the prospectors: ‘Outside this area you can go your hardest. Once you come up with particular mining finds, subject to environmental impact statements, we could make a deal ‘. However, at the moment we have mining council spokesman with the philosophy of Paul Phillips who believe that whatever they want they can get.

There have been interjections from honourable senators from the non-socialist parties in regard to this matter, including one from near where Senator Jessop sits. It might have been from one of his Western Australian colleagues. In regard to the earlier legislation they said: What about the effect of mining rights on the farmer on his land?’ That is just the point. The Government will be creating a Frankenstein monster if it allows these people into the area free of restrictions. In seconding with the strongest force at my command, the amendment moved by Senator Ryan, I say that I believe that there are not enough safeguards to make the park what it should be and that would emulate the philosophy that seems to premeate the United States Congress. Even at this late stage I believe that the Government could at least have the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment sitting in on the meetings of the proposed committee of Federal and State departments. Alternatively, I would like to believe that the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment could have access to the minutes of this committee in case there is any general difference of opinion.

I remind those people who believe that the members of the Senate Committee would blab to the newspapers to get a scoop that several years ago six honourable senators- Senator Durack would know about this- had a long conference with Mr Barbour, the then chief of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and nobody blabbed about the meeting. We argued about the emphasis to be placed on what Mr Barbour told us but nobody breached any confidence. I emphasise again that I agree with what Senator Carrick said at the commencement of his second reading speech concerning the vision splendid for Kakadu National Park, but I remain unconvinced that there are safeguards for this or any other national park in comparison with what appears to operate in regard to the wilderness concept in the United States.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– This debate concerns three Bills that are all directly related to and associated with environmental protection. They are three Bills of a package of five Bills, two of which we have dealt with already to some extent. I refer to the AtomicEnergy Amendment Bill and the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill. Of the five Bills, there are three dealing with environmental matters, each covering specific areas. They are the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill, which is more localised, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, which deals with much broader areas but which still deals with conservation and protection of the environment and the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Bill.

These Bills to some extent, one could say, are the result of the Ranger Inquiry, because in them many of the major recommendations there propounded have been taken up, to ensure that they will be put into practice. I have heard the Opposition today express concern over many aspects of the proposed legislation, concern with regard to the risks of the environment. I have also heard a lot of criticism from other countries about the strict, rigid terms of the Government’s guidelines for the marketing of uranium. They are probably among the strictest that any country has laid down. We have likewise laid down strong guidelines in these three Bills which, I repeat, deal with the environment. That is a matter which is of extreme concern to the Government.

I am troubled a little to hear mention of such things as the risk of radon gas. Yes, radon gas is a deadly gas. Centuries ago in some European countries, during mining operations associated with the making of ceramics, a mysterious illness killed a number of miners. Eventually it was found that this was due to the presence of radon gas from underground uranium mining. I emphasise, first, that we are not talking about underground mines. We are talking about opencut mines, and I become weary of the antiuranium lobby which keeps saying that these things are dangerous. The average housewife of this country faces death many times a day. She is only marginally away from death every time she switches on a light. Every time she picks up an iron the insulation on the electrical cord against her arm is the only thing that is between her and death. Steam trains are dangerous. If one keeps stoking them and does not watch the pressures they will blow up. Therefore, one would have to say that steam trains are dangerous. Similarly, radon gas is dangerous.

I would like to refer to the report of the Windscale inquiry conducted by Mr Justice Parker in England, a document to which I have referred previously in debates on uranium. For the information of honourable senators, I would note that Windscale was one of the earliest nuclear energy research centres set up in any country. Windscale has a history of practicality and I refer now to the report of a further inquiry that has taken place concerning its activities. On the environmental aspect Mr Justice Parker refers at page 33 to the effect of emissions as follows:

The emissions from coal burning stations which were considered when making the statements quoted include sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carcinogenic hydrocarbons, radioactive and other particulates and heavy metals.

He goes on to state that:

  1. . coal, however, carries its own risks which, quite apart from the risks from mining, which might be described as voluntarily accepted by miners, are every bit as much imposed as are the risks from nuclear plants. Indeed, such risks also include risks from radioactive emissions, a fact which is not widely known.

Again, one hears many criticisms, concerns and fears about plutonium. Let me make it clear that 1 also have a fear of it. We know that it is a natural element required in nuclear explosions. On the other hand, Mr Justice Parker went to great lengths to discount much of the rumour and fear, that are circulated on this subject amongst the community. He states that it is true:

That plutonium is a bomb making material. That if plutonium reaches a critical mass there will be a chain reaction . . .

That in certain circumstances plutonium is very dangerous to man.

That plutonium, if released into the environment, persists for a very long time.

But he then states: lt is not true that plutonium never existed until man man made it.

He goes into some detail on that aspect and then states further: lt is not true that plutonium is highly radioactive. It is not true that plutonium has only two uses, making bombs and making electricity commercially. Plutonium 238 is used within the body as the power source for heart pacemakers.

One cannot get much closer to the nervous system than that, Mr Acting President. Mr Justice Parker added:

It is not true that in all circumstances very small amounts of plutonium are lethal. Insoluble particles when inhaled certainly are hazardous in small quantities. Considerably larger amounts could be eaten without appreciable harm.

It is not true that plutonium is only safe when protected by massive shielding. As regards shielding from its radiation, it could be sat on safely by a person with no greater protection than, as Professor Fremlin put it, ‘a stout pair of jeans ‘.

And so one could go on. Although 1 may be digressing a little, I mention those findings to show how people in a community can be misled. My concern at the moment is that the community can be misled by statements about, as some people would put it, the lack of concern, where it is proposed to mine uranium in the Northern Territory, for the protection of the environment. The Government is doing all that it possibly can, as I said earlier, in regard to marketing by way of its guidelines, and in regard to mining and the protection of the environment generally in the area of the Northern Territory where that mining is to take place.

I appreciate that that area has a scenic beauty which is unique unto itself and that this must be protected. It has wildlife. It has so much there. It has the Aboriginals, who must also be taken into consideration. All of this is being done by the Government. No doubt, if later it appears that certain aspects of that protection need strengthening or even modifying, that will be done by the Government. Already, subsequent to the passage of these Bills in the other place, the Government has seen fit to introduce amendments to them, demonstrating clearly that it is accepting its responsibilities; that it will continue to do so.

I mentioned earlier that the major content of these three Bills results from the report of the Fox inquiry, one that took place not over one or two months but over an extremely long period. It was an in-depth inquiry. In fact, there was concern that it was perhaps taking too long, that there was great delay with regard to the overall aspects of the uranium issue. Nevertheless the report finally came out. It has been studied by the Government in depth, and great notice of it has been taken. One can go through these Bills and relate so much of them to the Fox report itself.

I was very pleased to see, first, that the Government will now give more representation to the Northern Territory legislature. Previously I had been concerned that the Territory, which is rapidly approaching statehood, would not be represented in regard to certain areas. I am glad that the Government has responded to the concern expressed in the Territory and has seen fit to make amendments to the legislation that will result in a greater involvement of that Territory’s legislators. In dealing with the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill, which concerns a local area, we can see very clearly just how much effort is being put into making sure that there will be environmental control and protection; that the Government will even go as far as to make sure that those activities are coordinated

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator YOUNG:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I referred to the Government’s approach to protection, particularly in the Alligator Rivers region which is the subject of one of the Bills before us. I pointed out that the Government had accepted responsibilities with regard to the overall aspects of the environment in the whole uranium area in the Northern Territory. I said that the Government was also very conscious of the need for environment protection generally speaking and for safeguards and guidelines with respect to the sale of uranium.

The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech said that the Government has taken the appropriate action in introducing stringent requirements with regard to environmental protection in the Alligator Rivers region. In this area the Government has decided to appoint a co-ordinating committee or a consultative committee. I am also very pleased to see that the Government has included on the committee two representatives from the Northern Territory. There was concern that there would be a lack of representation from the Northern Territory.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And one from the Aboriginals.

Senator YOUNG:

– I think it is extremely important that the Government has taken this step. Senator Cavanagh made an interjection in respect of Aboriginals. The answer to his interjection is that the Government has taken this action. The Government has made sure that not only will it do all it can to protect the environment but also it will enlist the right type of representation from this area to serve on the consultative committee.

Not only has the Government set up a consultative committee with a supervising scientist, to whom Senator Jessop referred this morning when he spoke to this legislation, but also it has gone further and set up a research institute to ensure that the work will not be purely observational but will involve research to make sure that the environment both in the short and long terms will be protected. When I say ‘protected’ I use a capital ‘P’ because this is the aim of the Government in this area. The Government will make sure that there are strict environmental controls and safeguards generally in this region where mining is to take place. Members of that committee will come from areas covering a very broad spectrum. They will come from the mining side of the industry and from the representation side including the Federal Government, Aboriginal bodies and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The committee will also include people with specific qualifications. As such it will be able to assess fully and watch closely the environmental impact in this area. This, of course, is related to the research institute.

The Opposition today criticised certain aspects of the legislation. We heard the same type of thing the other day when we dealt with amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. But one can only say that the members of the Opposition are nit-picking or playing a game of political charades because what they should be doing with their attitude on the mining of uranium is standing up and saying: ‘We oppose the lot’. But they have not done this. They keep referring to amendments. They have moved an amendment in respect of this legislation. I challenge members of the Opposition- not that I will support their proposed amendment- to say that if we were to accept their amendment they would accept the mining of uranium in Australia. The truth is that they would not. Senator Melzer shakes her head and says ‘no ‘on behalf of her party. Therefore to me the Opposition’s amendments are a farce. We cannot describe the situation in any other way. Many members of the Opposition are in favour of mining but they are bound by their policy.

When the vote on the second reading of a previous Bill was taken two members of the Liberal Party crossed the floor and sat on the other side, not because they were opposed to the mining of uranium but because they were concerned about certain aspects within that proposed legislation. We do not see this happening on the other side of the chamber. What we have seen is members of the Opposition proposing certain amendments when in reality and truth they are opposed in totality to the mining of uranium. Why do not members of the Opposition stand up and say that? On top of this last week I received a telex- I presume every other South Australian senator received the same thing- from the Deputy Premier of South Australia in which he expressed concern about certain areas of the proposed package of legislation. He said:

I ask you to support your State of South Australia and exercise your responsibilities as senator to this end.

Quite frankly I take exception to this telex because it asks us to stand up and oppose some aspects of proposed legislation. This is despite the fact that the Government of South Australia stands publicly and states that it is opposed in totality to the mining and exporting of uranium.

It is interesting to look at what the actual position is in South Australia. We know that Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, over a number of years had discussions with the previous Whitlam Government. He is having discussions, indirectly through agencies of the State Government, with the current Government on the feasibility of the establishment of an enrichment plant in South Australia. Enrichment is Stage 3 or 4 of the mining of uranium. First one explores for it; if one finds it one then proves it to be an economic mine. Secondly, one mines it. Thirdly, one mills it and processes it. Fourthly, one enriches it. Enriched material will be exported because there is no nuclear reactor in Australia that will require an enrichment plant. Therefore this discussion on the feasibility of the establishment of an enrichment plant is purely for the export of uranium from Australia, in particular from South Australia. Yet that State Government has the audacity to send telexes to State senators of South Australia and also to stand and say that it is opposed to the mining of uranium.

We are also aware that on top of this the Mines Department in South Australia, an agency of the State Government, directed by the State Government, was a client of Amdel (Aspect) Pollution Consultants in South Australia doing research at South Australian taxpayers ‘ expense on the exploitation of uranium by the leaching process. Yet the South Australian Government still stands and says that it is opposed to the mining of uranium. We know that in South Australia the green light has been given to a predominantly German firm to explore for uranium within 30 kilometres north and south of Adelaide, the capital city of South Australia. We also know that exploration is still taking place in the Olary province. I refer particularly to Plumbago Station. I referred to that aspect on another occasion when we were debating uranium in this place. I was challenged by Senator McLaren when I stated that the South Australian Government had given the green light for exploration in areas of South Australia close to historical Aboriginal sites.

I have been in touch with a woman in South Australia who has taken a very keen interest in this matter. She is the Honorary Inspector of the Aboriginal and Historic Relics Preservation Act. Her name is Mrs M. F. Nobbs. Her address is 8 Hazelwood Avenue, Hazelwood Park, South Australia. Mrs Nobbs in correspondence to me and also in discussions I have had with her has stated that there is a list of dreaming sites on the Plumbago Historic Reserve. It has been declared an historic reserve. In answer to my queries following criticism which I received from one of the Opposition senators, Mrs Nobbs stated in her letter:

The term sacred is capable of many interpretations and the Historic Reserve is ‘sacred’ in the sense of containing very valuable archaeologically important occupation sites.

In another letter to me, she stated:

If the Government is sincere about its opposition to the mining of uranium why is it permitting very extensive exploration activities on a proclaimed historic Reserve?

Senator Melzer:

– You are allowing it.

Senator YOUNG:

– But the difference is that we are standing up and dealing with environmental aspects, openly saying that we are in favour of the mining of uranium. However, the South Australian Government says that it is opposed to the mining of uranium and that it is opposed to doing so many things in relation to uranium. Yet it is allowing exploration to take place close to Aboriginal sacred sites. Let me make it clear that I do not condemn the State Government for this action but I do condemn it for its political hypocrisy. That is what I am condemning. In respect of environmental protection, the Government is doing all that it can to make sure that the environment is protected. However in respect of the environment, Mrs Nobbs in a letter to me stated:

  1. . over 1,000 drill holes have been put down since August, pits have been dug to bury unwanted samples and to store uranium for testing purposes, thus rendering the earth sterile.

It is interesting to read her comments. She is talking about a government that is opposed to the mining of uranium but which, to quote her, has allowed over 1,000 drill holes to be put down specifically for uranium, not for other minerals. This morning there was talk about the problems of radon gas resulting from material from open cut mining being brought to the surface. Here is the Dunstan Government in South Australia doing the same, but is the Opposition standing up and condemning that Government for its actions? Silence reigns supreme. The manager of the station in the Olary Province has stated that drilling has been done very close to Aboriginal sites and environmental damage from drilling has not been repaired. Let me make it clear that I am expressing concern but am not condemning the South Australian Government for one moment for the exploration for uranium. However, I condemn that Government for the double standards it is adopting on this issue. I condemn it openly and, I hope, sufficiently that the Opposition will take some notice of what is being said.

I have a copy of correspondence dated 13 January 1978 from the Deputy Premier of South Australia, who is also the Minister for the Environment in that State, to Mrs Nobbs in which he said:

We believe it is important to evaluate the resource base in an area, and Plumbago, as a specific example. Accordingly the Department for the Environment has permitted limited exploration . . .

Is 1,000 drill holes limited exploration?

Senator Melzer:

– You should know.

Senator YOUNG:

- Mrs Nobbs has given me the figure of 1 , 000 drill holes. We are now talking about the environment and the concern which is being expressed by a State government which has sent me and no doubt you, Mr President, as a South Australian senator, a telex criticising the Federal Government because the Federal Government is openly bringing in legislation to protect the environment and doing all it can to make sure that the environment is protected. Yet the State Government is conducting these activities without saying to the public what it is doing, although it says that it is opposed to the mining of uranium. I now come to the interesting part of the letter from the Minister for the Environment. He said:

Nowhere within the Aboriginal and Historic Relics Preservation Act, 1967, are mining or exploration activities excluded or prohibited from historic reserves.

In other words he is saying: ‘We have an Act over which we have total control. We have the numbers in South Australia to change that Act. The Act of 1 967 says that we can do these things so we are going to do them. At the same time we will condemn the Federal Government for what it is doing openly and honestly’. It is on this point that the Opposition senators have to take stock of themselves. Then the Minister goes on to refer to uranium minerals within the host rock- I will not read the earlier verbiage in the letter because it will take too long- and spells out that uranium is the specific mineral to which the State Government is referring and the specific mineral for which the companies are exploring, hoping that they can exploit it. In his letter he then said:

Each stage of explorations carried out by the companies in the past seven years has added to the knowledge of the ore body and has defined additional mineralisation.

One can go on and on. In reply to Mrs Nobbs’ correspondence and complaints, and let us not forget that she is the honorary inspector under the Aboriginal Historic Relics Preservation Act in South Australia, he later stated:

Your further charge that considerable damage has been done to one extensive and very old campsite, and there has been disturbance to hearths and the disappearance of large implements is accepted.

I also have statements from the manager of the property on which many cave paintings have been damaged- in fact, some cannot be repaired- and nothing has been done to repair them. There has been a change of portfolio in South Australia. Since Mr Corcoran has been Minister, there has been a change in approach. Today there are more restrictions and there will be some ministerial direction. I make that clear with due respect to Mr Corcoran, the Deputy Premier of South Australia. However, he is not the State Government, only a member of it, and it is the overall policy of that Government to which I am referring and which I am condemning.

We then reach another very interesting point with regard to the leaching process. I mentioned earlier the research that has been done and is being done by Amdel (Aspect) Pollution Consultants, the Australian minerals group in South Australia and one of the major research centres in Australia. The Department of Mines has been a client of Amdel with regard to research into the leaching process. I heard Senator Mulvihill today very genuinely and sincerely express concern about the pollution of water in the Alligator Rivers Region and I accept his concern and so does the Government. The Government is watching it and it is going to have it researched and set up a consultative committee to make sure that these matters can be watched closely so damage will not be done but, if it is, it will be minimal. One would expect that with this research and the consultative committee we will be able to ensure that damage is not done. The Minister in his letter to Mrs Nobbs also stated:

Leaching does not contravene the Water Resources Act.

Of course it does not contravene the Act, but who is in charge of changing the Act to make sure that it does if there is concern about the environment and about uranium? It is the State Government. What has it done? Nothing! The Minister then goes on to say:

The effects of leaching upon the aquifers are being studied in the Kalkaroo area to the north of Plumbago, and in Texas where the Texas Pollution Council has undertaken detailed studies on uranium leaching over a number of years. The aquifers in the Kalkaroo area do not constitute a major groundwater resource because of the exceptionally high salinities.

So, it is not drinking or stock water but it is water that flows and it can be polluted. He then stated:

The leaching process being tested uses alkaline solutions and the addition of such solutions should not significantly impair -

Senator Melzer:

– It is good to hear your concern.

Senator YOUNG:

– I am quoting the Minister; it is not what I have said. The Minister stated:

  1. . should noi significantly impair the quality of the groundwater within the uranium ore body.

Let me make it clear that we are discussing environmental aspects of the mining of uranium in the Ranger area. The South Australian Government has been looking at means by which it can leach uranium out of the ground- in other words, put it in a solution form and get it out of the ground. I stress that this is being contemplated where there is ground water. The South Australian Minister for the Environment has said that it should not significantly impair the quality of the ground water within the uranium ore body. Opposition senators have stood here today and, quite frankly, hypocritically condemned this legislation on the basis of four or five clauses and moves an amendment. They do not stand up and openly oppose the whole package deal on uranium. Here we have a State Government openly standing up and condemning this Government and sending South Australian senators telexes asking them to support its policy in South Australia. At the same time the South Australian Government is allowing exploration in its own State within a few kilometres of the city of Adelaide and in areas close to historic Aboriginal sites, causing concern to those who are in charge. According to the South Australian Government’s claims it has put down 1,000 drill holes to enable it to study a process whereby uranium will be leached out of the ground, bringing it out in liquefied form. There is the great danger of much of this spreading into the underwater systems, but apparently because it is salty it does not matter. We are not discussing whether we will drink that water. What the Opposition is concerned about and what it is criticising us about is the lack of environmental safety.

Senator Melzer:

– My word; that is right.

Senator YOUNG:

-Why does Senator Melzer not stand up and condemn the South Australian Government- and not just for the double standards it has. It is preaching one thing to the people and doing another thing behind their backs. It is also researching a process which is a greater risk of polluting the environment because of the underwater streams than anything that would take place in the Ranger area. That is what the issue is all about today for me as a South Australian. I have mentioned these things today because I had a telex sent to me. I ask the South Australian Government in turn to stand up as a government of this country and give support to a government in Canberra that is doing all it can to make sure that there will be environmental protection. The Federal Government has openly stated that it will mine and export uranium with stringent safeguards, both with regard to the sale of uranium and with regard to the conservation aspects of the environment in that area. The South Australian Government is saying that it is opposed to the mining of uranium; yet it is going ahead and encouraging exploration. It is going ahead with research into a leaching process. It is going ahead with a feasibility study in the hope that it will get an enrichment plant in South Australia. I hope it gets one, too; we need it. We need one in Australia and, as a South Australian, I should like to see one in my own State. But the double standards being adopted totally appal me.

No doubt I will be criticised and condemned by some of the members of the South Australian Government for standing up and supporting the Federal Government in the stand it is taking with this package of Bills in relation to the mining and export of uranium. All I can say is that hypocrisy reigns supreme in South Australia at the present time. I will stand firmly behind this Government, which has declared its policy openly and in such a way as to assure me that it will take all the precautions it can, many of which are far more stringent than those of any other country. The Federal Government is conscious of the fact that there is a need to mine uranium. We in Australia have not told the world to go nuclear. But we in Australia are very conscious of the fact that there is an energy crisis- a crisis that will get greater and greater unless that gap is filled. The world itself has decided that it will go nuclear to make sure that it will avoid that energy crisis. We in this country have the resources to help the rest of the world. It is up to us to make sure that we do that so long as at the same time we support legislation such as is before the Senate at present. It is also up to us to make sure that if there is a need to close any gaps within that legislation the Government will- I know it will- accept its responsibilities. It will make sure that there will be protection of the environment generally and at the same time make sure that we meet our international responsibilities.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Ryan. In doing so, for Senator Young’s benefit, I will repeat that we are against all mining of uranium. If Senator Young had bothered to read the amendment closely he would have found that it reads in part:

At end of motion, add’, but the Senate-

opposes mining in the catchment area of the Alligator Rivers, portion of which is within the proposed boundaries ofthe Kakadu National Park:

That does not mean that that is the only area in which we are opposed to the mining of uranium. Senator Young amazed me. He talked about the Opposition nit-picking. We had Senator Young up on his feet in a fine fury about the South Australian Government. For one beautiful moment I thought he was in a fine fury because he was appalled at the fact that Aboriginal sacred sites were being polluted and that testing in connection with the mining of uranium in South Australia was endangering the environment. But I found that neither of those things moved him greatly. The only thing he was in a fine fury about was that the South Australian Government should dare to send him a telex suggesting that he support a policy which is supported by 90 per cent of the people of South Australia. There has been a lot of talk here about how this is a States’ House and how honourable senators are here to represent the States. I think Senator Young ought to look again at the reasons why he is a senator from South Australia.

As I have said, he amazed me, as did Senator Jessop. Both of them referred in this debate to the lack of danger regarding radon gas. Senator Jessop stated that there was more danger from radon gas in the mining of coal or superphosphate than there would be in the mining of uranium. This Government has said it will bring into being and enforce precautions in the mining of uranium in the area of the Northern Territory about which we are talking in order to protect the miners. If the dangers of radon gas are so much worse in the mining of coal and superphosphate, why are Government supporters not standing on their high horses and demanding that the same sort of preventive measures be introduced for the mining of coal and superphosphate. Evidently it does not matter because it will only be the miners who will suffer, so why worry! There is no agitation from Government supporters about safety measures in the mining of coal and superphosphate, yet, according to them, in those areas the danger is so much greater.

Senator Jessop said that there would be no underground mining in Australia. I suggest that Senator Jessop take another look at Jabiru, where the Pan-Continental company says it will mine uranium. He should remember a conversation with an engineer about how deep the mine will be and how the uranium will still be there, going under the hill. He pointed out that it would be much cheaper to mine it underground than it would be to remove the hill to get at the uranium.

Do not tell me that once the mine is open they will not continue on the seam and continue to take the uranium out underground because there is nothing in this legislation to stop them.

Senator Jessop went on to talk about what he called the so-called dangers from radiation. Evidently, according to him, all that has to be done is to wrap it up in brown paper bags and there will be no trouble at all. If it is as easy as his authority makes out and if there is as little danger as his authority would have us believe, why is it that in Washington a congressional study has raised once again some old questions about the future of nuclear energy, at least in the United States. Despite 30 years of federal control in America the government and industry so far have failed to produce a solution to the problem of radioactive waste. That is one of the main themes to have emerged from a 104-page report on nuclear energy which is soon to be released by the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources SubCommittee of Congress. The Congressional report charges that no permanent acceptable storage method has yet been found for radioactive waste and that this disposal problem, more than any other factor, threatens the future of nuclear energy in the United States of America. The Congressional report also finds itself in agreement with a recent study by the Rand Corporationa Californian-based ‘think tank’- that the cost of nuclear energy is climbing astronomically and that this cost spiral and the waste problem are already causing some American States to back away from nuclear power development.

California, for example- America ‘s most important State- has rejected nuclear development, opting instead for more conventional energy sources such as coal, and at the same time investing public research moneys in safe alternatives such as solar power. I suggest that Senator Jessop send his reference both to the Congressional Committee and to California so that on the one hand they will be able to realise the imminent dangers in California and on the other hand perhaps they will get him sufficient brown paper bags in which to wrap the stuff so that it can be disposed of safely. When he has convinced those authorities about those particular problems, perhaps he will then start on the uranium miners who, at the moment, have a five times greater chance of getting lung cancer than other people in the community. That is not because they smoke cigarettes; it is because they mine uranium.

In supporting the amendment that my party has moved I state that I am very much in favour of this land in the Alligator Rivers Region becoming Aboriginal land. I am very much in favour of this Aboriginal land being leased to the Department of National Parks and Wildlife to be managed with the assistance of the Aboriginal people as a park, as the Kakadu National Park. I believe that this is not only the heritage of Australia but also the heritage of the world. Because of its beauty, its splendid vistas, its quietness, its loneliness and its grandeur, it is significant in the very attitudes we take when we talk about civilisation. Also, of course, it has the richest deposit of uranium in the world. That is the snake in this Eden.

Aboriginal people want uranium left in the ground. Although they have said that under some circumstances they will agree with mining at Jabiru, they have also said that if this Government is determined to go ahead with mining uranium they would like to see the smaller site at Nabarlek taken up first so that they can have a first hand look at the results of uranium mining. Although at Jabiluka they have said ‘No. We do not want uranium mining in any circumstances’ we know from talking to many of them that they really want the uranium left in the ground despite the riches which might flow to them from the mining of the uranium. They do not count riches as we do, in dollar bills and silver coins. They give high priority to keeping that area uncontested and unviolated

We know that more than half the people in Australia want uranium left in the ground. We know that there are thousands and thousands of people in the world- the number is growing all the time- who want uranium left in the ground. We want it left in the ground, particularly in that area so that the Park will not be violated. This Government, at the behest of mighty mining companies, sees the profit that it thinks it will make from mining uranium and it wants it out of the ground, no matter what sort of havoc is wreaked in doing so. The Government says, of course, that these Bills will protect most of the areas from the harmful effects of mining. Its method at the moment to protect those areas and to protect the Park is by excluding the mine project areas from it. The Park is planned in two sections. We declare the land between the mines a park now and when the miners have finished with the land, we declare the second part to be added- the bits that are left between the dumps, the rock heaps, the polluted water and what is left after the roads, towns, tracks, ore dumps, holding ponds and the treatment plants have been built. If there are any rock formations, sacred places or Aboriginal paintings left which are not affected by blasting, by fumes or by people, they will all be added and then we will have a whole park. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) said:

The natural habitats contain a wealth or flora and fauna of great potential interest not only to Australians but all mankind . . . 1,000 species of plants have been recorded … an impressive abundance and diversity of animals.

The Minister assures us that steps will be taken in the second stage zone to ensure that the wildlife and natural features are protected adequately. How will that be done? Will it be done by drawing a line on a map and saying that everything outside that line is now protected, and that this line will somehow protect everything outside that line by what goes on inside the line? How will the line on the map protect the area when we know so little about it? The Ranger uranium report, which the Government loves to quote out of context and by no means fully, in part states:

The diversity as well as making Ranger so interesting, implicates the problem of assessing the impact of any manmade disturbance to the environment.

It states further:

But much less is known about the interactions between them, which constitute the regional ecology and which could be disturbed by developments.

We do not know what the environment or the ecology is like before we start, yet the Government has drawn up Bills to protect them. As most honourable senators would know by now, the area is very wet. It carries an enormous body of water in the wet season. Uranium mining uses a lot of water. We have been told that contaminated water will be kept in dams. The Ranger report recommended that very strict conditions should apply to the security of those dams. Indeed, when we visited that area, the miners told us that the Ranger report was wrong, that the conditions it had imposed on the dams were wrong, that they were too expensive and would not work. The miners had their own ideas.

The Government is not insisting on the implementation of the proposals brought down in the Ranger report. Presumably, it is letting the miners have their own way as to how that contaminated water will be kept. When we were at the site, the interesting point raised was where the dams were to be put. The Ranger proposal is that the dams will be built at the project area. We visited Jabiluka and even the miners apparently were a little concerned that the dams were right on the floodline of the creek. They were talking about moving the dams to the other side of a mountain. They did not know where the dams were going to be built, yet we are talking about going ahead with mining in that area. We visited Nabarlek and again they did not know where the tailings dams were going to be. How can these Bills keep that part of the environment free and clear when the miners themselves at this stage do not know where the dams will be built? The Government cannot say that they will be in a safe place or that the environment will be kept safe.

The Fox report said that the real situation will become apparent only when mining commences. That is what worries the Opposition. The real position will become apparent only when it is too late to do anything about it. I should like to refer to some of the comments contained in the Fox report when it referred to water. It stated:

Aquifers are likely to play an increasingly important role as a source of fresh water if development proceeds and knowledge of the characteristics of the different types is necessary if they are to be successfully exploited and protected from contamination.

Water quality in many of these aquifers is good which suggests that they are recharged locally from the surface. In some very localised areas, groundwater radioactivity is above World Health Organisation standards for drinking water. lt went on to say:

Higher than normal chloride concentrations in some bores means that the river has been interpreted as meaning that some contamination ofthe aquifers from the river occurs and as offering a warning of the possible effects on this source of water if mine and other contaminants should enter the South Alligator drainage system.

But at this stage we do not know what these effects will be. We are told that a research institute will be set up to find out the possible effects. But we will be finding out what the dangers may be at the same time as we are mining and polluting. That is not sensible. It only means that at the end of such an examination we will be able to say: ‘There you are; now we know how the pollution occurred ‘. The report goes on to say:

Information on their occurrence and potential as water sources is very limited. Seepage from the shallow aquifers in weathered rock, sand sheets and sandy drainages probably extends the period of flow of streams and the life of some billabongs in the dry season.

So we are told that we should be worried about where the water goes in the wet season but it appears that we may need to know what happens in the dry season too. But at the moment we do not know. The Government says ‘We will find out’, but we will be mining at the same time. The report says:

Any contaminants from proposed mining and processing operations . . . released into and remaining in surface water . . . would be confined to the Magela drainage system . . . The desination of contaminants entering deep ground water is less certain.

The hydrology of the system can be described only in broad terms because limited stream flow data exists. Some water from the Magela Creek and its tributaries is probably lost to deep aquifers associated with faults in the basement rock. Several major fault lines have been identified within the catchment.

Honourable senators will recall that we are less than certain about the destination of contaminants and their entry to deep ground water. We are less than certain about so much of the environment in this area. The report says that the total flow past Jabiru in a normal year is 250 million cubic metres and in a wet year it may exceed three times that volume. But not enough information about the local oceanography exists to enable the way river water diffuses into the sea to be determined. There is this vast amount of water which will flow past the mine. If there is any sort of breakdown in the precautions or the banking that the mining companies are going to insitute we do not know where that polluted water is going to finish up. The report says:

Particularly relevant in the Magela system are the levels of heavy metals and radioactive materials.

Data on concentrations of these materials are of variable quality. The figures quoted can be regarded as giving only an indication of the quantities present. The data available are not adequate to show how concentrations vary during a year or between years of different flows . . . Information is not available on the chemical form of metals in Magela Creek water, a major factor influencing their toxic effects.

So all along the line we are told: ‘We do not know what will happen; we will find out’. Why cannot we find out first before the damage is done? The reason is because the Government is in such a hurry. The report is full of those sorts of quotes. When we think about water, about seepage, about the pollution of water and where the water will go, I remind the Senate that three or four years ago in Washington 200,000 gallons of high level waste leaked out of containers that were ‘safe’. They were monitored by methods which were considered to be inviolable- could not go wrong- by computers. But the human being who was in charge of the computer forgot to look and therefore did not notice the leak. The 200,000 gallons was seeping through the ground and had almost reached the Colorado River. It may have reached it by now but the authorities cannot do anything about it. They do not know what will happen. They cannot smell it. They cannot taste it. They cannot see it. It has happened. Nothing can be done to undo the damage.

In Canada energy authorities are worried that radioactive water will seep into the town and city water supplies from disused uranium mines. Dr Coates, who is the Canadian Government’s mining and energy research chief, said that

Canada is spending vast amounts of money trying to solve the problem. He said that there is a strong possibility of the radioactive water seeping into the rivers and dams that supply water for commercial, domestic and agricultural use. He said that if it happens it could result in genetic deformities, cancer or one of the other hazards of radioactive material. Canada is trying to find a solution after the problem has arisen. We have a chance to work out what the problems may be and thereby avoid them, but no, we are not doing that. Honourable senators will all remember that in India just a short time ago it was found that a deadly poisonous and highly radioactive plutonium isotope was lost 13 years ago in the sacred Himalayan Mountains by the Central Intelligence Agency. Teams of scientists are now 13 years later checking the water of the Ganges for any contamination.

What damage has been done to the millions who use the waterway every day has not been established. It may be that the substance has not got into the Ganges. However, if it has it is far too late to do anything about it. This is the point we are trying to make. Once you have destroyed a resource in this way it cannot be restored. I ask honourable senators to recall what happened at Rum Jungle which was only a very small installation compared with the proposed mining at the Kakadu National Park. Just remember what happened there when a dam broke. We are all told now that this will not happen again but human beings are fallible and the things that we build are sometimes unreliable. We were told by the Department of the Northern Territory that it will take at least $ 12m to restore that small area of Rum Jungle. So how much would it take to restore the area in the Kakadu National Park should one of these little accidents happen again? The imagination boggles at how much it would cost. It also boggles at how man can go forward and endanger his own environment in this unthinking, unknowing way.

We do not know anything about the ecosystem in that area. We do not know anything about the ecosystem in the area in which we live in the south of Australia. We do not know what is the balance of life. We do not know the balance between an insect and the system. We do not know about the life chain, the food chain or the effect on our food chain. Yet blithely in we go despite the report which says, amongst other things, that a rare and interesting type of semi-deciduous forest exists there. We talk about things that really we do not know anything about. We do not know how the life chain could be destroyed. We do not know the balance between life and water. We do not know what the killing or wiping out of one insect in this area might do to the existence of birds which nest there, birds which fly south and destroy insects in the south. I and other honourable senators found when we were investigating the wood chip industry and were asking questions about what would happen if a certain insect were wiped out or a bird no longer existed and was not there to remove insects to protect the forest, that the answer we got over and over was We do not know’. Yet the Ranger report is putting before us very clearly the areas about which we know nothing.

For instance the report in part says that a rare and interesting type of semi-deciduous forest exists. It is rare and it is interesting; that is all we know about it. Another part of the report says that many more species probably remain unrecorded because the species in the lessaccessible parts of the park, in parts of the plateau and some permanently wet areas were not collected as thoroughly as they should have been; some species were not known previously; regions are notable for their present relative freedom from introduced species. That is an important point. At the moment it is relatively free from introduced species. In Australia we have seen in so many parts species being introduced and then taking over by wiping out vegetation, wiping out livestock and threatening the livestock industry. We have not had a clue about what to do to overcome such problems. For instance in Queensland which is your State, Mr Deputy President, lantana still ravages. We have not found a way to cope with it. Yet into an area like this which we have the nerve to call a national park we are bringing an industry that with the amount of material and number of people involved could very easily introduce species that would take over and wipe out the natural, rare, interesting and previously unknown species that exist there. Some species are very rare. Some are known only in the Northern Territory or in Arnhem Land. The report states:

The feral cat population is small, and the great abundance of small mammals in the Region is probably due in part to this fact.

If we continue with mining at least one town will be established there. With the best will in the world, Australian human beings unfortunately do not seem to be able to move very far without their pets. It is inconceivable to think that cats will not get into the area and multiply with the same rapidity as they have in other areas of Australia. They have become one of the real predators in this country. What will they do to what we are pleased to call a national park? No line drawn on a map will keep them inside the boundaries. They have been known to step across boundaries and take off. Evidently, food is there in abundance for them. The report also states:

A number of rare bird species could be endangered if trapping were permitted in the Region. Also any extensive hunting of water fowl could seriously affect the survival of local populations . . .

Already the mining companies are saying that their workers should have the right to use the land around the mining areas for recreation. Recreation could very well include trapping. It could very well include shooting wild fowl and all sorts of things. What will that do to the local population of animals and birds that we have only just discovered? The report states further:

Biological information on the fish species is limited . insects . . . could be important as indicators of environmental change. Changes in numbers of, for example, dragon flies . . . could indicate the presence of water pollutants . . . About 4,S00 insect species have been recognised in collections during the Fact-finding Study, and further identification and collection are expected to reveal a total of over 10,000 species. Knowledge of the roles of all these insects in food chains, nutrient recycling processes and so on is very limited.

Yet we are blithely going into the region for the mighty mining companies. We will destroy the pattern that has been set up there over centuries. The report states that it may prove possible to use pandanus as indicators of excessive concentrations of heavy metals. However, much additional research would first be needed. The Ranger report maintained that any research body would have great difficulties in establishing baseline biological data. One witness quoted by the report proposed a three-year program costing $lm a year but he agreed that even this would provide little information of value for resolving the problems before the Commission. How can we talk about preserving the environment? Why are we bringing in environmental Bills when we do not even know what the environment is and we are not prepared to wait to find out?

The report also stated that the desirable objective would be to gain an understanding of the region sufficient to enable any man-made changes to be detected quickly. We will be completely unable to detect those man-made changes because we do not know what we are changing. On this matter the report finally stated that the Commission supported the proposition that if mining or other developments are to proceed as much information as possible should be obtained beforehand. We are doing nothing beforehand. We will allow some sort of research to go on in the area at the same time as we are beginning to mine and setting up all sorts of problems that we shall discover but which we shall not be able to solve.

We have the time to wait and see. We are endangering this splendid land because of the boom and bust nuclear power industry. As it goes downhill we are destroying our heritage. According to American sources no industry has ever declined as rapidly as the nuclear power industry. The senior aid to Mr James Schlesinger who is the Energy Secretary said:

The great nuclear power boom that was forecast 10 years ago is never going to happen.

We are destroying our heritage for an industry which is going downhill and which may never rise again. Even our own Atomic Energy Commission has reported that demand for Australia ‘s uranium by the mid-1980s will be drastically down on past estimates. We have the time to establish the basic facts about the enviroment and to find out what the dangers really are before we start, but we are not going to do it. All the danger signs have been pointed out to us. We know what has happened in other countries which have allowed the environment to be polluted, but we are not going to learn by them. Why? Because we have to get the uranium out of the ground. The uranium miners believe that if they do not get it out of the ground and sell it now they may never sell it. I think that they are right. Why will they not sell it? Other countries are finding that the costs of producing energy from uranium are too high and that the other consequences that may come from using it are much too high to take a chance with.

One of the sureties we are given by the Government is the Supervising Scientist. It is very hard to see from the Bill how much freedom the Supervising Scientist will have to act. He will certainly not have the power to step in and stop things when he finds they are going wrong. He has the power only to advise that things are going wrong. Other people take the steps. Senator Jessop spoke highly of Mr Fry. I think it was mainly because they had been to school together. I do not doubt Mr Fry’s integrity but I believe that he is committed to the mining of uranium. One of the reasons I believe that is that throughout the past two or three years in debates in Victoria on the pros and cons of uranium mining on many occasions Mr Fry attended those debates as the adviser to the mining companies who were taking a pro-uranium stand. I do not doubt Mr Fry’s integrity but I doubt his ability to be evenhanded in the matter of dangers to the environment. I think that he is committed to the mining of uranium. Therefore, he will see any dangers in a lesser light than people who are not so committed to the mining of uranium.

The composition of the Co-ordinating Committee worries the Opposition. We do not believe that it is a co-ordinating committee in any way. It certainly will not co-ordinate all the people who have concern with the area. It comprises nominees from federal departments of a government committed to uranium mining. It has representatives of mining companies who are committed to uranium mining. I cannot see that those people will see all around the questions and the dangers which may arise. I certainly cannot see how mining companies will in any way see the problems or will understand the feelings of the Aboriginal people in that area. I recall that the mining industry had an annual dinner in Canberra some time ago. The leading paragraph in a news story about that dinner stated:

The joke of” the night at the mining industry’s annual dinner in Canberra this week had as its main gag line the fact that a gorilla was mistaken for an Aboriginal in a fur coat.

I cannot see that people who treat other human beings in that fashion will be very disturbed about sacred sites being tampered with or destroyed by fumes, people or blasting. I cannot expect that people who could laugh at something as boorish as that would be very worried about Aboriginal rights to the land, how they live or where they live. Yet these are the sorts of people on the Co-ordinating Committee.

The Government is bringing in extraordinary precautions to protect a commercial enterprise. It is refusing to bring in strong controls over that commercial enterprise. It provides for the appointment of a Supervising Scientist who will have no authority and for the establishment of a co-ordinating committee which will be made up mainly of people from the industry. Yet, overall, we have the oppressive threat that the people of Australia might not be given information about what is going on there. In some ways I find that the most extraordinary feature of the legislation. Yet, in this extraordinary industry, how can we find anything extraordinary?

Why should the people not know what is going on in their Park? Why should they not know if there is an accident or pollution or if the whole project is not going well? I bet my bottom dollar that there will be plenty of information about how sweet things are going. No stopper will be put on that son of information getting out. But this legislation specifically prohibits information on other areas of the mining industry in the Kakadu National Park being given to the people. Why is this so? We all know why; it is because the miners are afraid. They know that the first accident will bring to a head the resolve of the Australian people to leave uranium alone- to leave the Park whole and untouched. So we will not be allowed to talk about any of the difficulties which might arise because that would be the finish of the mining. We have cover-ups and evasions and we will never know the facts. Once the companies start mining under the legislation which this Government wants to put through, we will not even be allowed in to look at what is going on.

With all this pressure on the non-miners, if the Government’s stated concern about the environment is real, why has it not put any pressure on the miners? Why do we impose extraordinary fines and extraordinary jail sentences only upon non-miners? Why will miners not be fined or imprisoned for any breach of the regulations? Why must they not ensure the total safety of the project? Why must they not give a complete assurance of this before one sod is turned? We are not in a hurry; we have time. We can allow them time to research and to discover totally safe measures. Perhaps this way we might achieve more caution. If the miners were to have the threat of a fine of $50,000 or 20 years gaol hanging over them they would be more careful. But no, they dig now and we pay later. We know that the Government is not prepared to bring in regulations which would make the mining of uranium totally safe and which would put the onus on the miners to prevent any pollution whatsoever. We all know that it is going to be impossible for them to mine uranium there without there being danger to the miners, to the environment and to us all.

At the dreaded risk of appearing emotional on the subject, I shall quote a resolution which was published by the National Council of Churches in America, which set up a committee to investigate nuclear power. I think we should take serious note of this resolution, which states:

We are charged by God to be caretakers of Creation, not only for ourselves, but for the future generations. Even if tonight were the world’s last night, the decisions we take should be such that future generations would have no cause to curse us. The sheer time-span of potential dangers involved in the decision on whether or not to pursue plutonium as a major source lifts it above many apparently similar decisions: we are talking literally about the future of humanity.

We are talking literally about the future of humanity when we agree that uranium should be mined. We are talking about the future of humanity and its heritage when we talk about endangering the Kakadu National Park by allowing uranium mining in any portion of that Park. I believe that we should not mine uranium at all. Surely those people who believe that we should mine uranium can take the time to ensure unconditional safety. In the meantime, because there is no shortage of uranium- as the Australian uranium miners know only too well- we should leave this area undisturbed in its splendour.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I respect Senator Melzer’s opinions- obviously they are her own. Having heard the various statements she has made over the past three quarters of an hour, all of which state that uranium mining should not take place, I should like to ask her one or two questions. Of course, she cannot answer them now, but no doubt some time in the future she will do so. I think that some of the statements she made are totally incorrect. From the statements she has made today, I wonder where she stands with respect to the Australian Labor Party policy.

Senator Melzer:

– I think I know it a little better than you do.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– She says that she knows it better than I do, and no doubt she does. First of all, I must point out that the development of uranium mining in Australia was first proposed when Labor was in power. We went through this last week. We pointed out that the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam), who was the then Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, who was the then Treasurer and Mr Connor, who was the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, made an agreement with Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd and other people for the development and the ultimate sale of uranium. This agreement was made some time ago when people knew less about uranium than they do now. I think it is a very odd situation, to say the least, that during a debate such as this honourable senators opposite come into the chamber crying poor when some years ago- as I said, when people knew less about uranium than they do now- they were looking for the riches.

I am all for safeguarding the environment. I come from the Northern Territory and, with one or two exceptions, I support the Bills which are before us, namely, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Bill. I am concerned about one or two aspects of the legislation. I was interested to hear Senator Melzer’s comments about destroying the environment- the animals, the people, et cetera. We heard at length about these issues. Obviously Senator Melzer is very interested in the Kakadu National Park, as I am. I compare my attitude with hers and state that not only am I interested in the Northern Territory but also am I interested in Australia and the various parts of Australia.

I draw Senator Melzer’s attention to a project which I understand was announced in Victoria within the past few weeks. I think the project will cost $ 1,000m. I refer to the development of the Loy-yam coalfields in Gippsland. This area contains many cities- Morwell and others. Victorians tell me that this is one of the most beautiful areas in the world. At least it is that in their eyes. The open cut system of coal mining will engulf the area, which covers some 15 miles by 8 miles. Where are the critics of this project which will scar and destroy the area.

Senator Melzer:

– The Latrobe Valley is not a national park.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The honourable senator says that it is not a national park. I do not think that is the issue. It is a case of destroying country which the honourable senator has very ably described. Why is it that Senator Melzer, with her strong feelings, has not been an opponent in this Parliament or elsewhere of the development in Victoria which has resulted in the resumption of some of the richest pastoral country in Victoria?

Senator Melzer:

– Oh, come on!

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The honourable senator can say: ‘Oh, come on’, I am making a very valid comparison. Why is it- I exclude the honourable senator from the expression I am about to use- that the ‘greenies’ are concentrating on the Northern Territory- the area in which, naturally, uranium will be mined- and ignoring the other parts of Australia where immense projects which are to take place will destroy the environment and may result in ill-effects for the communities near those projects. At least we know what effect coal mining has had throughout history on the various places where it has been mined. Why do we not hear people speaking -

Senator Mulvihill:

– You are discrediting Colonel Rose ‘s views.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I am making the point that I have great difficulty in accepting some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Kakadu National Park.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Colonel Rose wanted what we are suggesting. He wanted it in 1 964 before uranium was found.

Senator KILGARIFF:

- Senator Mulvihill is shouting his head off. He has made one speech. He is now making a second speech; so he is out of order. Much has been said about the mining of uranium and the haste in the development of the uranium areas in Australia today. Can anyone really criticise the uranium package that was introduced into Parliament several months ago? It is a very complex and complete plan of action in which the environment is safeguarded and in which the mining and development of uranium is safeguarded. I suppose it would be true to say that the safeguards that the Australian Government has introduced for the mining and development of uranium would be the most advanced of any country in the world.

Senator Ryan:

– Who are you comparing it with?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The honourable senator obviously has visited various parts of the uranium province. She has cited what happened at Rum Jungle as a good reason why uranium mining should not take place. We know full well that lessons have been learnt in regard to the mining at Rum Jungle. In fact, I referred to this matter two or three weeks ago. There is no excuse for what happened at Rum Jungle. There is no excuse for the way in which mining has been carried out in other parts of the country. What really happened there was that there was a casual approach to the mining of uranium but the uranium itself did not cause damage to the country or pollute the streams. The base metals were allowed to be eroded away by the tropical rains that leached them into the river and into the ground. That situation is being corrected and the river is coming back.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Surely it was the administration by people rather than the uranium itself?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– That is quite correct. That is the point I am making. It was a matter of the administration of the mining and development that took place at Rum Jungle 25 years ago when Australia first started to develop, mine and sell uranium. We have been selling uranium for 25 years.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They ought to be put in gaol and made to put something back into the country.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– If the honourable senator feels so strongly, why on earth did he not attempt to get the Labor Government to take action when it was in power and the mining of uranium was taking place in the Northern Territory. The Labor Party’s attitude to the whole situation is rather hypocritical. Let us forget about the Opposition’s viewpoint. I think it has many holes in it. In fact, it is destroyed by the actions of the Labor Party over the last few years.

We are dealing today with three Bills- the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Bill. I suppose the Bills have been grouped together because for one reason or another they are controversial. The exception I have taken to the Bills, particularly in the last two weeks, has been to the fact that despite the work that has been done in the Northern Territory since the 1950s for the protection of national parks and those things which we wish to protect these days, the legislation excluded the participation of the people of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Reserves Board is a very skilled body, employing numerous skilled people, including Aborigines. It was the Board which in the first place proposed, some years ago, in the interests of Australia and the Northern Territory, that there be the Kakadu National Park, Since then much work has been taking place on 30-odd reserves.

On 1 July 1978 the Northern Territory will go into a system of responsible self-government. That legislation is before the other place now and I presume that the Senate will be debating it next week or soon after. No doubt we will have much to say about it. As I have said before, the complaint that I had in the last two weeks was about the fact that the development of uranium outlined in the package that was presented some months ago to Australia and the world totally excluded participation by the people of the Northern Territory. I expect and hope that all honourable senators will agree that this was the wrong thing to do. No matter where one lives in Australia, whether it be a State or Territory, the people of that area have at least some right to some say in the things that happen in that place. In this case the people were not recognised. The organisations that have been working for the good of the nation were not recognised. The situation was as I have described.

As honourable senators realise, over the last two weeks certain discussions have taken place. I am pleased to some extent to be able to say that, as a result of those negotiations between the Federal Government, the people of the Northern Territory and the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, an active part will now be played by each of those three bodies. It is all very well for people down here, whether honourable senators or members in the other place, to make plans for Australia, and especially for the Northern Territory, without paying heed to what they are doing.

I would like to touch on that subject briefly. It means a tremendous amount to me- naturally, it means probably more to me than it does to any other senator. I implore senators- and if I have to get down on my hands and knees I will certainly not be too proud to do it- to keep in mind that laws and policies relating to the Northern Territory which are made in the Federal sphere should take into account the fact that, as a territory and a people, we are a little different from most other parts of Australia. Our population is made up of mixed races. We have a large Aboriginal community. We have many migrants. We have many people who have been born in the Territory, or who have gone there to live. The future of the Territory depends upon the ability of its people to live in what I would call a state of co-existence. That is not to be taken as a racist term. Co-existence recognises that the Aboriginal people, despite the troubles they are going through now, are a proud race and will always exist. In my mind there will not be integration in the sense of the absorption of the black- the production of a type of brown-skinned individual. I can not see that happening at any stage. Certainly if it ever did happen it would be many decades hence.

At the same time we have the Europeans, people who have come to live in the Territory since 1824. Our future lies in the ability of both groups to work and live alongside each other. Over the last few years we have been under extreme pressures because, although we have been endeavouring to foster this recognition of each other, to live together, to be an ordinary community, we have been subjected to stresses and strains as a result of the views of many organisations and governments, in applying to us certain laws and policies. I will have more to say next week on the stage of self-government that we are now entering, but I would say now that, having brought Kakadu and the uranium industry into being, we must ensure that whatever we do we encourage the people of the Territory to live and work together. I have my doubts as to whether that can be achieved.

Senator Mulvihill:

– So have I.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I am very glad to hear the honourable senator say that.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Because I know that the mining people will attempt to out-manouevre the conservationists and you know it.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– As honourable senators know, the mining people are well contained. They are so contained that, despite the fact that they have outlaid millions of dollars, they are unable to move. It is a fact of life now that, in view of the time that has been wasted, one must doubt that very much will be done in the Top End during the present dry season. I doubt that we will see any real work done. I believe that for the next three years the contracts made a few years ago by the Labor Government to supply uranium to other countries will not be fulfilled. There will probably be a delay of at least 1 8 months and if certain work is not carried out now, delivery will have to be put back for a further year. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that mining companies are these days creatures of their own will; that they can do as they wish. We know full well that they cannot. In the Northern Territory they have been waiting for two years or more- and especially is that true of this year- to carry out works that had been agreed to.

On the question of representation of the Northern Territory, I am pleased to say that most of the proposals put to the Government, and agreed to by the Northern Land Council in Darwin a week or so ago, will now be implemented by way of this legislation. By the insertion in the Bills of these numerous points the Government will ensure that the people of the Northern Territory will, to the degree promised in the course of various conferences, correspondence and so on, have some say in the development of uranium. The proposals that I, with the assistance of others, have put forward, will merely place the Northern Territory in a situation whereby agreeements made previously will, to a degree, now be embodied in legislation. Some 80 per cent of the proposals originally made have been agreed to, and I assume that one cannot have everything that one desires.

I would have wished that in the running of Kakadu Park, the experience of the Northern Territory could have been employed. The States have had a similar experience in running their own national parks. Those parks are not run by the Federal Government or a Federal body. We wanted Kakadu Park to be run by the people of the Territory jointly with a Federal body, the latter to have policy making powers, provision for funding and so on. However, the Territory will be participating in the park plan. It will have access to the Supervising Scientist and representation on the Co-ordinating Committee.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I raise a point of order. I wonder whether Senator Kilgariff is quoting from any documents that were the basis of the discussion in Darwin between himself and various Ministers. If so, could we have them tabled; or is he merely using rough notes?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I do not know how rough this is, but it is an amendment that has been moved by Senator Ryan. I do not imagine that one need table that; it has been moved already. On this scrap of paper I have about six lines, which I would not even call rough notes; rather are they headings. If the honourable senator would like to have a look at the paper I will table it. But I doubt whether even Hansard would be able to read what is on the paper.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bonner)- There is no point of order.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– We must have some realisation and appreciation of the work that has been done or is being done in the Kakadu National Park. I think that Senator Melzer was a little hard on the companies in that area when she said they were doing all sorts of things and that nothing was being done to look after the ecology or the environment. I wonder whether she has ever been to the Pancontinental Mining Ltd site at Ja Ja. I presume that if she has been to what we call the uranium province she would have seen this site. Has she visited the laboratory that has been set up by Pancontinental at Ja Ja for use by scientists? Has she seen the work that has been carried out by the scientists? Has she seen the environmental surveys and plans that have been conducted? I suppose the mining company is concerned to protect itself by employing scientists, biologists and people of such training who are now in the field looking at things such as tree growth, the flow of rivers, the catching and tagging of fish and many other aspects. These people are now taking measurements in the air, in the water and on the ground so that as years go by and as development takes place we will have a yardstick for further measurements. It is not fair that such work should be carried out?

Senator Melzer:

– First- before it starts.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– This is what is happening now. I do not know whether the company is doing this because of command from any body, government or otherwise. The fact is that this mining company is doing this work. Let us be fair and try to bring about a situation in which there will be general agreement between the mining companies, the people in the area and the Aboriginal people. We should not endeavour in this place to put up walls and bring about a situation that will destroy our faith in each other. There is tremendous liaison between the personnel of the mining companies and the Aboriginal people who now work as wardens within Kakadu Park.

I listened not only to the mining companies. Naturally I meet with representatives of the Northern Land Council and I talk to people who work in the field. I have also spoken to the traditional owners. It is strange that in all these discussions so infrequently do we hear the expressions of the traditional owners. My understanding of the views of the great majority of the traditional owners is this: As long as their sacred sites are protected and as long as they see that the ground is not going to be destroyed they wish mining to take place. I am not talking about what is said in the Press. I am putting what I believe a handful of traditional owners in this area were saying. There is a handful of traditional owners and their wishes are being respected. Therefore let us not have the nonsense that we have been hearing. If we take notice of it we will put up walls and promote confrontation and battles in the future. In fact I believe that when the financial arrangements for these royalties have been worked out we will see that the Aboriginal people will be extremely well off. I expect that this money will be spent for the benefit of the people.

Much can be said on this particular situation. At this stage with time running out I am not able to speak at length about the problems of a closed town. I do not agree with the concept of a closed town because I do not think it will be feasible. The concept may sound fine but a closed town on a highway some 200 miles from Darwin defeats -

Senator Mulvihill:

– We know that. You will have vandalism and you are going to perpetuate it.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I must answer that interjection about vandalism. It is a type of vandalism that hurts me. It is a different type of vandalism.

Senator Mulvihill:

– A fellow with a highpowered rifle shooting at everything that moves.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The man with the high-powered rifle can be a vandal in any part of the world. The sort of protection we receive is dependent on our laws and on the rangers who police those laws. We have all heard about the country being destroyed through mining. Less than one per cent of the land area of the uranium province will be disturbed. It is interesting to make a comparison with the coalfields of Victoria. The Senate should look at the tens of square miles that have been denuded by gravel pits of construction contractors, governments and so on, as a result of work carried out on the Arnhem Highway. To my mind that is vandalism. Why have people not cried out about that? Why have they not said that about all the roads that have been built through Australia and the Northern Territory, such as the Arnhem Highway? Why have they not kicked about that? That sort of thing is destroying the environment, is it not? I find some of the arguments put forward rather strange.

I do not support the amendment. The amendment opposes mining in the catchment areas of the Alligator Rivers, a portion of which is in the proposed boundaries of the Kakadu National Park. I say once again that the uranium package overcomes the problems there. Work that is being carried out will ensure that everything done there will be done to protect the country. The Government is urged to proceed forthwith to acquire Goodparla and Gimbat pastoral leases. If I remember rightly they are in the second stage of the National Park. That, in my mind, is a foregone conclusion. I do not support the amendment. I certainly support the development of uranium and particularly the three Bills now before us because they give recognition to the Northern Territory and enable it to play a part in its administration.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I thank honourable senators for their participation in this debate. This debate today follows the debate yesterday and the cognate debate some days earlier on two Bills. Now we are dealing with three Bills together. They are part of the sequence implementing the Federal Government’s decision to mine and mill uranium for marketing outside Australia. The Bills we debated yesterday provided that power. They also provided that we could act overseas under the safeguards of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. They also provided a code for safety and security within Australia. Today we are debating three Bills which are essentially environmental in nature. They are the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, and the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Superme Court) Bill. Inevitably, the debate has been not so much on these Bills at all as upon, as with yesterday, whether uranium ought to be mined. That is natural because the issue has been a great one. It is a pity that the Bills have not been debated in detail because their mechanisms are important. The fact is that a great deal of the debate has been on the more extreme viewpoints and emotional viewpoints rather than on the central issues. For example, Opposition senators have argued that it is wrong to mine uranium because mining companies will get profits and make a dollar.

Senator Ryan:

– No; that is not the basis of our objection at all.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Hansard reports of the debate yesterday and today will show that. I simply remind the Opposition that it was the Whitlam Government which made the memorandum of association with the mining company enabling it to make a profit. It has been argued that it is wrong to mine near or on Aboriginal sacred or traditional land. I remind the Opposition that that also is precisely what the Whitlam Government’s agreement intended. It was also argued that it was wrong to mine on what will be a national park, but that again is exactly what the Whitlam Government intended. Basically, the emotional issues raised have failed to account for the fact that these are the very things that the Labor Government had set out to achieve.

Sadly there has run through this debate the polarisation of the argument that the protection of the people of Australia and of the world against radiation and genetic mutation and destruction is best achieved by not mining uranium in Australia. It is suggested that those who mine are creating dangers. I reminded the Senate yesterday, as I must do again today, that the Fox Committee report indicated that there were very large dangers to the safety, security and survival of the people of the world if Australia failed to mine uranium under proper safeguards and instead allowed the proliferation of plutonium. I make it clear that the debate is not helped by the polarisation of an argument. The fact is that the Fox Committee said, and it is the authoritative body, that with proper safeguards the hazards of mining and milling uranium could be properly contained and were quite tolerable within the community. So, the general nature of the argument has been distorted.

No one wants to under-estimate the real hazards that must exist with any radioactive materials but let me put the matter in perspective this way: Many of us have been to Jabiru and have wandered out to that glorious spot which is described as the Ranger anomaly 2 which is located right against the escarpment at Mount Brockman and against the most sacred tribal and traditional Aboriginal ground. With the aid of a geiger counter, I registered radiation there in terms of millirads well above the level that the world health authorities would tolerate. Yet I am bound to say that over the centuries, the aeons of history, Aborigines have camped there, drunk there, eaten kangaroo flesh from there and eaten fish from there. That is not to say that I or my Government would want to add a single millirad to the amount of radioactivity in the community. To get it in perspective, in Canberra the millrad level from natural radioactivity in the atmosphere is something like 102 millirads, plus another 2 millirads for all the atom bombs that have been exploded. So we are being subjected to about 104 millirads. However, in respect of the area I have referred to I am not talking about 105 or 106 millirads but about many hundreds of millirads. I have referred to this only to expose the situation. No one would want to add another millirad of radioactivity to the atmosphere.

What are we talking about? The first point is that we are aiming to establish under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill perhaps the world’s greatest national park and certainly one of the greatest wilderness and wetland parks the world has known. That is something to be excited about. Anyone who has been to Kakadu which is located within the systems of the three Alligator Rivers, and seen the Woolwonga wetlands and bird sanctuary would be excited about establishing something that ought to have been achieved years ago. It is now going to be done on a grand scale and this stage of development will be larger than was envisaged by the Fox Committee. It will take in all the traditional Aboriginal sacred sites in the area with a guarantee that they will be preserved. So, let us not snivel in our miseries. Let us simply say that this Government is establishing now once and for all, and not to be alienated in Australia, Australia’s greatest national park, wetlands and wilderness. It is something that will be a heritage forever. That ought to be accepted as an accomplishment. Furthermore we have projected that in stage 2 we will add considerably more so that this area will be greater still. The Act is being amended also to allow land that is part of a park or reserve in the region to be granted to an Aboriginal land trust. The land is to be subject to the granting of a lease to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Bill seeks to establish conservation zones to provide interim control and protection of land in the region until a park or reserve can be proclaimed and a series of other measures which, I think, should be applauded.

The second Bill sets up mechanisms to ensure that the environment is protected in perpetuity. Why would one want to argue with that. Why would one want to oppose the concept of the series of safeguards which the Fox Committee said ought to be established? Why would one oppose the establishment of an Office of Supervising Scientist? Why would one want to oppose the appointment of Mr Fry to this office? He is one of the most distinguished and experienced Australian scientists. Why would one want to oppose the powers, functions and conditions of service of the holder of that office and the establishment, functions and membership of the co-ordinating committee of the Alligator Rivers region? Are we opposed to the co-ordinating committee, the concept to the Fox report? Are we opposed to the establishment, functions and management of an Alligator Rivers region research institute, and are we opposed to the whole range of measures that give life to these elements? It has been said that these objective have been weakened. It is claimed, for example, that the Supervising Scientist has to act with secrecy, that if he makes some kind of discovery it cannot be announced. I wonder whether whoever talked of this had read the Bill beforehand. I wonder whether they had looked at the provisions of the Supervising Scientist to make his report and for his report to be made public. There is no provision for it to be only an annual report. He can make a report whenever he feels the necessity to do so. Indeed, I wonder whether honourable senators realise that in any case the advisers, whether scientific or otherwise, to Ministers are in that recommending capacity and that the fundamental responsibility for ascertaining and revealing the truth of the matter lies with the Ministers themselves.

Senator Wright:

– Why is all the matter within his scope subject to secrecy?

Senator CARRICK:

-I shall be happy to respond to that in the Committee stage. I simply say at this moment that the provisions are those which normally apply to public servants in the discharge of their duties. It is a well known situation. But we can discuss that in the Committee stage.

The third Bill- the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Billproposes to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in the Northern Territory in relation to the enforcement by it of certain legal requirements for the protection of the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region. That, of course, is one of the Fox Committee ‘s recommendations. Again, I was somewhat surprised by various comments because I cannot believe that one would not want to carry out what the Fox Committee recommended in that regard. Indeed, I think some Opposition senators said that we ought to have vested the power not in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory but in the superior Court, the Federal Court of Australia. Let me say that the concept is that the Federal Court is not an original court of jurisdiction in the ordinary sense. Mr Justice Fox himself saw the Supreme Court as that body.

A number of amendments have been drafted as a result of discussions. They have been drafted in order to bring about proper consultation between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth Government. I shall refer to those in a moment or two, but, to put the matter in context I say that when we are looking at what we are doing with these Bills we should remember that we are providing first of all for the very elements of the Fox Committee’s recommendations- the establishment of a national park and the establishment of mechanisms within that national park to monitor all the ecological changes and all the ecological scientific matters so that it can be made known whether there are any threats or challenges and how we can preserve these lands. This, of course, is something that is practical and real. It should be done and it will be done. It will add to the store of our heritage, not detract from it.

One honourable senator asked about our undertakings on mining in the region. If honourable senators had looked at the various statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and others they would have seen that the following statement has been made:

There will be no exploration, development or mining, at least for the time being within the area initially declared a national park. There will be no exploration, development or mining within the remaining area except with the express approval ofthe Commonwealth authorities involved.

Of course, over-riding all this is the setting up of a mechanism of a national parks and wildlife concept, a management plan and a responsibility within that management plan by that body, by the Supervising Scientist, by his advisory committees and by his research units, taken as a whole, with the aim of preserving.

In the Committee stage I shall be proposing amendments to the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill. Those amendments arise from the agreement reached in Darwin on 10 May. The amendments underline our recognition of the role of the Northern Territory in respect of the powers and functions of the Supervising Scientist which are to be established under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill. The amendments give statutory recognition to the Government’s earlier statements that the Northern Territory Government will be represented on the Co-ordinating Committee to be established under the Act. They provide also for the Supervising Scientist to have regard to the views of the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission and for reports prepared by the Supervising Scientist under clause 36 of the Bill to be provided to the appropriate Minister of the Northern Territory. In the light of the constitutional development of the Northern Territory, I am sure all honourable senators will agree that these are all very proper and responsible proposals.

As to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, we will be proposing amendments, again resulting from discussions on 10 May with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the Northern Land Council. Honourable senators will know that some concern has been expressed about the role which the Northern Territory should play in the development of that plan for the Alligator Rivers Region as a consequence of the Commonwealth Government’s decision to mine uranium. Two major decisions ofthe Government are, firstly, to proceed with the establishment of the Kakadu National Park and, secondly, to make special arrangements for the supervision of environmental protection measures in the region. The Bill to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act will facilitate the establishment of the Kakadu National Park, while the other Bill- the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill- will establish the environmental protection arrangements. Following the discussions in Darwin, the Government is pleased to say that there is agreement on the way in which the parks should be managed, respecting the rights and responsibilities of both the Northern Territory Executive and the Northern Land Council. The amendments I propose to introduce represent the agreed proposals. They provide that the Director of National Parks and Wildlife shall consult with the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission in respect of the preparation of the plans of management for parks or reserves declared under the Commonwealth Act in the Northern Territory. Provision is made for the Commonwealth to consult with the Northern Territory and to make arrangements with the Territory in respect of the performance of functions and the exercise of powers under the Commonwealth Act by officers or employees of authorities of the Northern Territory.

The rights and interests of Aborigines are recognised in arrangements that may be made under these proposed new sub-clauses by providing that such arrangements shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of any law, including of course the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, or with any agreement between the Commonwealth and an Aboriginal land council. Honourable senators will appreciate that the land comprising Stage 1 of the Kakadu National Park is to be granted to Aborigines under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Land is then to be leased to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife to be proclaimed and managed as a national park.

There is also a provision in the Bill which places the Northern Territory in a position similar to the States. Sub-section 6 (2) of the principal Act provides that the Commonwealth cannot acquireland for the purposes of the principal Act without the consent of the State where such land is also reserved under State laws for conservation purposes. The Uluru- that is, the Ayres RockMount Olga- National Park and the Alligator Rivers Region are excluded from the operation of this provision because the Commonwealth has already established national park interests in these areas.

These amendments are a recognition of the emerging independent status of the Northern Territory. I conclude by once again thanking honourable senators for their contributions, by reminding them of the significance of these Bills as part of the total development, by reminding them of what the Fox Committee said in all these matters and by reminding them that we are moving into the general orchestration of the Fox Committee in the light of the statement by that Committee that if we had proper safeguards it would not be improper to proceed with the mining and milling of uranium. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 19

NOES: 27

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question put:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 20

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– There being proposed amendments to each of the three Bills, the Bills will be considered separately. The first Bill to be considered is the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill 1978.

Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill 1978

Clauses1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I indicate to the Committee that I propose to move three amendments to clause 3.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the three amendments be taken together? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be adopted.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I direct the attention of honourable senators to the printed amendments which are being circulated, and I move:

  1. Before the definition of ‘Alligator Rivers Region’ or Region ‘, insert the following definition: “Administrator of the Northern Territory” means the Administrator of the Northern Territory acting with the advice of the Executive Council of the Northern Territory; ‘.
  2. After the definition of ‘appointed member of the Committee’ or ‘appointed member’, insert the following definition: “appropriate Aboriginal Land Council” means such Aboriginal Land Council established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 as the Minister declares by instrument under his hand to be the Aboriginal Land Council responsible for the Alligator Rivers Region for the purposes of this Act; ‘.
  3. After the definition of ‘Co-ordinating Committeee ‘ or Committee’, insert the following definition: “Director of Territory Parks and Wildlife” means the person holding office as the Director of Territory Parks and Wildlife under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Ordinance 1 976 of the Northern Territory or, if a person is acting as the Director, the person so acting; ‘.

These definitions are being put into the legislation so that subsequently matters can be drawn to the attention of the Northern Land Council and the Administrator of the Northern Territory, who will then have consultative roles under the provisions of this Bill.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to seek clarification on the amendments. The Minister for Education used the term consultative role’. I wonder whether he would expand on that term. Do I take it that it is proposed that, to take the extreme case, in the event of a clash of interests, after those people have expressed their points of view and after the points of view of the departments in the Northern Territory have been put, the matter will go to the responsible Federal Ministers and ultimately the supreme arbitrator will be the Cabinet as a whole?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– In various matters such as the co-ordinating committee and bodies of that kind, where members are appointed they will by their participation and deliberation make known their views so that in the end they will be expressed as a consensus; they will be part of the consensus in terms of the ordinary discussions on the formulation of ideas and recommendations. In the general situation the final and ultimate responsibility rests with the Commonwealth in terms of its head of legislation, but the aim of the Commonwealth will be at all times to reach a consensus with those on the spot, particularly the Northern Land Council and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the bodies which have profound interest in ensuring that the legislation is complied with.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Functions of Supervising Scientist).

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-I wish to ask a question on clause 5 (c) (i). It states that the ‘standards, practices and procedures in relation to uranium mining operations in the Region for the protection of . . . the environment’ are to be drawn up by the Supervising Scientist. I ask the Minister: Is it envisaged that the codes of practice for the mining operations will be drawn up and completed before mining commences?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– My understanding is that the answer is yes, but bear in mind that the overall codes of practice under the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill will be drawn up as soon as possible and they will have an overriding impact. In fact, they will impinge not only on the States but also on our own Territories. But from my understanding, the answer is yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6.

The Supervising Scientist has power to do all things that arc necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connexion with, the performance of his functions.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

I have read out in full the amendment which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition because it explains the nature of our opposition to clause 6 as it is presented in this Bill by the Government. We wish to make the Supervising Scientist independent of the Minister. We wish to make it possible and indeed mandatory that all the recommendations of the Supervising Scientist shall be brought before the Parliament, not just the annual report or the reports that the Minister may choose to call for. We wish to make all the recommendations of the Supervising Scientist available for perusal within the Parliament. We believe that those recommendations, if not opposed by the Parliament, should require the Government to take certain actions.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The amendment is totally unacceptable to the Government. It is fundamentally opposed to the concept of the Supervising Scientist as the Government sees it. The Supervising Scientist is a vital person to carry out investigations and to make assessments and recommendations to the Minister. If the new clause were to be added, particularly sub-clause (3), it would make a recommendation of the Supervising Scientist mandatory if no motion for disallowance was moved. That amounts to the delegation of legislative authority in default of disallowance to an official who is not even responsible to the Parliament. That may well deprive the Government of the opportunity of assessing the recommendations in the light of all known circumstances. The fundamental principle is that this should be an advisory matter. My understanding is that that is what the Fox Committee intended. The Government opposes the amendment.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator Bonner)

AYES: 19

NOES: 27

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 1 7- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 18.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Perhaps it is unchivalrous of me to rise, because I think that Senator Ryan wants to move an amendment, but I wish to draw attention to the Government’s proposed amendments to this clause. They relate to the desire and intention to give representation to the Northern Territory itself and to the Aboriginal land councils. I think that they are totally self-explanatory. I move:

  1. In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (b).
  2. After paragraph ( b) of sub-clause ( 1 ), insert the following paragraphs and word: (ba) 2 members appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Administrator of the Northern Territory; (bb) one member appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the appropriate Aboriginal Land Council: and’
  3. In sub-clause (5), after ‘nomination of, insert ‘the Administrator of the Northern Territory or the appropriate Aboriginal Land Council, or on the nomination of.
  4. In sub-clause (5) (b), after ‘the’, insert ‘Administrator of the Northern Territory or the appropriate Aboriginal Land Council, or the’.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

The Opposition moves this amendment as it considers that the co-ordinating committee as proposed, and even as expanded by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in the amendments he has just moved, will still not be representative enough of all the bodies which will have an interest in this matter. We are still concerned that the committee as proposed will be dominated by pro-mining interests and will not properly represent the interests of those people who have objections to or reservations about mining. Honourable senators will notice that the bodies which we seek to be represented on the committee include prestigious scientific bodies such as the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Conservation Foundation, which is the body which nationally represents the interests of conservationists throughout Australia and the Northern Territory and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, which we include because it represents nationally the interests of the Aboriginal people. We propose the inclusion of those bodies specifically, as well as the inclusion of the bodies mentioned in the Minister’s amendment to this clause.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to supplement Senator Ryan’s comments. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) will anticipate part of my remarks. I think that anyone who participated in the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry- that would include bodies such as the Australian Conservation Foundation- obviously obtained, even from other witnesses, an insight into what was contemplated. What I am about to say I say with all due respect. I do not claim that in the Public Service the old-boy network alone prevails. I think that on occasions it takes a very brave public servant to step out of line when he belongs to a department with a Minister who has a certain point of view. His job can be put on the line if he is thought to be troublesome.

The response might be that there is another side to the coin. I think that Senator Kilgariff from the Northern Territory hinted at the friction and rivalry which exists under the surface between the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission, which is sponsored by the Northern Territory, and its Commonwealth counterpart, the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I would like to believe that the coordinating committee will consist of representatives who do not feel shackled. If the members of the Fox Inquiry, which held lengthy hearings, had consisted only of representatives of Commonwealth departments and had dealt only with mining companies we would have felt that it was a case of the government bureaucracy versus the mining companies. The Australian Conservation Foundation appears to be a happy blending of people and merits representation on the coordinating committees.

If the Minister says that that is not on, I commend to him the comments I made during the second reading debate on this legislation, when I mentioned the role which the United States Senate played when the United States Army reclamation engineers ran unchecked. Senate committees had to curb some of the perhaps well-meaning excursions that ran counter to conservation philosophy. The searchlight has been placed on deliberations about the membership of the co-ordinating committee. I do not doubt the integrity, sincerity and dedication of members of Federal and State departments but I believe that they live in a sort of cocoon atmosphere. I believe that the leavening which would occur through discussion with representatives of the Australian Conservation Foundation and the other bodies mentioned in Senator Ryan’s amendment would promote open government, somethong about which we all talk but with which we often are reluctant to live.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I find myself in some difficulty. Have we adopted the Government’s four amendments to this clause?

Senator Ryan:

– Yes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am in some difficulty because I first saw the Government’s proposed amendments to this clause last evening. My Party has not had an opportunity to discuss the amendments in Caucus. I think my Party decided on the amendment moved by Senator Ryan somewhat prior to knowing what amendments the Government intended to move. I criticise the Government for not making its proposed amendments available to us earlier. I think that the situation that that has created can now be rectified only by the acceptance of all or part of Senator Ryan’s amendment.

The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill deals with an area which will be almost exclusively Aboriginal land under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Aboriginals have a good record of conservation. They spoil the environment less than the white population. They have a sacred affinity with the land. They have ownership of the land without interference in every respect except that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has control in, I think, four respects: One relates to entry and another to the preservation of wildlife. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has attempted to legislate on the preservation of wildlife but the legislation was found to be unacceptable by a committee which was set up by the Parliament.

There is genuine conflict between the tribal Aboriginals and the Legislative Assembly in Darwin. From time to time this conflict becomes apparent. Senator Kilgariff, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and two Ministers made a trip to the Northern Territory. They came back with a proposed amendment to the legislation to the effect that we should appoint to the co-ordinating committee two members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and only one representative of the tribal owners of the land. Surely this cannot be justified. Two interests- oft times conflicting interests- are involved. Yet the tribal Aboriginal owners of the land have been relegated to a position of half the importance of the Legislative Assembly, which has very little control over land which has been conceded to be Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Apparently we have made a decision on that issue. I think that the Northern Lands Council should have representation which is at least equivalent to the representation of the Legislative Assembly on that co-ordinating committee. I do not think that would hurt anyone. It would be a recognition of the equality of Aboriginal land owners with white land owners and, through the Aboriginals’ Land Council, they would have an Aboriginal tribunal which was equal to the white man’s tribunal in the Northern Territory. But the Government is not going to do that. It is giving the white man’s tribunal superiority over the Aboriginals’ tribunal on matters relating to Aboriginal land. This is completely foreign to the intention of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Acceptance of Senator Ryan’s amendment could possibly rectify the situation which has been created by the Minister’s amendment, which provides for the appointment of two members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and one member of the Northern Land Council to the co-ordinating committee, which has just been carried. Senator Ryan’s amendment includes provision for a representative of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. One would think that that body would have at least the approval of the Aborigines. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to consider the inequality of the membership brought back by the delegation that visited the north, what it is now asking us to pass- apparently we have passed it- and the effect that this will have on the Aboriginal community.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

- Senator Mulvihill said that I had hinted at a breakdown in communications- they were not quite the words he used- between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. I did not hint at that situation arising. I want to make a brief explanation. What I said, insofar as the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission is concerned, is that it is about time that outside influences got off the back of the Northern Territory because it is growing up and can look after itself. Senator Cavanagh misled the Committee- I must correct him- when he said that there is a difference of opinion between the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the Aboriginal people. This is the sort of story that the Opposition likes to foster but the fact is that that is quite incorrect.

The situation with regard to the legislation that is complementary to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is that details of that legislation have been circulated among the Aboriginal people. Because the Aboriginal leader, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, has indicated that he needs more time to look at that legislation he has been given that time. That is an indication of the liaison that has been developed between the Majority

Leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Paul Everingham, and the Aboriginal people. It is quite incorrect to say that there is a difference of opinion between the Aboriginal people and the Legislative Assembly. This story has been fostered by the Opposition. I suggest that we should do nothing here to try to break the union that has developed very well. Insofar as the membership of the Co-ordinating Committee is concerned, I state once again that the discussions in Darwin were three-sided. The Government took part. Northern Territory interests- that is, the Executive, Mr Calder and I- took part. The Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, and all his advisers also were present. We came to a unanimous decision. All parties were happy with the conclusion reached. I see no reason why a unanimous decision which has been reached in Darwin should be altered here.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I must rise once again. I get somewhat irate when it is suggested that I have been making misleading statements to the Committee. If I have in any way misled the Committee, I apologise for it. However, one must accept that there is strong evidence to suggest that my comments were not misleading. Mr Temporary Chairman, you were the chairman of the committee of which I was a member and which went to the north and found great hostility to the Legislative Assembly. The former Majority Leader, Dr Letts, refused to talk because of some television program on Aborigines. The committee appealed to all parties for harmony. The Legislative Assembly’s proposals for complementary legislation to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act were rejected outright by the Northern Territory Land Council with the result that numerous amendments were suggested to the Legislative Assembly. As Senator Kilgariff said, these have just been circulated for consideration and discussion.

I have copies of those amendments in my office, along with a letter from the Northern Land Council asking for opposition to be expressed to them because the amendments are not suitable and provide little improvement to the original legislation. A delegation from the Northern Land Council came to Canberra and asked for opposition to be expressed to the very proposals we are now discussing as they were not representative of their views. It would appear that if they were prepared to journey to Canberra to tell a different tale to the one told by the mission which journeyed from Canberra to Darwin, there is justification for believing that I am not trying to mislead the Committee but that I am reporting to the Committee the suggestions contained in those representations. If good rapport is being established between the Legislative Assembly and the tribal Aborigines in the Northern Territory, no one would suggest that this rapport would be upset or corrupted by giving Aborigines in the Northern Territory equality with the white man’s parliament in the Territory. I do not think Senator Kilgariff would suggest that we would be corrupting that cooperation and friendship by giving them equality with the white man. At least we can say to them that we think that they are entitled to that equality and that therefore it should be given to them. In the absence of any proposal by the Minister as to how he can get over the injustice created by the proposed amendments, I suggest that he should indicate at least some support for the reasonable amendment moved by Senator Ryan, which seeks representation from among a panel of organisations which have a great interest in this field.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I do not want to continue a running commentary but I want to clear the air. As I have said before, there is rapport between the Majority Leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the Aboriginal people. I could well imagine that there is a clause here or there in the complementary legislation that requires adjustment. As the doors are wide open to the Chairman of the Northern Land Council and as there is agreement between him and the Majority Leader, I suggest that that matter should be taken up there. I see absolutely no reason why the discussion of complementary legislation should be undertaken in Canberra. It is not our responsibility. I think it would be a very good idea if we were to leave the Territory to the Territorians and let them work it out. The Commonwealth Government should stay in the Federal sphere and let the States and Territories resolve matters in their own spheres.

As far as representation on the Co-ordinating Committee is concerned, who said that the Minister will nominate particular people, white or black? Who said that the Legislative Assembly will nominate two white people? I suggest that we should leave the Territory alone and let it find its own way out. In these discussions it was the suggestion of the Majority Leader and me that the Northern Land Council should be represented. As this body develops, it will be found that there is more than one Aboriginal person on it.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government will oppose the proposed amendment. I direct the attention of the Committee to the plain reading of clause 1 8 (2 ) of the Bill, which states:

The Minister shall cause to be prepared and kept a list setting out the name of each Department, authority, incorporated company or other body that in his opinion has an interest in uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers Region . . .

Quite clearly that imposes an obligation on the Minister to include on the list any body or organisation which, in his opinion, has an interest in the uranium mining operations in the region. The Minister will be required to exercise that power in good faith. That is the situation.

I and my Government share many of the goals and intentions of the Opposition of endeavouring to preserve the environment and to prevent despoliation. Accordingly, I shall be happy to take back to the responsible Minister the substance of the discussion that has taken place in Committee, and to indicate the types of bodies for which Opposition supporters seek representation. I shall ask the Minister following passage of the Bill, to take note of those observations. It should be recorded that this amendment was, of course, before the House of Representatives and that the opportunity was afforded there for any clarification to be made. Nevertheless, I will make that representation to the Minister.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I would like to take up the Minister’s concluding remark that he would take our representations to the Minister, and marry it to the remark of Senator Kilgariff that the people of the Northern Territory should be left to do their own thing. When the Minister takes back that list I wonder whether, if there is some question about the Australian Conservation Foundation comprising people from the south, he would consider recognising the claims of the conservation societies in Darwin to be represented upon that committee. Further to Senator Kilgariff’s comment about the need for better relations between the Northern Territory National Park and Wildlife Service and the Federal body, I wonder whether the Minister could use a parable to illustrate the functions of the proposed committee. If there were differences of opinion such that the Northern Territory wildlife people were to contend that water buffaloes should be retained as a commercial proposition and the Federal people were to advocate their total eradication in order to produce a better habitat for other forms of wildlife, would not that be a situation in which one could apply the litmus test to Senator

Kilgariff’s claim of the existence of sweet reasonableness? Would it not be a matter such as would fall within the ambit of the proposed coordinating committee?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– In view of the generosity of the Minister in offering to refer to the Minister the matters that the Opposition has raised- which I hope he will in fact do- I would like to refer to another matter. In response to his answer that clause 18 (2) provides a solution to our problem, I note that Clause 1 7 provides as follows:

The functions of the Co-ordinating Committee are-

to consider programs for research into, and programs for the collection and assessment of information relating to, the effects on the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region of uranium mining operations in the Region;

Then we have a whole list of the duties of the coordinating committee. Those duties are directed to looking after the environment of the Alligator River, not the mining of uranium. It is to protect the environment, since mining is to take place, and to ensure that the land is reclaimed after mining has ceased. The co-ordinating committee is to include a supervising scientist, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, two members appointed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, one appointed by the Northern Land Council and another chosen by the Minister. But does this in fact restrict the Minister? Sub-clause (2) of clause 1 8 provides:

The Minister shall cause to be prepared and kept a list setting out the name of each Department, authority, incorporated company or other body that in his opinion has an interest in uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers Region.

It is not those who have an interest in the environment of the Alligator Rivers Region who are to be listed; rather it is those who have an interest in uranium mining. The conservation organisations of Australia have been pursuing a protest concerning the mining of uranium. Surely they should be on the list of those eligible for appointment to an environment co-ordinating advisory committee. The wording of sub-clause (2) is such as to suggest that the very purpose of the Bill will be defeated. If the committee is to comprise, in addition to possibly the scientist and the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, 1 8 other persons who represent mining interests, one can appreciate the fears of those who oppose uranium mining. Sub-clause (2) should at least be expanded to include the phrase ‘or other bodies’, with the emphasis on conservation bodies rather than those interested in mining.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I hope I may be able to help Senator Cavanagh, because my thinking is not far removed from his. I read clause 18 (2) as indicating, in plain words, that conservationists and environmentalists would be deemed bodies that would have an interest in uranium mining operations. I do not read ‘an interest in uranium mining operations’ as referring only to the narrow commercial exploitation of uranium; rather that it includes all interests, including those related to possible detrimental effects. I believe that must be the meaning ofthe clause.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It would be clearer if it were spelt out.

Senator CARRICK:

-I will invite the Minister to look at what is proposed. I do not undertake that such an amendment should be made now. It could perhaps be made in another place. It is a long while since I tried to understand law, but as I understand the legal meaning of ‘interest’ it would mean an interest, not merely in positive exploitation but also in preventing detriment. I will gladly pursue the honourable senator’s proposal.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I understood the Minister, in answering Senator Cavanagh, to say that in this instance his own view was not far removed from that of the honourable senator. I can see no reason why such an amendment could not now be made. The Minister has promised to take the amendment back to the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, but that may be too late. Would he agree to postpone the passage of the clause until there could be consultation with his officers and with the Minister with a view to including the amendment now? There would be plenty of time in which to do that. The Committee has a number of clauses to consider, and a number of other amendments are to be proposed. Once the Bill went back to another place there would then be no undue delay in its being passed.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I, of course, did not undertake to take an amendment back to the Minister, and certainly not the Opposition’s proposed amendment. I wish to correct that misapprehension. I have no doubts as to the plain meaning of clause 18 (2). I believe that it incorporates precisely what Senator Cavanagh has in mind; that it encompasses the environmentalists and conservationists as well as the exploiters. I have undertaken in good faith to take the Opposition’s view to the Minister. Doubtless the lawyers can then examine it. The Bill will go back to the other place and any change could be made there. I suggest that the Bill should be carried now.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Perhaps my remarks have been prompted by those of Senator Cavanagh, but am I to take it that the matter of an imaginary difference of opinion on protection of the environment concerning water buffaloes would not be one for the proposed co-ordinating committee; that it would be outside of its function?

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes. The national parks and wildlife bodies- both Federal and territorialhave a fundamental interest in the depredations of the wallowing water buffalo. The coordinating committee has an interest in uranium mining in terms of its positive and negative effects as well as its environmental effects.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You will make water buffaloes radioactive.

Senator CARRICK:

– The fact is that the good Lord has been doing that by letting them drink highly radioactive water for many years. It does not seem to have stopped them in any of their feral purposes.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator Bonner)

AYES: 18

NOES: 27

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 1 9 and 20- by leave- taken together.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to direct some remarks to clause 20(2). The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) when speaking to clause 18(2) said that it had been a long time since he had studied legal interpretations. He said he thought the word ‘interest’ applied to many people other than those engaged in uranium mining. He pointed out that the word could be applied to people who were opposed to uranium mining. The Minister’s admission that he has not studied legal interpretations for some time is borne out by the fact that recent judgments of the High Court suggest that we cannot rely too much on the dictionary meaning or the generally accepted meaning of words. It is evident that we must seek the legal meaning of words that are used in documents.

When the Senate debated the Australia-Japan Foundation Bill 1976 I drew attention to the fact that words of which we did not know the legal meaning were used. For instance, the legislation contained the words ‘pecuniary interest’. The legislation placed certain restrictions on a member of the Foundation who had a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered. Our founding fathers knew what the term ‘pecuniary interest’ meant. We all thought we knew until the High Court judgment in a case against Senator Webster. We are told that if one is a director of a company with in excess of 25 shareholders and one has a contract with an authority one does not have a pecuninary interest. Therefore one does not have a pecuniary interest if one ‘s company has a contract with an authority.

Senator Brown:

– Was the court not constituted by one judge on that occasion?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Senator Brown:

– Who was the judge?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– One cannot criticise him. It was Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick. It was a peculiar judgment. It completely changed our understanding of what ‘pecuniary interest’ means. Can anyone tell me what it means? I will now try to satisfy Senator Wright.

Senator Wright:

– You are directing our attention to which clause?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Clause 20, sub-clause 2. 1 raised this point in connection with a Bill we debated previously. On 6 April 1976, when dealing with the Australia-Japan Foundation Bill 1976, as recorded at page 1051 of the Senate Hansard, Senator Withers, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill at the time, said:

I will draw the attention of Parliamentary Counsel to the Comments made by Senator Cavanagh.

So, on that occasion, Senator Withers could not tell me the meaning of ‘pecuniary interest’. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) who is in the chamber may be able to tell me what it means. Chief Justice Barwick can tell us what it does not mean but he cannot tell us what it does mean. On that occasion in 1976, Senator Wright, in one of his less generous moods that evening, said:

I should like to make a few comments before the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) leaves the chamber. I listened to Senator Cavanagh without, I am afraid to confess, much enlightenment.

That was very unkind of him. Perhaps on that occasion I was right but, I suppose, Senator Wright could have forgotten to say so. He went on:

All I want to say is that these words have been subjected to judicial interpretation in different cases -

That is what I am complaining about- and we have the advantage of the precedents that have built up. If we journey into the woods unknown and adopt a Cavanagh formula, we will begin again from the outermost circumference of the darkness. When this aspect goes before the Parliamentary Counsel I have no doubt he will bear those matters in mind.

One would have thought that because so many precedents in case law have been created we would have emerged from the darkness and out of the woods. But the judgment of the Chief Justice returned us to the darkness. Today we do not know what the term means, so we are back in the woods. I mention to Senator Wright that great minds run in like channels and there have been great minds among Parliamentary Counsel from time to time. They have been more in line with the Cavanagh formula than with the words of which we do not know the meaning. I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Counsel to a more proper definition of ‘pecuniary interest’ which is spelt out in Commonwealth legislation. A chief justice would have great difficulty in construing it to mean something that the average person does not think it means. I refer the Senate to section 15 (5) of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act. I protest against draftsmen continuing to use words which the High Court has told us do not mean what we all thought they meant and what many still think they mean.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 21.

  1. 1 ) The Minister may appoint a person to be the deputy of an appointed member of the Committee.
  2. If an appointed member of the Committee was appointed on the nomination of a Department, authority, incorporated company or other body and that Department, authority, incorporated company or other body nominates, in writing, a person for appointment as the deputy of that member, the Minister shall appoint that person as the deputy of that member in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ).
  3. If the Director of National Parks and Wildlife nominates a person for appointment as his deputy, the Minister shall appoint that person as the deputy of the Director.
  4. The deputy of a member is entitled to attend a meeting of the Committee not attended by the member of whom he is the deputy, and, while so attending, shall be deemed to be the member.
  5. 5 ) The Minister may-

    1. determine the terms and conditions of appointment of a person appointed as the deputy of a member; and
    2. subject to sub-section (6), at any time terminate such an appointment.
  6. Where a person is appointed as the deputy of a member on the nomination of a Department, authority, incorporated company or other body, or on the nomination of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, the Minister shall not terminate the appointment unless-

    1. he is required to do so by sub-section 20 ( 1 ) as it applies by reason of sub-section (8) of this section; or
    2. the Department, authority, incorporated company or other body, or the Director, as the case may be, requests, in writing, the termination of the appointment.
  7. The deputy of a member may resign his appointment by writing under his hand delivered to the Minister.
  8. The provisions of section 20 apply to and in relation to a deputy of a member in like manner as they apply to and in relation to the member.
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move the following amendments:

  1. In sub-clause (2), after ‘nomination of, insert ‘the Administrator of the Northern Territory or the appropriate Aboriginal Land Council oran the nomination of’.
  2. In sub-clause (2), after ‘and’, insert ‘the Administrator of the Northern Territory or the appropriate Aboriginal Land Council or’.
  3. In sub-clause (6), after ‘nomination of, insert ‘the Administrator of the Northern Territory or the appropriate Aboriginal Land Council, on the nomination of.
  4. In sub-clause (6) (b), after ‘the’, first appearing insert Administrator of the Northern Territory or the appropriate Land Council, the ‘.

The substance of these amendments parallels the substance of the amendments which we dealt with earlier. They seek to insinuate two elements- the Administrator of the Northern Territory and the appropriate Aboriginal Land Council- throughout the clause, which deals with deputies. Consistent with the acceptance of the previous amendments, these amendments also should be accepted.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 30- by leave- taken together.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Clauses 27 and 28 require consideration from a substantial point. Clause 27 authorises the Supervising Scientist by notice to require any person to furnish him with such information in the possession of that person as is specified in the notice. Sub-clause (l)(b) provides that the Supervising Scientist may require a person to furnish to him, within such time and manner as he thinks fit, with such documents in the possession of the person as are specified, being information relevant to his functions. Honourable senators should note that sub-clause (2) states:

A person shall not, in purported compliance with a notice served on him under sub-section ( 1 ), knowingly furnish information that is false or misleading.

Penalty: $1,000

To make my point I go now to clause 28, having noted that clause 27 deals with a case where the furnished information is false or misleading. Clause 28 provides for the situation where a person fails to furnish the information required, either in whole or in part. An unusual course is then taken. I hope that the Minister will tell me, if his advisers can give him the information, where any similar jurisdiction exists in any court. It would exist in the older courts, such as courts of equity, on discovery, to order information but what is the situation from the point of view of administering acts which are visited by penalties where the court is brought into it? That is by the way.

Clause 28 deals with the case where a person has refused or has failed to comply with the notice to provide the information required. In that case the court may make an order requiring that person to furnish the information or documents. Sub-clause (4) of clause 28 states:

The court shall not, under this section-

It does not say: ‘Under this act’; I emphasise that it says ‘ under this section ‘- . . require a person to furnish information or a document if the Court is satisfied that compliance with a requirement to furnish that information or document might tend to incriminate that person.

I suggest that what is wanted is not that dichotomy between clauses 27 and 28. It should not be a case where the court, if it is satisfied that the document might tend to incriminate, shall not order that it be furnished. We want a provision that says that nothing in either clause 27 or clause 28 shall be construed to require any person to furnish any document or information that might tend to incriminate him.

Let me elaborate on that point. I have pointed out that, under clause 27, merely the supplying of false or misleading information, pursuant to the notice, is an offence. A person is not excused from that offence because he has told a lie while trying to cover up his crime. But what the law, other than this provision, guarantees to a person is a right not to be required to incriminate himself by official requirements of any authority except in certain cases- special cases. So it can be seen that under clause 27 a person is exposed to a penalty if he tells a lie to camouflage his criminal activities. But if he refuses to supply any information whatever, under clause 28 the court is forbidden to order the information- but here again it applies only if it is satisfied that the information may tend to incriminate. The point is that when one takes advantage of the privilege against self-incrimination, one does not have to go into the witness box. One just says: ‘I refuse to give evidence because any evidence that I give may, in my opinion, tend to incriminate me’. A person does not have to satisfy a court that the evidence would tend to incriminate him. He simply makes the statement. The Crown can get information aliunde- from another source- but that person has the right not to incriminate himself.

I keep these things in mind because I am reminded of the time when the most cantankerous person in the world had his ears cut off for insisting upon his right not to tell, I think it was the Star Chamber, of the sermon that he had preached contrary to some ridiculous law relating to religion in 1640. When the Long Parliament came into office, in indignation at the injustice that had been done to him, it voted him no less a sum than £5,000 in recompense. As I say, that was in 1640. Since then we have had established in our jurisprudence this right not to incriminate oneself. Therefore, in clause 27 there should be a provision that nothing in this clause shall require any person to furnish any document or information that might tend to incriminate him. That should be repeated for clause 28. It is not a case of satisfying the court that the evidence or document might tend to incriminate a person; it is a case of where the Crown has to prove that the person is not entitled to immunitythe privilege, as we call it in the law of evidence, not to give any evidence or furnish any document or information that might tend to incriminate him.

I suggest that during the suspension of the sitting for dinner the Minister for Education should take the time to see that those two clauses are remoulded. Instead of having the present subclause (4) of clause 28 we should introduce a new sub-clause (4) that provides that nothing in clause 28 or clause 27 shall be construed so as to oblige any person to give information or to furnish documents that might tend to incriminate him.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– In recent days there have been many statements about the great qualities of being a well-furnished lawyer. I am the most starkly unfurnished of people in the law. So that I can more fully understand Senator Wright and on the basis of what I call plain words, being duly reproached, and properly so, by Senator Cavanagh on that, I suggest that clause 27 does not in any way make it an offence to refuse to comply with the notice. It makes it an offence to furnish false or misleading information. Clause 27 implies only one offence. So, if a person feels that he is being incriminated, he has a simple resort which ought to be available under the law. He simply says: ‘I do not wish to comply because it may incriminate me’. If, instead of doing that, he gives false information then he is liable- I think quite rightly so- to a penalty. Clause 28, as I read it, says on the one hand that the court shall compel a person to publish information but on the other hand it says that if the publication of that information would incriminate the court shall not compel. It seems to me that that having been stated satisfies what Senator Wright is seeking. But if it does not, perhaps he could discuss the matter with the law officers during the suspension of the sitting and we could then see whether we can get to a more sophisticated and better furnished arrangement.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Mr Temporary Chairman, please permit me to occupy your time for a couple of minutes. In our Committee proceedings we have the opportunity of repetition, just as the Germans do: Speak once drunk for effect and repeat it when sober so that it will be understood.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Do you know who the Bellman is, Senator?

Senator WRIGHT:
Senator Peter Baume:

– ‘What I tell you three times is true ‘. It is from the Hunting of the Snark.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Thank you. Let us proceed in utmost goodwill. I point out that if, in my innocence, I were to get a notice from an official and I knew full well that I had 100 units of uranium and that this was contrary to the law of the land, and if, thinking that I would tell a lie, I said that I had only 50 units, I would be punishable under clause 27 and subject to a $1,000 fine. But if I knew my rights and if this Parliament had protected them properly, I would know that when I got that notice I need not answer it because to answer it would incriminate me. Having told a lie, as we simple country folk are often disposed to do rather than wrestle with the officials of Canberra or the Northern Territory, I could be fined for furnishing false information. But if the clauses were drafted properly and said that nothing in clauses 27 or 28 required any person to furnish documents or information that might incriminate him, I would not be liable to the penalty unless the Crown proved the offence otherwise than by information from my mouth. I say to the Minister that that is the point. Clause 27 provides only for false and misleading information but in that case one does not preserve the right of a person to be immune from incriminating himself. Under clause 28, when the court is approached for an order to require a man who has refused or failed to comply with the notice to furnish the information or document, that right is given after the court is satisfied. That is to say, it is after the onus has been placed on the defendant- and it is a misplaced onus. I hope I have made myself clearly understood. By breaking up the two situations into two clauses- giving at one stage the right against self-incrimination under clause 28, albeit with a misplaced onus, and having at the other stage, clause 27 dealing with the furnishing of false or misleading information in relation to a matter where a person could have claimed privilege from selfincrimination I have shown that the clause needs an explicit provision saying that nothing in these clauses shall require a person to furnish information or documents that might tend to incriminate.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I suggest that we adopt Senator Wright’s suggestion and defer this matter for the moment. The sitting will shortly be suspended for dinner. During that time I will see that senior law officers, and indeed the AttorneyGeneral if it is so desired, are available to Senator Wright. We will form some opinion, which I am not competent to form, and I will report back to the Committee immediately after the suspension of the sitting. I suggest, therefore, that we proceed to deal with the next amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– If the matter raised by Senator Wright is to be discussed during the suspension of the sitting, then I suggest that some other points should be taken into consideration. Whilst I have always been opposed to trie necessity for a person to answer questions that might incriminate him, we as a Parliament have adopted that principle. The Evidence Act now provides that a person has no privilege where an answer may incriminate him. A lot of other Acts contain the provision that a person has no escape where an answer may incriminate him, but I believe the answer he may have given to the Supervising Scientist in investigating whether the Act has been breached cannot be used in a court of law.

It appears to me that the offenders under this clause would be mining companies. We have to ask: Are the mining companies protecting the environment? Do they have documents which indicate they are not protecting the environment? Therefore, can they escape the provisions of the Act by not making that information available, just by stating that that might incriminate them? Is this yet another protection for the mining companies?

Clause 29 deals with the right of the Supervising Scientist to enter premises, with the consent of the occupier to make a search. I do not suppose anyone could complain about that. Subclause ( 1 ) of clause 30 states:

Where the occupier of a building or place has refused, or is unwilling, to consent to the entry of the Supervising Scientist into that building or place under section 29, the Supervising Scientist may apply to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia for an order under this section-

The Northern Territory Supreme Court may make an order granting entry to the Supervising Scientist so that he can see whether there has been any breach of the Act. I am concerned about this particular clause as it will apply to Aboriginal land and Aboriginal communities. It seems to me that it would be in breach of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which gives the tribal elders the right to say who enters their property. I visualise that there could be many areas of tribal land which have some sacred significance into which the elders would not wish to see any intrusion. Therefore, I doubt that it is right for the Scientist to expect to have the right to enter Aboriginal land or that it is right for the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to order that the Supervising Scientist may enter the land if there is some objection by the

Aboriginal people. I cannot visualise that the Aboriginal community would be offenders against the Act and, therefore, I think some protection should be afforded to them. I think some alteration should be made. Clauses 29 and 30 should not apply to Aboriginal settlements on Aboriginal land. I do not know how far the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) can go in giving this matter consideration.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I am not at liberty, of course, to do anything other than to express a view. My interpretation of the clause is that the consent of the occupier has to be given in the first place, and if that consent is refused, it would be necessary for the Supervising Scientist to go to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and to establish- the Court having full, conscious knowledge of all the traditions and sacred attitudes of the Aborigines- that there is an overriding public interest.

I am bound to say to Senator Cavanagh that, provided that is the case, I would not grant the Aborigines total exemption from the overriding public interest even though I very much respect the profound and complex Aboriginal culture. I believe that the liberty of every individual citizen in this country must be put to the final test as to whether it contests the overriding public interest. So long as we take it to the courts of our land which fully understand these matters, in the absence of further pleading I rest assured that the court would not allow the Supervising Scientist to intrude unless the court were satisfied that there was an overriding public interest so to do.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I agree with the interpretation of that clause by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). He upholds the principle of overriding public interest more than his Government upheld the overriding public interest in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Public interest is not involved there. It is Aboriginal land. The Aborigines have full control. It has been argued in this chamber that the rights of the public applying to other land do not apply to land that has been granted to Aborigines under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Aborigines have the right to refuse persons entry to their area. The only exception is when there is a national interest in mining.

Senator Chaney resides in Western Australia and in that State if a person is using his land for other purposes he can prevent mining on his land. But the Aboriginals cannot do that. In their case the public interest was overriden. The intention of the Government was to override public interest and to give greater consideration to Aboriginals but we are breaking down the principles embodied in the Aboriginals Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act by taking into consideration public interest and allowing someone to invade their property and to search their houses. That is the danger of this clause. This issue might not arise. In the interests of Aboriginals it should be put beyond doubt and they should be given some protection.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I suggest that these matters be deferred until after the suspension of the sitting. I will try to respond to the points that have been raised at that stage. In the meantime I will seek advice.

Sitting suspended from 5.54 to 8 p.m.

Senator CARRICK:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting there were several matters outstanding on which I agreed I would seek advice and report back to the Committee. One matter was that raised by Senator Wright concerning a conjunction of two clauses regarding possible penalties for non-disclosure of information. Senator Wright has had a brief opportunity to talk to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and I have undertaken that I will pursue this matter further with the Minister concerned. On that basis Senator Wright has indicated that he will not at this point pursue the matter further.

The second matter concerns a question raised by Senator Cavanagh. I have sought advice upon it. My attention has been directed to a similar provision in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill under which land councils are given the same kind of rights and authority to take such action as is the Supervising Scientist. So in itself it is not a new provision, but my attention is directed to the fact, in conjunction with my own comments on the matter, that it is not compulsory that the judge shall make an order for access. The judge may at his discretion make such an order. My understanding therefore is that the judge would first of all look to the requirement ibr the Supervising Scientist to establish that there was a need beyond any doubt at all and without alternatives to get access, and that would take, in the judgment of those who advised me, a very considerable effort to establish. The judge, in the terms of the Bill, would have to assure himself that there were no other alternatives, that this was something without alternatives and indeed absolutely necessary in the discharge of the scientist’s duties, and the judge of course would be aware of the reasons for non-access and the particular cultural reasons. Therefore, on this basis the judge has a discretion to allow access or not. In the ordinary situation of weighing up the matter and the fact that the provision had been used before in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill it seems that that ought to be a satisfactory explanation.

I do not think we can accept a situation in which there would be a total prohibition upon access. In other words, no citizen of Australia would have a right of total prohibition to prevent access. The ordinary law of Australia, I should think, must prevail in that if it can be established that for very good reasons and when there are no alternatives a lawful purpose must be pursued, with respect, I think it must apply to the Aborigine as it must apply to the non-Aborigine, consistent with the facts that in any case the judge is given discretion. On that basis I commend to the Committee the Bill as it now stands.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I can only voice my protest. I think the judge would act with caution in such a situation. I accept that, but it seems to me that for the first time there has been a breach of the land rights legislation under which tribal Aboriginals were supreme. I notice that under clause 30 if permission to enter is not given to the Supervising Scientist he may make an application to the Supreme Court. Under clause 30 (2) the person against whom an order has been sought has the right to appear in the proceedings. Sub-clause (3) reads:

Where, in proceedings under this section, the Court is satisfied that access by the Supervising Scientist to the building or place to which the proceedings relate is necessary for a purpose referred to in section 29, the Court may make an order requiring the person against whom the order is sought to give his consent, . . .

The order is not that the scientist can enter; the order is that the person must give his consent. Sub-clause (3) continues:

  1. . within a time specified in the order, to the entry of the Supervising Scientist into that building or place for that purpose.

If the person refuses to give his consent despite the court order, I take it that the scientist cannot enter, but what is the penalty? There is no penalty provided under this clause. Is the person then charged with contempt of court?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have been interested in this subject which Senator Cavanagh raised prior to the suspension of the sitting. If I may be permitted I will take a minute to remind the chamber that in industrial matters industrial inspectors are given the right to enter premises almost on demand for the purpose of inspecting documents and records to ascertain whether there has been compliance with industrial awards. That has been a long-established authority to enter premises.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Business premises.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Business premises, yes. There has developed in this chamber a rather vigilant regard for the rights of property so that other officials usually are required before they enforce a right of entry to get a justice’s warrant, a warrant authorising search which a justice should give only on a prima facie case of reasonable evidence that the entry is required to establish a prima facie offence. In this instance it is not an industrial matter. It is a new sphere of exceptional industrial development and so far as I know the draftsman- and let me be informed if my knowledge is insufficient- is informing us that the Supervising Scientist is entitled to enter but only with the consent of the occupier. However, if consent is withdrawn, for some reason all that the court is empowered to order under clause 30 is that the occupier give his consent. I will be pardoned in my despairing effort to acquire knowledge in this place if I confess to a dismay as to why the order of the court should not be that the Supervising Scientist shall be entitled to enter.

I now come directly to reply to Senator Cavanagh ‘s inquiry which is the inquiry within my mind too. If the occupier having been ordered to give his consent says ‘I am damned if I will give my consent ‘ or if he just says ‘ I do not consent’, only contempt proceedings are available- long drawn out proceedings in which obviously the court proceeds with the utmost restraint. For my part I do not understand this new aspect of draftsmanship which puts within the mouth of the judge jurisdiction only to order that consent be given. What is required, if it is justified, is an order that the Scientist shall be entitled to enter. I point out to Senator Cavanagh that the requirement to go before the judge is a much greater protection to the right of property than we usually accord to ordinary property rights which can be trespassed upon when there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence having been committed simply upon the obtaining of a warrant from a justice of the peace who has listened to an ex parte statement or seen an affidavit.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Before the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) replies I wish to comment on what Senator Wright said. I thank the honourable senator for his legal words of wisdom which could stand in good stead some defendant under the Act in the future. Perhaps the need to investigate would not be as urgent by the time the court hears a contempt charge against the defendant. However, I think that Senator Wright misses the point. We acknowledge the right of inspectors to enter premises to see that the law is being obeyed. We have accepted that right in industrial law and in every law which concerns the collection of a tax. I remember the law relating to the hen levy. There was a dispute over whether inspectors should get a warrant. The point I make is that we have placed certain areas of Australia under the sole control of Aboriginals. We promised that under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. They are the supreme controllers of the land. Now we are whittling down that control.

I believe that the offending clause of this Bill is 29 (2) which provides that notwithstanding section 70 ( 1 ) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act except in the performance of function under this Act or otherwise in accordance with the Act or a law of the Northern Territory a person shall not enter or remain on Aboriginal land. We offered this land to the Aboriginals. We got them to accept it. Now we are trying to whittle down their control of it. I do not think that I can take the point any further. I want to clarify the position. There is a difference between an industrial inspector and the Scientist under this Act.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I am grateful for the discussion from both honourable senators. It is my understanding that the judge’s recourse would be to contempt proceedings. I acknowledge that this is a more gentle approach than the normal approach but I think that it has been done deliberately to try to exhaust every procedure without penalty. I have not studied this matter but I do not believe that the granting of land rights gives an absolute exemption to Aborigines against the ordinary running of the bulk of our ordinary Australian laws. For example, I cannot believe that the ordinary access in pursuit of criminal law could not be allowed.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is under a law of the Northern Territory.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am simply saying that whether this comes under a law of the Northern Territory or under a Commonwealth law is irrelevant to the principle of whether one could have such access. 1 am now advised that under section 70 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act except in the performance of function under this Act or otherwise in accordance with this Act or a law of the Northern Territory a person shall not enter or remain on Aboriginal land. Quite clearly the law of the Northern Territory operates.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Now you are including the words ‘or this Act ‘.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, but the Northern Territory could make 20 more laws tomorrow. I understand what the honourable senator is saying. I shall put it under study but I believe that this is perhaps the gentlest way of not using heavy boots in the area. I commend the clauses.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 31.

  1. 5 ) Nothing in this section shall be taken to affect the operation of section 9 of the Ombudsman Act 1 976.
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

Clause 3 1 (5) of the Bill states:

Nothing in this section–

The clause relates to secrecy- shall be taken to affect the operation of section 9 of the Ombudsman Act 1 976.

All that is being asked is to add the words ‘or the operation of any similar provision in a law of the Northern Territory that confers functions on a person similar to functions conferred on the Ombudsman by that Act’. This is an extension of the principle. I would think that honourable senators would agree with it. I commend the amendment.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition opposes this clause entirely. The purpose of the clause is, in fact, to ensure the confidentiality of business information acquired by the Supervising Scientist or his staff in the course of their duty. We are opposed to the enshrining of the principle of business confidentiality above the requirement for the Supervising Scientist to have the freedom to report any information that may be of interest to the Minister or the Parliament.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-This clause concerns me. I raised the matter three hours ago by way of an aside. I am yet to understand why in this legislation there is such a concerted effort to preserve the secrecy of information that is acquired by the Supervising Scientist. If a proper case is made out to preserve secrecy then the safeguards of the public interest seem to me to be dependent upon a Minister’s discretion. From that I do not always get full confidence. Clause 31(2) states: . . a person . . . shall not, either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of a duty under or in connexion with this Act, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information concerning the affairs of any other person acquired by him by reason of his office or employment under or for the purposes of this Act.

Clause 3 1 (3) states:

Sub-section (2) does not prevent the communication of information or the production of a document by the Supervising Scientist or a member ofthe staff assisting the Supervising Scientist . . .

to the Minister, to the Permanent Head of the Department that deals with matters arising under this Act or to an officer of, or an employee in, that Department approved by the Permanent Head . . .

That is an extraordinary series of expressions that seems to channel legally the information of the scientist only to the Minister or the permanent head or his approved officers. The clause further states:

  1. to a person to whom, in the opinion of the Minister, it is in the public interest that the information be communicated or the document produced.

My concern is that the opinion of the Minister is not a proper criterion as to whether an officer’s knowledge acquired in the course of his duty should be communicated to the public. I recognise that clause 36 sub-clause ( 1 ) states:

The Supervising Scientist shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the Minister a report on the operation of this Act . . .

Sub-clause (2) provides:

A report . . .

shall set out all directions . . .

b ) shall include information concerning-

the collection and assessment during that year of information relating to the effects on the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region of uranium mining operations in the Region;

Sub-paragraphs (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) follow, then paragraph (c) provides that a report shall also include ‘a statement setting out the costs of his operations’. Sub-clause (3) provides:

The Supervising Scientist shall furnish to the Minister such additional reports -

That is, reports additional to annual reports: . . as the Minister from time to time requires and may from time to time furnish such other reports as the Supervising Scientist thinks fit.

Then, in sub-clause (5), by a quirk of draft.manship which almost misled me, the following appears:

The Minister shall cause a copy of any report furnished to him under sub-section ( I )or(3) -

Why not be plain and state ‘any report furnished to him pursuant to this section ‘? It continues:

  1. . to be laid before each House of the Parliament . . .

Having reached an understanding that the Minister is obliged to lay before the Parliament the annual report and any additional reports required by the Minister, the Bill adds that the Supervising Scientist may from time to time furnish to the Minister also such other reports as he thinks fit. So the Supervising Scientist will be able to furnish an additional report to the Minister once a day and the Minister will thereby become bound to put that report before the Parliament. What is the need for the secrecy provision contained in clause 36? Why, under clause 31 sub-clause (3) paragraph (b) in particular, is it left to the Minister to determine whether it is in the public interest that any communication of information or any document furnished by the Supervising Scientist should be made available to a certain person?

I point out the structure of this provision simply because we in the Parliament are entitled to a simple disclosure of matters of public importance which are going on at the expense of or in the interests of the government of the country. Under this provision the Supervising Scientist could tomorrow and every day thereafter, in the form of a report, state: ‘I have received this information, Minister. My comment is that XY is transgressing your policy’. He could state: ‘My comment is that XY deserves a bonus for particular efforts to preserve the environment’. He could make any comment he wished. If he put it in the form of a report to the Minister it would be bound to be tabled in the Parliament and would then become subject to parliamentary privilege for communication to the public.

What in the name of Christmas is the principle by which secrecy is to be preserved under clause 31(3)(b), which provides that only in cases where the Minister forms an opinion that it is in the public interest that information gained by the Supervising Scientist should be communicated, not to the public, but to any person other than the Minister, the Permanent Head of the Department or an officer of the Department who is approved by the Permanent Head? Whence have we obtained that expression that within the departmental service of this country the head of a department can say: ‘Bill Smith and Tom Jones are approved as authorised communicants, but the rest of the Department has no such approval ‘?

That is not the point. The point is that by way of reports all the information can be communicated to the Minister, automatically channelled to the Parliament and then, with full and absolute privilege, communicated by the Press to the public at large. Yet we are using clause 36 to entrench an absolute system of secrecy. Perhaps there are principles behind it which impelled those people who propose the Bill to establish this citadel of secrecy. I have shown how this secrecy provision will be simply demolished. If we have a Supervising Scientist who is bent upon providing to the public all the knowledge he has in his possession, he has only to put the information in the form of a report to the Minister from day to day and it will become public knowledge. I beg to be excused from participating in the stupidity which in clause 3 1 erects a citadel of secrecy, which is subverted by the following clause dealing with reports to Parliament.

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

– I am grateful for Senator Wright’s remarks, but I believe that what appears to him to be irreconcilable can be reconciled. It is a normal process of government that the servants of government preserve confidentiality of information which comes to them day to day. Subject to certain provisions contained in the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill the staff of the Supervising Scientist and the Supervising Scientist himself should not be exceptions to that requirement. The fundamental point is that it is for the Government and not an official to determine whether information received from a confidential source should be made public. Indeed, I should think that every day in every country Ministers make that precise decision. They receive information from their officers which is regarded as confidential and they make a decision as to whether it is made public.

I think that frequently Ministers will make a decision that certain confidential information in the public interest should be made available to a particular person. I can accept, for example, that confidential* material might need to be made available, shall we say, to the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Committee or to some other scientific body or some body with specialist knowledge. This might- be information which would normally be confidential because it concerned the performance of a particular enterprise but of which limited disclosure was required for a particular purpose..

The great safeguard in this provision- it is the answer to the Opposition’s arguments- is that the Supervising Scientist, who will be a highly responsible and very senior officer and whose judgment day by day will be relied upon in terms of what is critical and what is not, will know that there is a safety valve against anything which is relevant or critical being hidden from the community if this is being done or if he thinks it is being done by the Minister. So there is no way in which a Minister can suppress something that the Supervising Scientist regards as critical. That, surely, is the maximum possible safeguard. The Supervising Scientist is to be an enormously responsible person. He will put in an annual report. He may also put in other reports. These reports are to be tabled. In a moment I will be moving amendments to clause 36 which provide that copies of the reports shall be laid upon the tables of both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days. This situation should be tightened as a result of these amendments. I do not believe that it is irreconcilable. I believe that normal confidentiality must be observed by the ordinary officers, who would receive a great deal of confidential matter. It is for Ministers- not officers- to judge what government material is released to the public. There is the magnificant safeguard of the Supervising Scientist’s responsibility to publish. I commend the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33.

The Supervising Scientist shall consult with, and shall have regard to the views of, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife in relation to any matter arising in the course of the performance of his functions that concerns the functions, powers or duties of the Director.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

This amendment is consistent with the consultation provisions. I commend it to the Committee.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– AsI stated in relation to the first clause considered, I am in some difficulty as the Labor Party has made no decision on the question. Personally, I am opposed to the amendment for the reasons I have stated previously. The Supervising Scientist must have consultations. That is understandable. This amendment is the result of the trip in a VIP aeroplane to the Northern Territory during sitting hours. It is a sell-out to the Legislative Assembly. Everybody who is interested in the welfare of the Northern Territory seems to have forgotten that Aborigines live in the Northern Territory. The proposed amendment to clause 33 states:

The Supervising Scientist shall-

consult with, and have regard to the views of, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife in relation to any matter arising . . .

consult with, and have regard to the views of, the Director of the Territory Parks and Wildlife … or the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission established under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Ordinance 1 976 of the Northern Territory.

The Supervising Scientist is required to have consultations with the Directors of National Parks and Wildlife and the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission but is not required to seek the advice of Aborigines on the conservation of their land. The Aborigines are not mentioned in this regard. They do not count any more. This is the whole basis of the Viner administration of Aborigines. They do not count in the Australian society. We take their land against their will and turn it into a national park. As I have said, they are possibly more concerned with conservation than is the white man. We consulted every white adviser in the Territory but no one thought to consult the Aborigines who are living there. It is their tribal land, but we do not consult them or seek their advice on conservation, which is wrong. I have no instructions on this question from my Party but I record my opposition to the attitude taken in this Bill that the black man in the Northern Territory is of no account.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I reject outright the statements made by Senator Cavanagh. Whilst I respect entirely his genuine concern for the Aborigine and the energy he has devoted to their welfare, he has no monopoly, either practical or theoretical, for their welfare. I think he would not mind me saying that as I say it with good will. There are to be Aborigines on the Coordinating Committee. The Supervising Scientist will be working directly with the Aborigines in that regard. In the whole matter of the management plan of the national park, the Aborigines will be consulted at every turn and the Supervising Scientist will be walking alongside them every step of the way.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that the tendency to say that the Government is favouring the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, as though it was an alien body, and ignoring the Aborigines is wrong, lt is strange that we are talking about what will be a sovereign governing body of a Territory and ultimately a selfgoverning State- that is, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- and seeing it as some alien thing. It is extraordinary that we believe that there is some glory or deity in the sovereignty of the Senate or the House of Representatives but see something imperfect or wrong in a mirrorimage body, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I think it is an error of judgment to do so. We should all hope for the long term success of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Assembly will walk alongside the indigenous people. It will have a profound effect upon the day by day lives of the Aboriginal people and they are not to be regarded as something alien. It is to be regarded as the sovereign government of the Territory in which these things are occurring. Therefore, we should co-operate with it fully.

Under the Constitution the Commonwealth has direct responsibility for Aborigines. In a very practical way the Commonwealth is carrying out that responsibility. It will from time to time act in co-operation with and as a partner to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Commonwealth will not abdicate from its responsibilities to the Aborigines. I make it abundantly clear that the Fraser Government is second to none in its practical desire to further the welfare and dignity of the Aborigines. Nothing in this Bill detracts from that. The reverse is true. As we establish the Kakadu Park, as we set up mechanisms to ensure the preservation of the ecology, as we define the sacred lands, surely we build the dignity, the freedom of choice and the fulfilment of the Aborigine. I would like to put that on record.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), with his sanctimonious voice and his pleading does not influence me at all. What he has said we have heard since December 1 975- ‘Our concern is for the Aborigines. No one is more concerned than is the Fraser Government. ‘ From the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) through his representative in this chamber, Senator Guilfoyle, we hear that every time we ask a question about Aborigines. I offer no condemnation of any statement that the

Minister for Education, or that anyone in the Fraser Government, has made on Aborigines. Their statements have been admirable. It is their actions that I am concerned about.

Although the Minister says, ‘We will be consulting’, we do not know who the Supervising Scientist will be. Whether he will consult or not we do not know. But the Government does not trust him too far. His consultation with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife is made mandatory. He is not trusted to consult with everyone. His duty is set out in the statute, so he will have to fulfil it, but there is no concern about Aborigines. We are told, ‘He will consult, because we make statements that he will ‘, but the Government does not bind the scientist towards the Aboriginals as it does towards the director. Why is this?

We have to face the whole situation. Whilst that is a winning plea as election propaganda, in fact the legislation of this Government is wholly anti-Aborigine. That is shown again here. There is surely no harm in asking the Supervising Scientist to consult, and heed, the Aboriginals as to what should occur on their land; but we are told ‘He may do it, we hope that he will, but we do not put him under the same compulsion to do so in their case ‘.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I have, and always have had, regard for Senator Cavanagh ‘s attitude towards the Aboriginal people, and to the responsibilities that he had when he was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, but he should realise that the attitude he is now taking stamps him as living in the past. Times are changing. When he speaks of a sell-out to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, he should realise that that Assembly represents the people of the Northern Territory; that from 1 July it will, in its own right, have control of the Territory. I regret that Senator Cavanagh should have continued to adopt that frame of mind. His attitude to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and to the people of the Territory is divisive.

Ours is now a Territory approaching statehood. We are responsible for our own land and must not think in terms of white and black. We must think of ourselves as the people of the Northern Territory regardless of colour. Let us not be paternal. Let us recognise that times are changing; that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly represents the people of the Territory as a whole. I look forward to the day, which I believe is coming, when we shall see more and more participation by Aboriginal people in the government of the Northern Territory. That is certainly to be encouraged. I see nothing wrong with this situation at all. Earlier I did, in that the Federal Parliament was being paternal towards the Northern Territory. It had not realised that times were changing. The Territory has a right to have a say in these matters. It will have it, and when I speak of the people of the Northern Territory I speak of them all, white and black together.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Certain things that have been said call for a reply. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) acknowledges my sincerity on the Aboriginal question, as does Senator Kilgariff. I too acknowledge that I have not a monopoly of sympathy for Aboriginals. Indeed, I believe I am only one of what is the majority of Australians; that the minority group is represented by this Government. I admit that I am living in the past. 1 am living in that period of history when Labor tried to lift up Aboriginals and give them something. I see that movement declining but I am still hopeful that we can return to that era and really do something for the Aboriginal people. My remarks do not attempt to ignore the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The amendment gives recognition to it, and necessitates consulting with it and accepting its advice. I want only to put on an equal footing with it the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory. Senator Kilgariff is coming very close to Senator Sheil in his action.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I do not know what you are referring to.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Does the honourable senator find that offensive?

Senator Kilgariff:

– Do not accuse me of anything that is akin to racism, if that is what you are endeavouring to do.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am referring to your thinking as akin to that of Senator Sheil.

Senator Kilgariff:

– Be more specific.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If the honourable senator finds that offensive -

Senator Kilgariff:

– I am just asking you to be more specific.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would be very willing to withdraw it. He says: ‘Now the Territory is going to come into its own; we are going to have self-determination on 1 July; we will rule as one people, white and black. We are going to combine as Northern Territorians, no matter what the colour of our skins’. But unfortunately those with dark skins have had bad treatment from Australian society. That Government. Senator Kilgariff ‘s Government, recognises this fact. It has given them a benefit- land rightsover and above the ordinary white citizen of Australia. Now we have an attempt to take them back to the stage they were in before those concessions were made, to the days of nonrecognition. Senator Kilgariff says that he hopes to see more in the Legislative Assembly; that they can get into parliament and thus control themselves.

No privilege is extended to these unfortunate people -who have for some 200 years been the underdog. The Government was forced to give them some benefits in the form of land rights but there is no attempt to recognise them. I say that we acknowledge the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. We acknowledge as equal to it the Aboriginal community on that section of the Northern Territory over which the Federal Government has given it control. As to that land over which the Federal Government has given them control, they should have the say. They, as well as the Northern Territory Government, should be consulted as to the future. The Minister has uttered nothing but pious platitudes about what the Government will do for the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory. I ask the Government to show its loyalty, its faith, in the legislation instead of making it mandatory for the scientist to consult certain people but not to consult the Aboriginal people.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

- Senator. Cavanagh’s remarks are still divisive. There is absolutely no argument in the Northern Territory that this piece of country that we are talking about, the Kakadu National Park, belongs to the Aboriginal people. Under the current situation the Aboriginal people have leased it as a national park to an organisation that is running it as such. It is Aboriginal country that has been leased as a national park to this organisation. It is quite proper that the people of the Territory, both black and white, participate in the running of this organisation. Earlier the people of the Northern Territory had no say whatsoever because this was a federal matter. Now the people of the Northern Territory have a say in the running of the park. The Aboriginal people are participating in the day to day running of the park. They are having a say and they are consulting with this organisation to which they have leased the land under the arrangement proposed by the Fox report.

Surely this matter has been pursued enough. I believe that Senator Cavanagh is endeavouring to create a situation which splits black and white.

He has to accept the fact that the situation is now changing. As far as I am concerned the people of the Northern Territory are neither black nor white- they are people of the Northern Territory and we should leave it at that.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I regret that I must delay the Committee. However I believe statements which are not correct should be rectified. First, there is an acceptance that the park area is Aboriginal land. The Aboriginals have not leased it to anyone. The legislation we are considering seeks to provide machinery to enable the Aboriginals to lease the land. The Fox Committee made a recommendation which the Government could adopt or reject. As I have pointed out, the Aboriginals have not been able to lease the land to anyone. This will be the situation until these Bills are passed.

Aboriginals on the Northern Land Council came to meet members of the Labor Party’s Aboriginal affairs committee. They asked us to oppose certain sections of the legislation, particularly that section of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill which provides that if they refuse to lease their land the Minister can appoint an arbitrator to decide whether they must lease it and, if so, the terms and conditions of such lease. The Aboriginal community has not leased the land and it is opposed to leasing it under the provisions of the wild life legislation. They believe that the land should be a national park and under Aboriginal control.

I have no doubt that this legislation will be carried because of the numbers that the Government has at its disposal. My whole purpose in raising this matter is not to divide the people of the Territory, because they are divided enough now. This situation will remain while the Legislative Assembly and Senator Kilgariff maintain their attitude in respect of Aboriginal communities.

Senator Kilgariff:

– Leave us alone and we will be less divided.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-They are divided. Out of this legislation I want to see the rights of Aboriginals preserved in respect of land that we have given to them. It is their land. I am not trying to give them exclusive rights over that land. I say they should be consulted at all stages in a manner equal to the way in which the Legislative Assembly is consulted. No one has argued against this proposal. Senator Kilgariff says that the Aboriginals will be part of the Northern Territory and as such they will have a say. The Minister says they will be consulted all the way along the line. But whilst we make it mandatory to consult with other people there is nothing in the legislation to make it mandatory to consult with Aboriginals.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am forced to rise in this debate because of the remarks of Senator Kilgariff against my long-time colleague Senator Cavanagh.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A former Minister.

Senator McLAREN:

-Yes, I will refer to that. Senator Kilgariff referred to Senator Cavanagh living in the past. Senator Cavanagh in reply admitted that he was not ashamed of living in the past because he remembers most vividly the treatment that has been meted out to Aborigines in this country over the years. Let us not forget that a Liberal-Country Party government was in office for 23 years during which time these people were suffering. That government had time to do something then. However, it took a Labor government to give Aboriginals land rights. Senator Kilgariff got up in this place and claimed that it was a Liberal-Country Party government that did it. The Labor Government introduced the legislation. As has been said often in this place, legislation to give Aborigines land rights was introduced into the Parliament on 1 1 November 1975 when the Labor Government was unceremoniously sacked. Therefore, Senator Kilgariff should not get up and accuse the Labor Party of doing nothing.

Everything that Senator Cavanagh has said and done, first as a back bencher, then as a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and now again as a back bencher, has been in the best interests of Aborigines. His integrity in these matters is beyond question. It is a sad state of affairs when a new senator from the Northern Territory, who has not known Senator Cavanagh for very long, gets up and accuses him of living in the past. We who have known Senator Cavanagh for a long time acknowledge that he has always been a champion for the underdog and that he will not be browbeaten by anyone no matter what is said. He sticks to his guns and we give him credit for that. Senator Kilgariff, a few moments ago, accused Senator Cavanagh of trying to pit black against white. Nobody in this country has tried harder to unite the blacks and the whites than has Senator Cavanagh. If Senator Kilgariff would like to read some speeches in Hansard he will find that Senator Cavanagh is on record on many occasions as defending Aborigines against Senator Kilgariff’s colleagues in the National Country Party who have tried to exploit them over the years. But Senator Kilgariff gets up and accuses Senator Cavanagh of trying to divide the community in the Northern Territory. He says: Leave it to us in the Northern Territory’. But what did Senator Kilgariff do in the Northern Territory in all the years he had the opportunity to do something for the Aborigines? In the short time I have been a member of this place I have been out on settlements in the Northern Territory and I know that the honourable senator had the numbers in the Legislative Assembly of which at one time he was the President. What did he try to do when he had the numbers- and when he had no opposition at all? He could have done everything in those years which he now says the Government will do if we hand over everything to the Government.

AH that Senator Cavanagh is seeking in speaking to this amendment is to ensure that the Aborigines of the Northern Territory are given the full recognition and the same rights as the white community. Of course, as I said when I spoke last night on other legislation, all that people in the Northern Territory- people like Senator Kilgariff- want to do is to get control of the mining interests in the Territory so that they can exploit the situation to the fullest and get every dollar they can out of uranium mining for their mining company friends. That is all they are after. Therefore I ask Senator Kilgariff not to get up here again and say unkind words about Senator Cavanagh because I will not stand for it.

Senator Kilgariff:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I claim to have been misrepresented. I take exception to what the honourable senator said when he referred to ‘my mining friends’. I think that is an aspersion against me. I would ask him to withdraw what he said.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

- Senator Kilgariff claims to have been misrepresented.

Senator McLAREN:

– I was referring to Senator Kilgariff as a supporter of the Government. If they are not his friends they are friends of the Government that he supports and he is championing their cause in this debate. If the honourable senator takes my remarks personally, I withdraw what I said. But I say that the mining companies are the friends of the Government in this issue, and he is a member of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 34 and 35- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 36.

  1. 5 ) The Minister shall cause a copy of any report furnished to him under sub-section (1) or (3) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after having been received by the Minister.
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

This amendment requires not only that the reports of the Supervising Scientist be laid before each House of the Parliament within 1 5 sitting days but also that a copy of every such report furnished to the Minister on or after 1 July 1978 be furnished to the ‘Minister of the Northern Territory’ who is responsible, or principally responsible, for the administration of matters relating to parks and reserves in the Territory as soon as practicable after the report is laid before a House of Parliament. It simply acknowledges that in a spirit of co-operation the same courtesy should be extended to the Northern Territory Parliament as is extended to this Parliament.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I oppose this amendment for the same reason that I opposed the amendment to clause 33. 1 do not want to go over it again because the debate tends to develop into a defence of Senator Cavanagh. I have no embarrassment about taking this action. If my prestige in the Territory is not high enough to carry me through now I am sure it will be when Senator Kilgariff’s remarks are distributed throughout the Territory. If this national park is to be anything there must be a tri-party agreement between the Federal Government, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the Aboriginal community which owns the land. That is not dividing the issue; it is a recognition of the fact. Now we find that the Minister shall cause a copy of any report furnished to him and laid before the Parliament to be furnished to the ‘Minister of the Northern Territory’. However, where does the poor Aborigine get his information and learn what is in the report? I do not know. Possibly he has to wait until it is published in the newspaper. He has been completely excluded from this arrangement. This is an arrangement between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the Aborigines are left out in the cold. This is so despite all we hear about what this Government is doing for Aborigines. I just leave it at that. The remarks I made about the amendment to clause 33 apply equally to this amendment. I want to know what is the violent objection that this Government has to including the Aborigines, the owners of the land, as equal partners in this venture?

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

– I do not think that those comments deserve a reply. Senator Cavanagh, if he is nothing else, is a student of Parliament and of parliamentary procedures under which he knows that the way in which one makes a document available to the public, whether the public be Caucasian or Aboriginal, is for the document to be tabled in Parliament. It then becomes available to the public, whether European or Aboriginal. The best way to facilitate the availability of such a document to the Aboriginal people in the Territory is to table it in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly where the Aborigines as full citizens of the Territory and of that Parliament will have total access to it. They will get access to it in the same manner as every other citizen, that is, by direct handing of the document to them or by direct mail instantaneously once the document is tabled. There can be no neglect at all of this provision. Day after day we table documents here which are imperative to the interests of sections of people in this country. We do not race out and give copies of the documents to the people before we table the documents in the Parliament. The whole basis of the Westminster system of Parliament lies in the fact that the publication of documents is through the table of the Parliament. It is not to be said that this amendment is in any way a denigration of the Aboriginal people. It is the procedure by which they as full citizens are enabled as quickly as possible to get total access to documents and they will get that access equally and as speedily as every other Australian.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) is correct. As a student of the Parliament, I know that the procedure which he has outlined is the correct procedure. We have received an assurance that the Aborigines will get these documents but there is no such provision in the legislation. If the Minister for Education were responsible for seeing that they did and we had a guarantee that he would remain responsible for that we could rest assured that the Aborigines would get them. However, we embody strict guidelines in legislation to ensure that, if some other Minister with less responsibility than the Minister for Education is made responsible for this matter, he will not do something that the Minister for Education would never anticipate being done. Ministers do not have a record of holding office in perpetuity. Sometimes they die; sometimes they resign; sometimes they get promoted; sometimes they are sacked. Who the next Minister will be we do not know. Therefore, when we provide security for the Parliament and for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in respect of this matter we should give security also to the Aborigines just in case the next Minister is not as reputable as the Minister for Education. After all, within the near future we could have even a Labor Minister.

What the Bill says is that a report shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 1 5 sitting days after the report is received by the Minister and that a copy of it shall be furnished to the ‘Minister of the Northern Territory’. It does not say that the report shall be laid before the Northern Territory Parliament. I suppose that the ‘Minister of the Northern Territory’ would then lay the report before the Northern Territory Parliament. It then would become public property and the newspapers would take it up and publish it. But can the Minister tell me what newspapers are circulating in the Alligator Rivers Region? Which of the multitude of newspapers that go to the outback Alligator Rivers Region do the Aborigines read? We would want to know that to ensure that the Aborigines get the information that is contained in the report. Can they speak the language in which the newspaper is published? While this is not a problem for the ‘Minister of the Northern Territory ‘ it is a problem for the Aboriginal community. So, despite the nice words that have been said by the Minister, this amendment again means the rejection of one of the parties to the agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1978

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3.

  1. by inserting after the definition of ‘ranger’ in subsection (1 ) the following definition: “Region” means so much of the Alligator Rivers Region, within the meaning of the definition of that Region in the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, as does not include-
  2. the area shown as the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve on the map referred to in that definition; and
  3. the areas (being pastoral leases) described on that map as Mount Bundey, Goodparla, Gimbat and Eva Valley; ‘; and
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The amendment is self-explanatory and I commend it to the Senate.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I require an amplification by the Minister of the situation regarding the designating of the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory. Does this in any way mean that in any conclave between the Commission and the Federal National Parks and Wildlife Service the Federal instrument will be submerged to the advantage of the State instrument?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Where the power lies with the Act so the authority of the Commonwealth lies. In other words, the Commonwealth has the residual authority. It may use a co-operation or consultation agency. It may devolve. But in fact the final and residual power lies with the Commonwealth.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4.

Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (2) and substituting the following sub-section:

  1. Land in a State shall not, without the consent of the State, be acquired by the Commonwealth for the purposes of this Parliament if it is land that is dedicated or reserved under a law of the State for purposes related to nature conservation or the protection of areas of historical, archaeological or geological importance or of areas having special significance in relation to Aboriginals. ‘.
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The amendment ensures the territorial status of the Uluru- Ayers Rock-Mount Olga- National Park and the Alligator Rivers Region. I should think that the amendment would find no demerit in anyone ‘s eyes.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capita! Territory

– The Opposition opposes the amendment moved by the Minister. In content, it conflicts with the amendment moved by the Opposition to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, which was to the effect that certain pastoral leases should be assumed immediately by the Commonwealth and made part of the national park without reference to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. We were unsuccessful in moving that amendment but we still persist with the view that the Northern Territory administration should not be required to give its consent to certain actions of the Commonwealth. We still believe that the Commonwealth should assume those pastoral leases immediately and not be obliged to get the consent of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in order to do so.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The matter I wish to raise- I do not think it concerns a hypothetical situation- is whether under the new system according to this legislation the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, like any State government, would line up in the queue to partake of any nature conservation grants that were made from time to time. It may be argued that some particular area justifies the making of a grant, just as happens in a recipient State. If the Federal National Parks and Wildlife Service puts up the argument that the Northern Territory should receive a nature conservation grant, would the spending of any grant apportioned be on a team spirit basis by the two park systems?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– As I understand this amendment, the first thing it does is make an exception of the Alligator Rivers area and the

Ayers Rock area. It thenlays down the conditions which apply as between the Commonwealth and all States. That is set out in the latter part of the amendment, which states that the land:

  1. . shall not, without the consent of the Territory, be acquired by the Commonwealth for the purposes of this Part if it is land that is dedicated or reserved under a law of the Territory for purposes related to nature conservation or the protection of areas . . .

I am instructed that that provision is identical with what applies now in regard to the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States. What it basically means is that after we have constructed these parks, the Northern Territory government can, in effect, dedicate other areas as national parks by its own decision, just as the States can do. When it does that, the power of the Commonwealth to acquire land for other purposes is qualified by this provision. There is nothing new in that. As I have said, it is identical with what exists already. As to what would happen in any arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States, in particular in regard to the Territory after it gains self-government, in relation to the money supplied, I would imagine that this would be by way of an arrangement under section 96 of the Constitution in the ordinary way in which one would make such an arrangement. But if the Northern Territory government dedicates a park of its own then that park will function as a State park, the same as happens in any other State.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– To illustrate my point I refer to a matter that I discussed with Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development during the Estimate committee hearings. I do not say this in a disparaging way, but if, to placate the wishes of Senator Kilgariff and his colleagues, there is to be this greater in-depth partnership, is there anything in this recognition that will take away from the Federal Parliament or the appropriate Commonwealth Ministers the responsibility to adhere to the United Nations conventions and other conventions in regard to the Cobourg Peninsula wetlands and the whole concept of that? Is there anything in this dual relationship of the future that would negate the responsibilities of the Commonwealth to meet the terms of the wetlands conventions insofar as the Cobourg Peninsula is concerned?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Nothing that a State could do or a self-governing Territory could do could in any way over-ride the powers of the Commonwealth which derive either from its own Constitution or through treaties under that Constitution. So where there are areas of wetlands which involve treaty powers or its own powers the authority of the Commonwealth runs.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) and substituting the following paragraphs:
  2. an area of land owned or held under lease by the Commonwealth, including any such area that has been dedicated or reserved under a law of a Territory for the purposes of a national park, nature reserve, protected area or wildlife sanctuary or for similar purposes: (aa) an area of Aboriginal land held under lease by the Director; ‘;

Senator RYAN (Australian Captial Territory) (9. 18) - I move:

The Opposition does not wish to see the inclusion of Aboriginal land of this kind under this provision of the Act. It is our view that the administration of Aboriginal land should be carried out under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1 976.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I feel that I must add something to this debate about this matter because I have keen interest in it. I have an obligation as a result of the visit of a delegation from the Northern Land Council which a few weeks ago in Canberra had discussions with various people concerning Aboriginal Affairs. I am very much opposed to this clause. I should have liked to have spoken on this matter during the second reading stage of the debate but, apparently because of some arrangement between the Opposition and the Government, I found at the last minute that I was unable to do so. We have a National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which does not include a reference to Aboriginal land. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Act provides for the appointment of an arbitrator if Aboriginals do not agree to the leasing of their land. The point is that the Aboriginals have not leased it yet.

The Northern Land Council is opposed to the right of an arbitrator to decide whether Aboriginal land shall become a national park or whether it shall be controlled by someone else. In the Northern Territory we are dividing up the northern area into parts on which Aborigines may live, some parts for plants and wildlife, and some parts over which mining interests can take control. The mining interests are given first preference if they decide to mine. If a dispute arises about whether land should be for the use of Aboriginals or for growing trees, of course the trees take preference over Aboriginals and the Aboriginals are kicked out because we want to preserve some flora or fauna. I recall Senator Wright’s remarks about Lake Pedder in Tasmania. He referred to the benefits the people of Tasmania would receive from the proposal to build a hydro-electric scheme for the supply of electricity. Then Moss Cass went there, and found a wizened old worm under a rock and immediately said: ‘This project must be stopped so we can preserve this worm ‘. Of course, if in the Northern Territory we see a frizzled, half-alive worm under a rock and it is desired to preserve that worm so that our children and our children’s children for generations to come can go and see a dried up, frizzled half-alive worm then that area has to be preserved for the worm, not for the Aborigines. That is the position: The worm gets preference over the Aborigines.

It is possibly to my discredit that the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was introduced by the Labor Government. It is one of the most vicious, discriminatory Acts on the Commonwealth statute books. This Act is an infringement of human rights and civil liberties. I do not think that anyone examined it when it passed through the parliament, It gives a warden the right to arrest people, to seize a vehicle and to keep it for 60 days. If he launches a prosecution against an individual he can keep that vehicle until the case is heard. Therefore, we find that the Aboriginals are placed under this restrictive clause. Their vehicles can be seized; they can be arrested but they need not be charged. That is what we are doing to the Aboriginal people in this legislation.

Those people who want to protect the land for the dried up old worm or for some stunted scrub are so sincere about this matter. Let them protect that land but not to the detriment of the Aboriginal people in the area. If there cannot be agreement on the matter, I suppose it is reasonable that an arbitrator should be appointed to decide who is superior, who should get the benefit of this land- whether it be the conservationists who want to preserve it for the worm or the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Act makes provision for an arbitrator to be appointed but the Aboriginals are concerned because section 7(2) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act states:

Subject to this section, the Governor-General may-

by Proclamation, declare an area specified in the Proclamation to be a park or a reserve and assign a name to that park or reserve; and

) by the same or by another Proclamation, declare the whole or a specified part of the park or reserve to be a wilderness zone.

Therefore, it is not a question of whether the Aboriginals consent; it is not a question of arbitration; it is a question of a proclamation by the Governor-General, obviously acting on Executive Council advice. The Ministers in Canberra decide that they will declare an area. This does not apply only to the Alligator Rivers Region. It applies to all areas and territories. Therefore, the Aboriginals are forced under. They did not mind giving way to the conservationists when they were not involved. But this particular clause seeks to include Aboriginal land in the definition of ‘area’ in section 7 ofthe Act, which provides that the Governor-General may issue a proclamation.

Therefore, the Aboriginal community is brought under the power of the Act whether they want it or not. They are brought under repressive sections of the Act. An Aboriginal going about his lawful and traditional way of life, perhaps performing some sacred obligations of his tribal customs, under this Bill can now be arrested for carrying on the traditions of his tribe in a particular area if a warden, without a warrant, decides to arrest him and seize his vehicle. This is foreign to Aboriginals. The Government will not get their co-operation in any way by forcing them to come under the terms of such an Act. Therefore, I support the opposition to the inclusion of this new clause 5 (a) (aa). The matter has operated satisfactorily, but it is unforgivable for the Government to want to involve Aboriginals and apply it to all territories.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Much of what Senator Cavanagh has said relates not to this Bill but to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill which is now a statue. Indeed, many of his comments about the arbitration of an agreement between the Northern Land Council and the Director relate to that Act. It is important, I think, to look at the basic principles. The Fox Commission looked at the question of the creation of national parks. It examined the wishes of the Aboriginal people in relation to national parks. At page 204 of the second Fox report, it is stated:

The wishes of Aboriginals with land rights in the areas are of prime importance in any consideration of the establishment of a national park.

It goes on to say:

The Northern Land Council has proposed that the areas within the Region claimed as Aboriginal land, together with the Woolwonga Aboriginal Reserve which is already Aboriginal land, should be a national park.

At page 306 of the report, it is stated:

The suggestion made to us on behalf of the Aboriginal people is that there be a lease in perpetuity for the Director of National Parks and Wildlife-

The Fox inquiry, in expressing the wishes of the Aboriginal people, saw the creation of a national park as being through a lease in perpetuity to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The earlier quote that I read defines in general terms Kakadu as it is proposed. The methodology is that it should be by way of a lease in perpetuity. On those grounds my Government would oppose the deletion of clause 5 (a) proposed paragraph (aa).

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to clarify this question because obviously I did not make myself understood and I apologise for that. It is a weakness. An Irishman is allowed to speak until he is understood, I believe. I cannot see how I am confusing this with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Proposed paragraph (aa) is in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, not in the Land Rights Act. How on earth anyone can say it is in the Land Rights Act is beyond me. I read section 7 (2) (a) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which gives the Government power to make proclamations. There were some things that I would have said on the amendments to the Land Rights Act if I had had the opportunity, but this is the one that definitely gives the power. As the Minister for Education has demonstrated, the Fox report said that the area should be made a national park under a perpetual lease to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Of course the lease has to be voluntary. There is no suggestion in the recommendation by Mr Justice Fox that if the Aboriginals do not agree the Government should confiscate the land.

There may be justification for the appointment of an arbitrator if the Aboriginals are opposed to the proclamation but are prepared to enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth to preserve the area as a national park. There is no suggestion in the report by Mr Justice Fox that the provision in section 7 (2) (a) which gives the right to acquire by proclamation land for development into a national park should ever be permitted in respect of Aboriginal land. Therefore all that the Minister has said is no defence to compelling Aboriginals to give up their lands. I think it is agreed that if it is in a national park area they should give it up but in view of the multitude of powers that the director has and the controls by which the Aboriginals are compelled to abide, and which they do not understand, to my mind that is something criminal and should not be allowed to happen.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Ryan’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon.

T. C. Drake-Brockman, D.F.C.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 28

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6.

Section 8 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are substituted:

8C. (1) . . .

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

-Imove:

After sub-section (2) of proposed section 8c, insert the following new sub-section: (2a) A township shall not be established or developed by the Director on Aboriginal land except after consultation with the Aboriginal Land Council established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1 976 for the area in which the land is situated. ‘.

I believe that the amendment is self-explanatory. As my colleague, Senator Cavanagh, has established in his contribution on the previous amendment, we are asserting here the supremacy of the Aboriginals land rights claim over any other claims or developments that shall be made in that area.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Before the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) comments on the amendment, I feel that the remarks of Senator Cavanagh and the forebodings of Senator Kilgariff necessitate some explanation. If the Government does not accept our amendment what penalties will exist wherever the township is established if people in the township go out on the rampage? With all due respect to Senator Kilgariff, people may have high-powered rifles. This point was made by Professor Harry Messell. What penalties will apply if people in a mining town transgress wildlife ordinances? During the Estimates Committee hearings Senator Carrick admitted that it will be a king-sized job to try to make people conscious of the environment. People will be stuck out there. They may be bored. There are so many problems in isolated areas. With all due respect to Senator Cavanagh, I sometimes believe in penal clauses. It depends on who they are directed against. I am anxious to know how these town people will be controlled. They could get high-powered rifles and go out on an orgy of destruction.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government will oppose the amendment, primarily because it is superfluous. Within the existing Bill there is more than ample opportunity for consultation. A township can be established only if the plan of management so provides- this is contained in proposed new section 8c. ( 1 )- and the

Bill makes extensive provision for consultation at the plan of management stage. I refer honourable senators to the amendment to section 1 1 of the principal Act. Consequently, extensive provision is already included for consultation on the establishment of a town. I repeat that the proposed amendment is superfluous.

With regard to Senator Mulvihill ‘s comments, no township can be established or defined without a plan of management. That plan of management is prepared by the Director after very considerable consultation. Within that township the authorities have full control to see that there is no breach of the law. As to the town’s people going out into the national park or wilderness areas, ample provision is made in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act for wardens and rangers to police their activities just as in any other situation. This would occur particularly because of the highly sensitive nature of the area concerned.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The opposition of the Labor Party is directed more to proposed new section 8c. which states in part:

  1. 1 ) Where the plan of management relating to a park or reserve the whole or part of which is within the Region so provides, townships may be established and developed within the park or reserve or that part of the park or reserve, as the case may be, and the succeeding provisions of this section apply accordingly.
  2. A township, other than a township to which subsection (3) applies, may be established and developed-

    1. by the Director; or
    2. b ) by any other person on land held under lease by that person from the Director.

That is the point. The Director decides where the township will be, how it will be developed for the requirements of the community- again it is on Aboriginal land- and what type of township it will be. There is no provision in this Bill for consultation on uranium mining with the Aboriginals. I do not want to repeat the point. I continually refer to the fact that there is a neglect of consultation with Aboriginal communities.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7.

Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1) “sub-section (2), no right, title or interest” and substituting “sub-sections (2) and (3), no interest”; and
  2. by adding at the end thereof the following subsections: “(3) The Director may, for the purposes of Part II of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, surrender to the Commonwealth any interest held by him in respect of land within a park or reserve within the Region. “(4) In this section, ‘lease’, in relation to Aboriginal land, means sub-lease. “.
Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

-I move:

The import of this amendment is that under the Government’s National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill the Director may, for the purposes of Part II of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, surrender to the Commonwealth any interest held by him in respect of land within a park or reserve within the Region. Our proposal is that it should be mandatory that the Director surrender such interest. Again, we believe that such an amendment would be in the interests of the Aboriginal people and would do no harm to the interests of the Director or the interests of the Australian people.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government will oppose the amendment. It believes that the amendment is not only unnecessary but it could aiso have some unfortunate and unintended effects. The proposed amendment would require the Director to relinquish to the Commonwealth any interest held by him in land in a park within the Region for the purposes of Part II of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The requirement would also apply even if no land rights claim were made. The Director’s leasehold interest granted by the Aboriginal land trusts could also be affected even though the land is already vested in those land trusts. The Director is subject to ministerial direction. If a land rights claim were upheld and the Director refused to surrender his interest in land within a park the Minister could use this power of direction. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary and unfortunate in its possible consequences.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I should like some clarification of this matter. This is an amendment to section 9 of the principal Act. That section states:

  1. 1 ) Notwithstanding any law of Australia or of a State or Territory, but subject to sub-section (2), no right, title or interest held by the Director in respect of land within a park or reserve shall be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of.
  2. Where the plan of management relating to a park or reserve so provides, the Director may grant leases of, or licences in respect of, land in that park or reserve in accordance with the plan of management.

Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the Director may, for the purposes of Part II of the Aboriginal

Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, surrender to the Commonwealth any interest held by him in respect of land within a park or reserve within the Region. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1 976, after the Aboriginals have established their traditional right to the land the Commissioner, Mr Justice Toohey, can recommend to the Minister that the land should be acquired for the Aboriginals. If that power is given to the Director he may hand over the land. However he may not do so. I do not know what compulsion he would have. There has been some argument that the meaning of the word ‘may’ puts a compulsion on him. When a decision is made by Mr Justice Toohey that certain land should be Aboriginal land, obviously the Minister will request this be so. It will be up to the discretion of the Director whether he hands it over. He may have an obligation to hand it over under section 9 (2) of the principal Act. I suggest that we need a stronger explanation from the Minister as to why we should retain the word ‘may’. Unless the Director desires to hand over land in accordance with a recommendation of Mr Justice Toohey or whoever the Land Commissioner is at the time he is not compelled to do so. If we let a Director be superior to a Justice of the Supreme Court it will be a bad day for our judiciary.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Mining, works, forestry, et cetera, in parks, reserves and wilderness zones).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I do not wish to move an amendment to Clause 8, but I wish to take the opportunity presented by the consideration of clause 8 to correct a misleading statement which was made during the second reading debate this afternoon. Clause 8 deals with provisions relating to mining within the National Park area. In my remarks on that provision during the second reading debate I quoted from an article which Sir Mark Oliphant wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald published on 9 May 1978, in which he described the effects of radon gas, which is one of the inevitable consequences of the milling and mining of uranium.

Later in the debate Senator Jessop disagreed with the views expressed in Sir Mark Oliphant ‘s article which I had put forward. Senator Jessop made a claim which I believe seriously misrepresents the position of Sir Mark Oliphant with respect to uranium mining. As I recall, Senator Jessop claimed that he had had a conversation with Sir Mark Oliphant and Sir Mark Oliphant was not opposed to uranium mining and did not consider it hazardous. I am not quoting Senator Jessop ‘s exact words, but that was certainly the effect of the claim he made.

During the suspension of the sitting this evening, I telephoned Sir Mark Oliphant because I was concerned that his position had been misrepresented. He told me that he was opposed to uranium mining. He said he was against uranium and the use of uranium reactors. His main reason for opposing the use of uranium reactors was not based on health considerations but rather on proliferation considerations. He does not believe that there are any safeguards which can guarantee against the proliferation of nuclear reactors. He does not believe that written guarantees regarding safeguards provide any assurance that there will not be a proliferation of reactors. That is the main reason for his opposition.

He did say that there were steps which could be taken to safeguard workers in the industry against the very harmful effects of radon gas. He said that these were not difficult steps to take but would be very costly. Indeed, he described these steps in the article from which I quoted. They involved such measures as complete washing down of workers, providing a separate air channel for them and so forth. I take this opportunity to correct the misrepresentation made by Senator Jessop with regard to the position of Sir Mark Oliphant who is against uranium and against the use of uranium reactors.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9.

Section 1 1 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) and substituting the following paragraph and words:
  2. specify an address to which such representations may be forwarded, and, in the case of a plan of management in respect of a park or reserve wholly or partly within a prescribed area, shall serve a copy ofthe notice on the relevant Chairman. ‘;
  3. by omitting paragraph (d) of sub-section ( 10) and substituting the following paragraph and words:
  4. specify an address to which representations in connexion with the plan may bc forwarded, and, in the case of the plan of management in respect of a park or reserve wholly or partly within a prescribed area, shall, not later than the date of publication of the notice in the Gazelle, serve a copy ofthe plan and of the notice on the relevant Chairman.’; and

    1. Where, under sub-section (13), the Minister refers to the Director the plan of management in respect of a park or reserve wholly or partly within a prescribed area, he shall cause a copy of his suggestions referred to the Director with the plan to be served on the relevant Chairman, and the Chairman may, within the period of 14 days after receiving a copy ofthe suggestions, make representations to the Director in connexion with the suggestions.
    2. When a plan of management is laid before both Houses of Parliament under section 12, the Minister shall cause the plan to be accompanied by-
  5. copies of any representations and comments, and of any report and recommendations, submitted to him under this section in connexion with the plan, other than those that have been given effect to in the plan; and
  6. in a case where he has made alterations to the plan under sub-section ( 19)- a report specifying the alterations and setting out any views expressed by the Director, and, in the case of a plan of management in respect of a park or reserve wholly or partly within a prescribed area, by the relevant Chairman, in respect of matters to which the alterations relate.
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education (9.53 · LP

– I move:

  1. After paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: (aa) by inserting in sub-section (3) “(including the Territory Commission and the Chairman of an Aboriginal Land Council established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976) “after “person”;’.
  2. In paragraph (f), in proposed paragraph (d), leave out- and, in the case of the plan of management in respect of a park or reserve wholly or partly within a prescribed area, shall, not later than the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette, serve a copy of the plan and of the notice on the relevant Chairman’ substitute- but, where the plan of management is in respect of a park or reserve wholly or partly within the Northern Territory, he shall, at least 14 days before the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette, serve a copy of the plan and of the notice on the Territory Commission and, if the park or reserve is also wholly or partly within a prescribed area, on the relevant Chairman ‘.
  3. After paragraph (f), insert the following paragraph: (fa) by inserting in sub-section (II) “(including the Territory Commission and the Chairman of an Aboriginal Land Council established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976)” after “person”: and’.
  4. In proposed new sub-section 14, leave out- a prescribed area, he shall cause a copy of his suggestions referred to the Director with the plan to be served on the relevant Chairman, and the Chairman may,’ substitute- the Northern Territory, he shall cause a copy of his suggestions referred to the Director with the plan to be served on the Territory Commission and, if the park or reserve is also wholly or partly within a prescribed area, on the relevant Chairman, and the Commission and, as the case may be, the Chairman may, ‘.
  5. Leave out proposed paragraph (2 1 ) (b), substitute the following paragraph:

    1. in a case where he has made alterations to the plan under sub-section ( 19)- a report specifying the alterations and setting out any views in respect of matters to which the alterations relate expressed by the Director and, in the case of a plan of management in respect of a park or reserve wholly or partly within the Northern Territory, by the Territory Commission and, if the park or reserve is also wholly or partly within a prescribed area, by the relevant Chairman. ‘.

These amendments follow the general philosophy of this evenings Government amendments and include the Territory Commission and the Chairman of an Aboriginal Land Council established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. I think the amendments will find support.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10.

Section 14 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections:

  1. Upon receipt of a report and recommendations under sub-section (3), the Minister shall give the Director such directions in the matter as he thinks fit, and the Director shall comply with those directions. ‘.
Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– On behalf of the Opposition, I move:

This amendment relates to a report given to the Minister which would indicate whether the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service had in fact complied with an agreed plan of management. The Opposition does not believe that the Minister should determine the matter other than in accordance with the plan of management. We believe, therefore, that the wording of the amendment will, if accepted, tighten up the intent of the Bill, will make it more explicit and will give a clear direction to the Minister as to his function in determining the matter.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government opposes the amendment. The amendment as proposed would restrict the Minister’s powers. It is possible that the Minister may wish to go beyond the strict requirements of the plan of management to ensure equity in a matter. On the other hand ministerial responsibility to Parliament would ensure that the Minister would not give directions which failed to ensure the observance of the minimum standards of the plan and that he would not abuse his discretion by going too far in the other direction. The Minister’s power would not affect any legal remedies against the Director to ensure compliance with his statutory duty. On those bases, the Government opposes the amendment.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I wish to talk about the amendment to clause 10 which has been moved by the Opposition and which I oppose. I refer to what Senator Ryan said a little earlier concerning Mark Oliphant ‘s comments about -

Senator Mulvihill:

– A former Governor of South Australia.

Senator JESSOP:

-That is right. Sir Mark Oliphant happens to be a friend of mine. He is on -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I am not going to allow a general debate to develop on this matter.

Senator JESSOP:

– I could almost claim to have been misrepresented, Mr Chairman, but I am not doing that.

The CHAIRMAN:

-You can do that later.

Senator JESSOP:

– I am using the forms of the Committee to reply to what I heard over the internal broadcast system. On many occasions Sir Mark Oliphant has made reference to his view that the mining and processing of uranium present no hazard. The only time we have to worry about uranium is when it is converted to nuclear energy. That is when we have to deal with the matter of plutonium, the storage of wastes and so on. I imagine that Sir Mark would support the exact statement I made, namely, that there is no danger in the mining and processing of uranium. The only time we have to worry about uranium is when that mineral is converted to energy and we have to deal with the disposal of the wastes associated with it. I just mention that point.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, whilst we are now talking about the Opposition’s amendment as it relates to the plan of management, the Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Council now participates in relation to this aspect.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 1 1.

Section 16 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1 ) and substituting the following paragraph:

  1. to administer, manage and control parks, reserves and conservation zones; ‘.
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

Briefly, this amendment seeks to delete clause 1 1, which relates to paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 1 6 of the principal Act and to insert a new clause 1 1 which, in terms of functions, involves the need for the Director to consult with the Territory Commission to enable the Director to have a much broader understanding what the Territory Commission and, indeed, the Aboriginal Land Council have in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13.

After section 1 7 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted:

I7a.(1)

  1. It is a reasonable excuse for a person to fail to fur nish information or a document that he is required to furnish under this section if the furnishing of the information, or the document, may tend to incriminate him. 1 7c. (1 ) Where a person who has been served with a notice under section 1 7a has refused or failed to comply, or to comply fully, with the notice, the Director may apply to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia for an order under this section against that person.
  2. The Court shall not, under this section, require a person to furnish information or a document if the Court is satisfied that compliance with a requirement to furnish that information or document might tend to incriminate that person. 1 7e. ( 1 ) Sub-section (2 ) applies to every person who is or has been the Director or a member of the staff assisting the Director.
  3. Nothing in this section shall be taken to affect the operation section 9 of the Ombudsman Act 1976.
Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

In proposed section 1 7a, leave out sub-section (3 ).

The Opposition believes that undue concern has been given to protecting mining interests-

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! It being 10 p.m., in accordance with Sessional Orders, I put the question:

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Chairman having reported accordingly-

page 1901

ADJOURNMENT

Unemployment Benefits

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In accordance with the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Early in February of this year I was notified by Mr Ray Lette of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in Queensland of a situation concerning the refusal to pay unemployment benefit to workers at the Roma meatworks. My information on this matter is as follows: Anderson ‘s meatworks in Roma closed on 24 November 1977 for its annual shutdown. Certain members of the union applied for unemployment benefit when their leave entitlements were exhausted. I looked at this matter after Mr Lette referred it to me and it seemed to me that these employees, after having found themselves out of work, had been wrongly refused unemployment benefit. If I might digress for a moment, I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) whether the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) will be in the chamber this evening. If she will not it would probably be worth while if I continued what I want to say at a later stage.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications I have sent out a strong signal.

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Minister. I wish to read the reply from the Department of Social Security received by one of the members of the union who applied for unemployment benefit. It states:

As you are on annual stand-down, you are not considered to be eligible to receive unemployment benefit within the meaning of the Social Services Act, and your claim has therefore been rejected.

Should you be dissatisfied with the decision on your entitlement, you may lodge an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal for your State. Appeal forms and an explanatory leaflet on the appeals system are available from any office of this department.

When I looked at the reply and at the circumstances surrounding the unemployment of these particular meat workers, I was convinced that some of them were, in fact, eligible for unemployment benefit and that their claim for unemployment benefit had been wrongly refused. I made this known to Mr Lette but he had had already written to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on behalf of his members. I think it is pertinent that I read the letter because it outlines the circumstances quite clearly. Mr Lette ‘s letter to the appeals tribunal read as follows:

I am writing in regard to the ‘ineligibility’ of the members of the AMIEU, Roma district to receive unemployment benefits within the meaning of the Social Services Act.

Andersons (Roma) Meat Works closed down on November 16, 1976 and did not reopen until April 15, 1977. During this five months period, extensive alterations were made to the slaughter floor. The employees went on their annual leave or their pro rata annual leave as of November 16, 1976, and on termination of that leave, duly made application for Social Services Benefits and were paid same.

If I may interrupt the course of the letter, that was the situation in 1976. When the Meatworks closed down they were paid unemployment benefit if they were not able to find work in the area. Mr Lette ‘s letter continues:

The works duly opened on 15 April, 1977 and continued processing through to 24 November, 1977 and then ceased operations indefinitely. Indications are that they will re-open on approximately 3 1 January weather permitting.

The employees of Roma meat works on 24 November, 1977 in the main, would have accrued approximately 2Vi weeks annual leave credits for being employed from 15 April, 1977 to 24 November, 1977. Some of them would not have accrued annual leave at all. The award makes provision for having to be employed more than one month before qualifying for pro rata annual leave.

On completion of their annual leave credits because of them being unemployed, they registered for Social Service Unemployment Benefits. These applications were denied because they were deemed ‘not eligible to receive unemployment benefits with the meaning of the Social Services Act ‘.

I would respectfully request that the claim by our members be given further consideration.

Yours faithfully, R. G. Lette Secretary, Southern Sub-Branch

As I mentioned previously, I advised Mr Lette that I was in agreement with his conclusion that the decision not to pay the meat workers unemployment benefit was wrong. Therefore, I sent a letter to the Chairman of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal supporting the letter that had been sent by Mr Lette. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate to read the letter but I think it is pertinent to the argument I am presenting. Therefore, I seek leave to incorporate this letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows- 3 February, 1978

The Chairman,

Social Security Appeals Tribunal. GPO Box 493, Brisbane, Q.4001

Dear Sir,

I have been informed by Mr R. Lette the Secretary ofthe Southern Sub-Branch of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union, that he wrote to you on 31 January in regards to members of his union who were recently denied unemployment benefit.

I have studied the case closely and it appears to me that an injustice has been done when one considers the eligibility for unemployment benefit as set out in the Social Services Act.

I have sighted a reply from the Department of Social Security to one of the members of Mr Lette ‘s union, after that member made a claim for unemployment benefit. In part, that reply said, ‘As you are on annual stand-down, you are not considered to be eligible to receive unemployment benefit within the meaning of the Social Services Act, and your claim has therefore been rejected ‘.

This particular member of Mr Lette ‘s union finished work on 24 November, 1977. On 28 November, 1977 he registered for unemployment benefit and was subsequently interviewed on 19 January, 1978. The fact that this person was genuinely unemployed is shown by the length of leave entitlement he had when the works closed down. This entitlement was for two weeks and four days.

I therefore support Mr Lette ‘s letter of appeal of 31 January and request that you keep me informed on the outcome of your investigation.

Yours sincerely, Mai Colston Senator for Queensland

Some subsequent correspondence passed between the Appeals Tribunal and me but it was purely of an administrative nature and is not relevant to the argument I am developing. Finally, I received a letter from the Tribunal dated 1 6 May 1978, which states:

I refer to your representations concerning the eligibility for Unemployment Benefit of persons employed at Andersons (Roma) Meat Works during the period of the annual shut down of the meat works. The matter was brought to your attention by Mr R. G. Lette, Secretary, Southern Sub-Branch of the Australian Meat Industry Employees ‘ Union.

The Tribunal is of the opinion that these persons should be regarded as unemployed and thus eligible for Unemployment Benefit at the end of the normal leave period provided for under the AMIEU award. The Director-General of Social Security however has directed that these claimants cannot be regarded as unemployed during the period ofthe annual shut down and consequently are not eligible for Unemployment Benefit during that period.

As the Director-General is the final authority under the Social Services Act no further action can be taken by this office. I will advise those persons who have lodged appeals of this decision.

Senator COLSTON:

-The situation, therefore, is that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, on assessing the matter, decided that these people should be regarded as unemployed and thus should be eligible for unemployment benefit. The Director-General, however, apparently decided that he would not accept the recommendation of the appeals tribunal and directed that the claimants not be regarded as unemployed and therefore eligible for unemployment benefits. I am not sure how often it happens that the Director-General does not accept the recommendation of an appeals tribunal, but it has happened on at least two occasions known to me in recent months. The Minister would know of one case which I referred to her personally.

I am not arguing with the fact that the Director-General does not have to accept the recommendation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. That Tribunal has powers of recommendation only, but the situation now is that these meat workers in Roma are quite confused. Originally they saw themselves as eligible for unemployment benefit. They were refused it by the Department of Social Security. They went through the appeals system and now they are told that the Appeals Tribunal deems that they should have been paid unemployment benefit, only to find that the Director-General has ruled that the will not be paid it. As a result, there is quite an amount of confusion, justifiable confusion I believe, among these workers. I ask the Minister whether, in this case, we can be given a statement or outline as to why the DirectorGeneral directed that these claimants could not be regarded as unemployed during the annual shutdown, in spite of the fact that the Tribunal considered otherwise.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
South Australia

– The case that Senator Colston raises tonight is probably only one of many that in fact occurred during the annual close-down last year. I had experience of similar cases in Adelaide, when one of the Social Security branches rang me to say that it had received instructions that people stood down because they did not have full annual leave entitlements, and who therefore were unemployed for a period of from a week to three weeks in 1 977, would not be paid their unemployment benefit, as they had been paid in the past. I contacted the head office of the Department of Social Security in Adelaide and spoke to the Assistant Director to ascertain whether the head office had received a similar instruction. I was advised that no such instruction had been received and that the same provisions as had applied in the past would continue to apply; that is, that any employee stood down because of the annual leave shut-down who did not have the full annual leave entitlement, provided he registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service and was prepared to accept employment during the period of the stand-down, would be entitled to unemployment benefit.

Having passed this information on to the Christies Beach branch of the Department of Social Security and the employees concerned, I was later advised by head office that it had made a mistake. It had discovered an instruction that had been received from the Director-General that decisions which had operated prior to 1 977 had been cancelled, that employees would not be entitled to unemployment benefit during the period for which that particular plant was closed down for annual leave.

What I would like to know from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle)- because I asked a similar question some time ago- is when the branches in the various States were given the changed instructions for the annual leave close-down of 1977 and why the head office of the Department of Social Security was not so advised, at the same time as the branches in South Australia were advised. This did cause a lot of confusion, not only among employees but also among officers of the Department and others, including myself. Because I had received wrong advice, I gave wrong advice to these branches of the Department and also to employees who were stood down during that period. I would like to know whether the instructions sent out by the Director-General were sent to all branches or only to those outside the metropolitan area.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator Colston advised me that he would be raising this matter and I did inquire concerning the meat workers in Roma, which was the principal aspect to which he addressed his remarks, although he did seek a general clarification. The workers in question were on leave over the Christmas 1 977 holidays with no entitlement, or only partial entitlement to holiday pay. They were the ones about whom the honourable senator was concerned- those who did not have that entitlement to give them income during the holiday period. It has been confirmed by the Department that the workers at the Roma meat works had their positions open to them at the end of the holiday period. The information I have received from the Department is that an appeal has been disallowed by the Director-General in these terms: A person on leave is not unemployed for the formal reason that his employment continues during the leave. This would be true of a period of leave, even without pay.

The matter was raised with regard to those workers around the holiday period of 1977, and it was made clear that people in that position, who had no income because they had no holiday entitlement, could be considered for the granting of a special benefit. That was made known to the Department, and by the Department to those who did seek assistance of that kind. Senator Colston also asked how often the DirectorGeneral declined to accept the recommendation of an appeals tribunal. Appeals tribunals make recommendations to the Director-General and in a percentage of cases the appeal decision is not upheld when it reaches him for final determination. This was one such case, because of the ineligibility of people to receive unemployment benefit as they were on leave and could not be considered to be unemployed in terms of the Act.

I think I could best assist the Senate in this matter by referring to a question that Senator Cameron asked in February of this year, and to which he addressed his remarks tonight. He asked at that time:

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

I made some comments in reply and told the honourable senator that I would investigate the position and advise him later. I was advised by the Department that the Social Services Act provides that, in order to qualify for unemployment benefit a person must, among other things, be unemployed. Where a person is employed at the start of the close-down for the holiday period and is told to report back for work at the end of it, he is not considered to be unemployed. The view of the Department in this case is based on a legal opinion given by a former AttorneyGeneral, Sir Garfield Barwick. Sir Garfield determined that a person on leave is not unemployed, for the formal reason that his employment continues during the leave, and that this would be true of a period of leave without pay. That is, of course, the situation that has been referred to by the two honourable senators, in which people are on leave because of the closedown and have not had a holiday pay entitlement during that period.

The Department further advises that towards the end of last year it became apparent that there was some confusion among officers as to whether unemployment benefit was payable in these circumstances. Advice was received that in one State, namely South Australia, benefit had been paid in some instances over the Christmas standdown period in the preceding year. That is obviously the matter referred to by Senator Donald Cameron.

A memorandum clarifying the position was sent to all State Directors on 14 December 1977. This responds to the question asked by Senator Donald Cameron tonight about when the advice was sent. The memorandum indicated that where a person was employed at the start of the holiday period and was told to report back at the termination of the vacation period he was not considered to be unemployed and employment benefit was not payable. It also indicated that, where on the other hand, an employee’s services had been terminated and he would not be reengaged after the close-down, unemployment benefit would be payable subject to the normal conditions of eligibility.

I understand that a further memorandum was sent to offices of the Department on 22 December 1977 reminding Directors that special benefit may be paid where the employee- that is the person who has no entitlement to holiday pay- has no money or readily available assets with which to maintain himself and his dependants. Thus, where a person had not been in a particular job long enough to accrue sufficient leave credits to cover the period of the close-down, special benefit was available as a means of providing some financial assistance. The DirectorGeneral advises me that he must emphasise that the policy expressed in the above paragraphs does not, in any way, represent a change in the requirements of the law that have operated in the past. He stated that the reply that was given to Senator Donald Cameron correctly states the position that a person on leave is not a person who is unemployed. I hope that this further information was given to Senator Donald Cameron at that time.

What I have said perhaps deals with the broad question that has been raised by the two honourable senators this evening- that is, the question of whether people who are on leave during the annual shut-down of a factory or holiday period of a factory are unemployed and are entitled to the unemployment benefit. I have read from the determination of the then Attorney-General and the interpretation that has been placed on this matter by the Department that they are not unemployed and are therefore not able to be considered for the unemployment benefit. Senator Colston pointed out that the Social Services Appeals Tribunal upheld an appeal that was made and he asked why this decision was rejected by the Director-General. Of course, the decision is rejected in terms of our interpretation of an unemployed person and his eligibility to receive unemployment benefit.

I hope that what I have been able to say clarifies for Senator Donald Cameron the advice that was given to the Department at the end of 1 977. 1 hope it also clarifies the position of meat workers at Roma, a matter which was raised by Senator Colston.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I rise briefly to ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to reexamine the application of entitlement in respect of the case raised by Senator Donald Cameron and the case that was put by myself to the Department concerning people employed by the Noarlunga City Council. People who were employed by the Council for a short period before the Christmas break had to wait for four weeks for the engineering and construction teams to start work again. However, because they were working before the break they were judged to be not eligible to receive the unemployment benefit. As a result of union representations the State Government provided some unemployment relief payments. Also, an arrangement was made to pay a certain amount to married employees during the break.

I would like the Minister to consider this anomaly. People who are employed at the end of the year suffer because their employment is interrupted by the Christmas break. This is particularly the case for people employed in the engineering and construction industry. However, married people would have applied for the special benefit if they had known that such a benefit was available. The case I have mentioned was brought to the attention of the local office of the Department of Social Security. The union made representations to the local council and it arraned loans for half of the married group so as to tide them over the Christmas period. I would suggest, without asking the Minister to respond tonight, that she might examine the circumstances of people who are employed not for the whole year but in the last month or two of the year, sometimes on State unemployment relief work, and who would be left for a period of three or four weeks without any income at all.

Senator GUILFOYLE (Victoria-Minister for Social Security)- by leave- I undertake to look at the matter raised by Senator Bishop. If he has further detailed information he would wish to give for reconsideration I would be happy to have it looked at. I accept the point raised by all honourable senators who have spoken that people not entitled to holiday pay suffer from a serious lack of income during a holiday period when limited employment opportunities are available. This situation could apply to a person who has been unemployed for several months, who finds a job towards the end of the year and then faces a shut-down period for which he is not entitled to any holiday pay. It was for this reason that we made the provision that such people should be considered for a special benefit if their job was of a permanent kind. I believe that the Department attempted to make this fact known. I would certainly see that any particular case raised with me would be reconsidered in those terms.

Senator COLSTON (Queensland)-by leave- I believe it might be reasonable, when people are rejected for unemployment benefit in such circumstances as have been mentioned, that the letter that goes out saying that their benefit has been rejected also contains a sentence or two indicating that special benefits may be available under certain circumstances and therefore they should check with the local branch of the Department. It would seem to me that if this were done some people who do not know that special benefits are available might be able to avail themselves of those benefits.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

page 1906

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Non-Government Organisations: Project Subsidy Scheme (Question No. 399)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the administrative arrangements relating to the Non-government Organisations Project Subsidy Scheme, referred to in the Minister’s reply to Question No. 1570 of 1 976 (Senate Hansard, 10 December 1 976, page 3116).
  2. What subsidies were provided under this scheme during 1975, 1976 and 1977, and for what purposes was each subsidy granted.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The NGO Project Subsidy Scheme is pan of a program whereby the government assists Australian NGO’s to conduct development projects in developing countries. Under this scheme projects and programs are submitted to a joint Assessment Committee responsible to the Minister and comprised of three NGO representatives nominated by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid and three officers of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Projects and the eligibility of organisations to receive funds are considered against a set of approved criteria. The government is prepared to contribute up to 50 per cent of the total costs of projects which qualify for assistance, taking into account the contribution made by the NGO from Australian sources.
  2. A table setting out disbursements under this scheme for the financial years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 is attached. The appropriation for the financial year 1977-78 is $ 1.28m which includes a $300,000 special allocation for NGO projects in the South Pacific.

Teaching of English to Migrants (Question No. 121)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many non-English-speaking children have been enrolled in Government schools in each State in each year since 1972.
  2. How many Migrant English teachers have been employed by the Education Department in each State in each year since 1972.
  3. What is the percentage of Migrant English teachers of the total number of teachers currently employed by the Education Department in each State.
  4. What funds have been made available by the Federal Government for Migrant Education in each year since 1 972.
  5. Will the Federal Government be making additional funds available for Migrant Education in the near future; if not, why not.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) With the exception of South Australia, State Education Departments have not kept separate figures in regard to children of non-English-speaking backgrounds enrolled in Government Schools. Work undertaken for the Schools Commission by Dr C. Price and Dr P. Pyne of the Department of Demography, Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, estimated that the total number of persons in Australia of non-English-speaking background in the age range 5 to 1 9 years in 1 976 was as set out below:

New South Wales 2 1 3,500, Victoria 22 1 ,850, Queensland 35,350, South Australia 51,280, Western Australia 47,595, Tasmania 5,643.

These figures relate to both Government and nonGovernment schools.

  1. The number of Migrant English teachers employed by the Education Department in each State as at 30 June each year from 1972-1975 under the Child Migrant Education Program is as follows:

Since 1976 Commonwealth support for activities related to Migrant and Multicultural education has been provided through the Schools Commission’s General Recurrent

Grants Program. The funds have been made available to support a wide range of activities in the general Migrant and Multicultural education area. State Education Departments are responsible for the administration of the funds and for the setting of priorities in relation to expenditure. For this reason exact statistics as to the number of teachers are not available. However, following discussions with Education Departments in 1977 the Schools Commission estimates that as of September 1977 the following teachers working specifically in the area of Migrant and Multicultural education, were employed by Education Departments.

New South Wales 564, Victoria 920, Queensland 37. South Australia 127. Western Australia 35, Tasmania 32.

  1. Given the figures stated above then the percentages of Migrant English Teachers currently employed in the Education Department in each State would be as set down below. It needs to be remembered however, that the percentages related to those teachers working in a ‘special capacity’ in the Migrant and Multicultural education area and do not take into account teachers working in the ‘normal ‘classroom environment who may have expertise in the education of migrant children.

New South Wales 1.3 per cent, Victoria 2.9 per cent, Queensland 0.2 per cent, South Australia 0.9 per cent, Western Australia 0.3 per cent, Tasmania 0.8 per cent.

  1. Expenditure under the Child Migrant Education Program includes funds made available to non-government schools and State Education Departments as well as funds expended by the Commonwealth for production and distribution of ESL materials, teacher exchange schemes and national conferences and seminars.

It should be noted that the funds made available in the 1975-76 financial year refer to the period July to December 1975 only. Since 1 January 1976, funds for Commonwealth Government support of Migrant and Multicultural education activities were provided through the General Recurrent Grants Program of the Schools Commission.

Set down below are the funds made available to Government and non-Government schools for Migrant and Multicultural education activities in 1976, 1977 and 1978 (in calendar years) through the Schools Commission’s General Recurrent Grants Program.

The 1978 figure is subject to supplementation to take account of inflation in the salary component.

  1. The needs of Migrant Education are being kept under review, and an additional $416,000 has been made available in the current financial year for emergency educational provision for refugee children from Indo-China.

Telecom Complex, Deakin, Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 175)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. What will be the different functions of the new Telecom Complex at Deakin, in the Australian Capital Territory, when completed.
  2. To what appropriations within Telecom will these services be charged.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Telecom Australia advises that the new Complex at Deakin will accommodate a wide range of telecommunications equipment. The main functions of this equipment will be to meet the needs of the trunk network and the local subscriber area in the Southern Sector of the Canberra local network. It will also provide switching facilities to meet telex and data services, some PABX requirements and any special facilities such as conference calls, TV and broadcasting which may be required for Parliament House.
  2. The expenditure on the services to be provided will form part of the annual investment in fixed assets and come within the major appropriation category of Communications Plant.

Railway Rolling Stock (Question No. 181)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many factories are engaged in building railway rolling stock.
  2. Where are these factories situated.
  3. How many persons do these factories employ.
  4. What is the rate of unemployment in each area.
  5. What quantity of rolling stock in each State is considered obsolete.
  6. What quantity of rolling stock in each State requires renovation.
  7. What is the immediate requirement for rolling stock in each State and for the Australian National Railways.
  8. Could rolling stock be more economically produced in one factory
  9. If such rolling stock were built at Whyalla in South Australia, what would be the anticipated employment opportunities.
  10. What would be the effect on employment in other areas.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 have been informed that 28 factories are engaged in the manufacture of railway rolling stock at present. This is in addition to State railway workshops and some component suppliers. It should be borne in mind, however, that the number of factories varies from time to time depending on available orders and on the level of demand for other products that the factories are equipped to manufacture.
  2. The factories mentioned in the answer to question ( 1 ) are located as follows:

Sydney 6, Newcastle 1, Mittagong 1, Bathurst 1, Port Kembla 1, Melbourne 2, Brisbane 6, Ipswich 1, Maryborough 1 , Adelaide 3, Whyalla 2, Perth 3.

  1. The number of persons employed by the factories referred to in the answer to question ( 1 ) is not known. However, the Bureau of Statistics in its publication ‘Manufacturing Establishments: Summary of Operations by Industry Class 1965-76’ showed that 25,323 persons were employed at 54 establishments in production of locomotives, rolling stock and repair.
  2. The latest available employment rates for State capital cities is contained in the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication “The Labour Force November 1977’. The unemployment rates for the capital cities where railway rolling stock factories are located are as follows:

Sydney 4.8 per cent, Melbourne 4.8 per cent, Brisbane 5.7 per cent, Adelaide 5.5 per cent, Perth 5.8 per cent.

Unemployment rates for other areas where these factories are located are not available.

  1. , (6) and (7) The quantity of rolling stock in each State that is considered obsolete and the quantity of rolling stock in each State that requires renovation, are not known. It is clear, however, that the absolute level of rolling stock that is obsolete or in need of renovation would have little, if any, bearing on the need for the replacement or repair of such rolling stock. Considerations of this nature, of course, are dependent primarily on the projected demand for freight and passenger services from railways, and in this regard, it is considered that the rolling stock industry in Australia has more than enough capacity available now to meet the assessed demand for rolling stock after due allowance has been made for a realistic rate of growth in the requirement for rail services.
  2. From available information it is not possible to say whether rolling stock could be more economically produced in one factory. Economies of scale may be achieved in parts of the production process but the opportunity for scale economies would be limited by the diversity of the design and specification requirements of the various purchasing authorities. There would also be significant under capacity utilisation from time to time arising from the wide fluctuation in demand for rolling stock and the irregular nature of order placements.
  3. and (10) These questions raise issues which are embodied in studies being undertaken by Commonwealth Officials into proposals put forward by the South Australian Premier and referred to the Prime Minister late last year concerning the establishment of a rolling stock industry in Whyalla. Under the circumstances, I feel that it would be premature to provide the answers to these questions until the report has been considered by the Prime Minister.

Croatian ‘Embassy’ (Question No. 197)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How was the establishment known as the Croatian Embassy’ acquired, in view of the publicly-expressed displeasure ofthe Honourable A. Peacock, Minister for Foreign Affairs, concerning the so-called Croatian ‘Embassy’.
  2. ) Who leased or purchased this property.
  3. Has any action been taken by the Minister to implement a leasing policy to conform with current Government policy of recognising the Government of Yugoslavia.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) An examination of the Register of Titles showed that as at the close of business on 8 March 1 978 the registered lessee was Mary Ellen Harvey. The lease was acquired by heron 27 May 1957. The basis on which the socalled Croatian ‘Embassy’ occupies the residence is not known.
  2. The Government has not granted and would not grant a lease for the establishment of a foreign mission other than to a Government which it recognised and with whom it has diplomatic relations.

Government Subsidised Training Schemes (Question No. 214)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 March 1 978:

  1. What is the breakdown, by sex, of the number of people, both adults and juniors, who have renewed training under each of the employer subsidy training schemes.
  2. What type of training, in accordance with Commonwealth Employment service job categories, has been provided to adult and junior beneficiaries, of both sexes, of employer subsidy schemes.
  3. How many employers have taken advantage of the various schemes, and how many times has each employer done so.
  4. How many employers have terminated the employment of government-subsidised trainees, when the Government allowances have terminated.
  5. Are all applications from employers for subsidies for trainees carefully scrutinised.
  6. What safeguards are in force to: (a) prevent employers dismissing existing staff to take advantage of subsidies; and (b) ensure that employers do not dismiss trainees at the end of the period of Government allowances.
  7. What type of labour market research is being done by the Minister’s department to determine areas where skills are needed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) The information sought is not available. However, the following table indicates the total numbers, by sex, in training under NEAT at the end of March 1978.

  1. At the time a trainee is engaged the employer completes a written agreement which sets out the details of the training and work experience to be provided during the subsidy period. As part of this agreement the employer is required to make a declaration concerning payment of the appropriate award wage. A copy of this form and a form containing statistical and other details relating to the approval are forwarded by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) to my Department’s State Office which monitors all placements.
  2. 6 ) ( a ) The CES would not know if another employee had been dismissed by an employer in order to engage a subsidised trainee unless the dismissed employee contacted the CES in order to register for employment and it was possible to compare the vacancy notified with the duties performed by the previous employee. The CES has been instructed that, where an employer is known to have dismissed an employee in order to take on a subsidised employee, that employer should not be paid subsidy under NEAT or SYETP in respect of that vacancy.

    1. Employers are not compelled to retain trainees at the end of the subsidy period although it is hoped that most employers will be able to continue the employment of the trainees. Trainees might be regarded as having been assisted, however, even if their training employer does not retain their services insofar as his/her employment prospects have been considerably enhanced by a period of employment training. The CES has been instructed that, where it is known that an employer does not continue the employment of a trainee after the completion of the subsidy period, no further trainees should be placed with that employer unless it is clear that the training provided will enhance the trainees’ prospects of obtaining stable employment.
  3. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations regularly compiles lists of occupations indicating whether there is currently an over-supply or under-supply of qualified persons seeking work in that particular field. Predictions are also made for a period of 2-5 years ahead of the employment prospects in the various occupations. A wide range of material, including surveys of employers, trade unions, training institutions, and labour market data, is analysed to formulate these occupational assessments. The lists arc regularly reviewed on at least a 3 monthly basis.

Defence Services: Personnel (Question No. 236)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many personnel, by rank, were serving in each of the three armed services as at 30 June 1946, 30 June 1962, and 1 January 1978.
  2. How many civilian personnel, by category, were in the Departments of Defence, Army, Navy and Air as at 30 June 1946, 30 June 1962 and 1 January 1978.
  3. How many service and civilian personnel, by rank and category, were directly employed within the Defence Group on computer programming and associated services as at 1 January 1978.
  4. How many service personnel and civilian employees, by Service, and rank or category, were employed in the training role as at 1 January 1 978.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. I ) The numbers of personnel by rank who were serving in the three Armed Services arc no longer available for 30 June 1 946. However the total strengths were:

Statistics for 30 June 1962 and 1 January 1978 are shown in the following tables:

  1. Statistical records of Civil Personnel in the Departments of Defence, Army, Navy and Air are shown in the following tables: (The Department of Defence contains elements of staff which, prior to I July 1975, were located in the Department of Supply. Although, since 1 946, changes have occurred in the composition of the Department of Supply (including, for example, the transfer of the Aeronautical Research Laboratories from CSIRO and the amalgamation of the Departments of Supply and Shipping, and Munitions), to ensure a measure of comparability the numbers of staff in that Department are also shown.)
  1. There were 6,408 personnel employed in the training role as at 1 January 1 978, made up as follows:

Education: SEMP and MACOS Projects (Question No. 275)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that Social Education Materials Project (SEMP) and Man-A Course of Study (MACOS) programs have been banned for use in State Schools in Queensland.
  2. Can the Minister take any action which may persuade The Queensland Parliament to reverse this decision.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. In addition to my public statements in the Senate and elsewhere. I have written to the Queensland Minister for Education explaining the position I have taken with regard t o curriculum materials in the social studies area, with specific reference to the SEMP and MACOS programs. This i s, fundamentally, that such materials should be open to public scrutiny and debate, and not be simply imposed by schools or teachers. I also drew his attention to the many approachcs I have had from local and national education bodies, academics, education authorities, teacher associ- ations and parent groups on this issue which overwhelmingly s upported the work of the Curriculum Development Centre a ind the SEMP materials, with some reservations about small s ections of SEMP. The MACOS materials should, in my view, be assessed on the basis of the same general principles is SEMP. I have provided the Queensland Minister with a ample list of the national and local bodies supporting SEMP, and asked him to make the list and the supportive views of these bodies known to the Queensland Parliamen- t ary Committee of Education Review. In doing so, I acktowledged that curriculum is a matter for the States as I have also done in reply to questions in the Senate.

The sample list referred to above included the following:

The Council of the Curriculum Development Centre

The National Committee on Social Science Teaching

The Australian Teachers ‘ Federation

The Headmasters ‘ Conference ofAustralia

The Australian High School Principals’ Association

The Australian Council of State School Organisations

The Australian Greek Welfare Society

State Departments of Education

The Queensland Catholic Education Council

The Queensland Council of State School Organisations

The English Teachers’ Association of New South Wales.

Telecom: Contract for Fishing Rods (Question No. 362)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 6 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen a copy of the Commonwealth Gazette, 10 May 1977, in which a contract (No. V 1483) has been let by Telecom Australia for the supply of $16,000 worth of fishing rods.
  2. For what purpose does Telecom Australia require these rods.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A purchase by Telecom Australia of fibre glass rods and reels was notified in the Commonwealth Gazette of 1 0 May 1977, for a total amount of $16,610. The purchase was arranged by the Victorian Administration of Telecom Australia after the calling of public tenders. The contractor was Jarvis Walker Pty Ltd.
  2. The equipment is used to pull lines through conduits to facilitate the subsequent drawing of the cable into position.

Airlines: Details of Ticket Issues (Question No. 371)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Under what legislation or regulation is the Federal Government empowered to provide publicly details of airline tickets such as were provided in the answer to Question No. 27 (Senate Hansard, 15 March 1978, page 654).
  2. Is the Federal Government able to provide details of airline tickets sold by Ansett Airlines of Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. In answering question No. 27 (Senate Hansard. 15 March 1978, page 654) the Commonwealth did not rely on any specific legislation or regulation. The information was provided on a voluntary basis by the airline concerned.
  2. If similar requests were received in respect of carriage by Ansett Airlines of Australia their reaction to the provision of information would be sought in each case.

Tullamarine Airport: Service Staff (Question No. 406)

Senator Grimes:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the service staff at Tullamarine Airport to be increased; if so, will the staff numbers at Tullamarine be increased by transferring staff from other centres.
  2. If so, from which centres will flight service staff be transferred.
  3. When was the flight service staff in the Victorian/Tasmanian Region last increased.
  4. What time is required to train flight service personnel from recruitment to operational standard.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The flight service staff at Tullamarine is being increased as personnel become available from training courses.
  2. It is not intended to transfer staff from other centres to increase staff numbers at Tullamarine.
  3. 44 weeks from the commencement of training.

Hobart Airport: Flight Service Staff (Question No. 407)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) To what extent has the flight service staff conducting the briefing service from Hobart Airport been cut in the last 12 months.
  2. At what hours will there be no flight briefing service available from Hobart Airport.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There has been no cut in staffing. One of the three staff is presently on leave.
  2. The normal hours of operation of the Hobart Briefing Office are 0530 to 1800 daily. The office is presently closed on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons whilst one officer is on leave. Telephone briefing is always available from Launceston when the Hobart office is closed.

Launceston Airport: Airways Operations Staff (Question No. 408)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What staff is on duty in the Airways Operations Section of Launceston Airport between 2300 hours and 0600 hours.
  2. Is this staffing adequate to cover flight emergencies during these hours.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Aerodrome control, one man; area control, one man: flight service, one man; rescue and fire fighting service, four men.
  2. Yes.

Launceston Airport: Airways Operations Staff (Question No. 409)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 . May 1978:

What reductions have been made in the staffing of the Airways Operations Section of Launceston Airport in the last 12 months.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The staff of the Operational Control Centre has been reduced by two men, and transfer of message switching functions to the Melbourne Centre resulted in the transfer of six men from Launceston Communications Centre to other locations.

Victorian/Tasmanian Region Flight Services Staff (Question No. 410)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

Arc delays occurring in the granting of furlough and recreational leave to staff in the Victorian/Tasmanian Region flight services, because of insufficient funds to cover overtime payments for staff replacing those on furlough or recreational leave.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

No.

Aviation: Navigation and Safety Aids (Question No. 417)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1978.

What are the details of the failure of navigation and safety aids on the ground between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane Airports on 10 April [978, as reported by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Of the nineteen aids listed by the Federation as having failed on Monday 10 April, only four related to faults occurring on that day or the preceding weekend. They were Wagga DME, Pt. Lookout DME, an unspecified VOR (probably Wee Jasper), Tamworth DME. The failed aids were all properly assessed as Category 3 faults because ofthe availability of alternative aids in accordance with design and redundancy. (Category 3 faults are those which are to bc rectified at the first available opportunity rather than by a specified time.) These faults were rectified and the aids returned to service on or before 12 April.

With two ofthe other aids listed (Casino DME and Coffs Harbour NDB) there is no record of any failure during the period in question. Both aids operated continuously.

Three were long term notifications of permanent withdrawal of facilities (Wagga VAR, Canberra Middle Marker, Pt. Lookout VAR) and two were advisory notices in respect of new aids (Wagga VOR, Pt. Lookout VOR) which had not been commissioned at that time but have since beenWagga VOR on 2 1 April 1978 and Pt. Lookout VOR on 26 April 1978.

The Sydney Radar was withdrawn for planned maintenance of part of the facility over a period of two hours and this had no significance in relation to handling of traffic.

Two (West Maitland VOR and Sydney 16 Outer Marker) were standing cautionary notices on aids in use but subject to long term intermittent problems such as industrial radio interference. Major investigations arc in progress.

One was to correct a chart printing error (Canberra Localiser Back-Beam) and was of no significance to normal operations, whilst one other (Sydney DME) related to long term withdrawal of a facility requiring major maintenance to achieve better performance.

Two involved obstruction lighting at Albury. Having regard to availability of other lights and operational procedures in force, these faults were correctly designated Category 3 and restoration was effected accordingly. The failure affected neither the status of the aerodrome nor the safety of night operations.

One involved short term unserviceability of an obstruction light on a Sydney broadcasting radio tower for which maintenance is the responsibility of the owner. This was of no significance to controlled operations. lt will bc seen that only a small proportion of the aids listed had unexpectedly failed and with those failures restoration was in accordance with long standing procedures, alternative navigation aids were available and safety standards were not affected.

Northern Territory Primary Producers Board (Question No. 452)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory upon notice, on 8 May 1 978:

Have the activities of the Northern Territory Primary Producers’ Board, and/or its Chairman, Mr Rex Jettner, breached Commonwealth Audit requirements in any way, and has any investigation been initiated by the AuditorGeneral into the Board.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Responsibility for the administration of the Northern Territory Primary Producers’ Board was transferred to the Northern Territory Executive on 1 January 1977. Accordingly, I have referred the matter to the Majority Leader, Mr Paul Everingham.

Social Welfare Payments: Waiting Time (Question No. 58)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. I ) What is the average waiting time in each State between application for and receipt of first payment in the following areas:

    1. age pension;
    2. invalid pension;
    3. widows’ pension;
    4. ) supporting mothers ‘ benefit:
    5. ) lone fathers ‘ benefit;
    6. unemployment benefit;
    7. sickness benefit; and
    8. special benefit; in 1977.
    1. How does this waiting time compare with that of the two previous years.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A survey was undertaken in some State Offices of the Department, but because the records for pension and benefits payments are not kept on a uniform basis and in some cases are still compiled manually the data returned provides no meaningful answer on a State-wide basis to the question.
  2. As a general observation I would like to point out that the average waiting time between a claim for a particular benefit and the first payment is dependent on many factors. Sometimes claims are lodged before eligibility arises: sometimes (as with unemployment benefit) delay on the part of the claimant means a delay in payment; sometimes other types of payments are made during the waiting time. My department attempts to keep its processing time as short as possible to ensure that claimants are not placed in a position of hardship. Where there are legislative provisions which have the effect of setting the date of grant of a pension or benefit at a date subsequent to the claim, and where persons are facing hardship as a result, special benefit payments may be made. In these circumstances cheques may be made available immediately.

Tax Avoidance (Question No. 178)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What is the estimated cost to Government revenue of tax avoidance arising from participation in trusts and use in primary producers’ tax averaging concessions, as a consequence of the recent High Court judgment (Cridland v. Commissioner of Taxation), and the removal of the $ 16,000 limit on income which may be averaged, as reported in The Taxpayer, 10 December 1977.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

It is not possible to estimate with any precision the loss to revenue from tax avoidance arising from participation in trusts for the purpose of benefiting from the averaging provisions as a consequence ofthe decision in the Cridland case and the removal of the $ 1 6,000 limit for averaging purposes. However, the Government’s awareness of potential revenue losses from the exploitation of such arrangements was evidenced by its decision to include in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1978 provisions aimed at the prevention of this particular form of tax avoidance.

Taxation: Lump Sum Superannation Payments (Question No. 238)

Senator Wright:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister supply, without breaching the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, information indicating the number of commercial superannuation payments by lump sum attracting taxation on only 5 per cent of the following amounts:

    1. $50,000-$ 100,000;
    2. $100,000-$200,000; and
    3. above $200,000, for each of the last five years.
  2. ) Will the Minister supply the same information relating to State Members of Parliament.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information is not available. The only relevant income tax statistics that have been compiled relate to amounts, including superannuation payments, allowances, gratuities and compensation, paid in a lump sum in consequence of retirement to individual taxpayers generally, of which 5 per cent is included in assessable income. Complete statistics are not available for the years specified but the latest figures, which relate to income tax returns for the 1976-77 income year assessed to 28 April 1978, show that 656,762 taxable individuals included in their returns $43,262,000 representing 5 per cent of lump sum payments received on retirement. The amounts returned by 3,884 taxpayers whose net incomes exceeded $20,000 indicated that the lump sums involved averaged $ 1 2,540.

Parliamentary Retiring Allowance (Question No. 269)

Senator Wright:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the gross amount paid to retired members of the Parliament for Parliamentary retiring allowances for each year ending 30 June 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977.
  2. What were the gross annual contributions paid by Members of Parliament towards retiring allowances in each of these years.
  3. How many retired members of the Parliament have received remuneration pension or allowances from the Commonwealth in addition to Parliamentary Retiring Allowances in each of these years, and what were the amounts involved.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)and(2)-_

  1. Since 1973, persons who have retired from the Parliament with an entitlement to a retiring allowance have not been required under the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act to notify my Department if they enter into Commonwealth employment and, therefore, no comprehensive records are maintained. The following information, which may not be exhaustive, has been derived from records maintained before June 1973 and other sources:

Overseas Student Service (Question No. 355)

Senator Chaney:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen the Press release of the Overseas Student Service dated 14 February 1978, asserting that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting can make no contribution to solving the real problems of Asia and the Pacific
  2. What is the status of the Overseas Student Service.
  3. 3 ) Is the Overseas Student Service receiving funds from either the Government or the Australian Union of Students.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The status of the Overseas Student Service is reported to be at present a matter of dispute between the Overseas Student Service and the Australian Union of Students, which no longer recognises the Overseas Student Service as one of its departments.
  3. An annual grant of $8,500 for staff support from the Australian Government to the Overseas Student Service was discontinued from the beginning of the present financial year. Some limited assistance to enable overseas students to attend Overseas Student Service conferences on student affairs has been provided by the Government in recent years. This has amounted to $594 in the present year. However this support is to be discontinued with effect from 1978-79 since the National Overseas Student Service is no longer carrying out the function which attracted Government assistance, namely the effective representation of the main interests of the majority of sponsored and private overseas students. I am informed that the Australian Union of Students no longer provides any funds to the Overseas Student Service.

Visit of Indonesian Officials to Australia (Question No. 395)

Senator Mcintosh:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

  1. Do General Yoga Sugama and General Benny Murdani intend to visit Canberra for talks with Australian officials?
  2. 2 ) Did these top-ranking officials play leading roles in the Indonesian invasion of East Timor?
  3. ) When is the visit to take place?
  4. Will the Government reconsider its refusal to allow the Timorese leader, Mr Horta, to make a private visit to Australia?
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (3) General Yoga Sugama visited Australia for talks with Australian officials from 11-14 April 1978. See the Prime Minister’s answer to a question without notice from the Leader of the Opposition on 13 April. General Murdani did not visit Australia.
  2. Indonesia’s decisions in regard to East Timor were taken by the Indonesian Government of which General Sugama and General Murdani are important figures.
  3. Not in present circumstances.

Taxation Office: Word Processing Machines (Question No. 460)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What are the ‘large tenders for sophisticated units’ which are emerging’ in the Taxation Commission referred to in the article ‘New-generation typewriters outsmart the old electrics’, the Financial Review, 1 May 1978.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

A six month evaluation of a pilot word-processing installation recently conducted in the Australian Taxation Office’s Parramatta office has demonstrated that the acquisition of word-processing equipment for Taxation branch offices would result in considerable gains in general office efficiency. A proposal has been forwarded to the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board seeking approval to purchase word-processing equipment, by way of public tender, for installation in all major Australian Taxation Office branches throughout Australia.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 May 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780525_senate_31_s77/>.