Senate
26 May 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1921

PETITIONS

Family Allowances

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 85 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned women of the A.C.T. respectfully showeth that:

1 ) Family Allowances have not been increased since May 1976,

Unlike pensions, family allowances have not been indexed to take account of movements in the Consumer Price Index,

The failure to index family allowances means that as at November 1977, the family with one child is 70 cents a week worse off, the family with two children is $ 1 . 70 a week worse off, the family with three children is $2.90 a week worse off, the family with four children is $4. 10 a week worse off and the family with five children is $5.50 a week worse off.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should take action to:

Restore the real value of family allowances,

Index family allowances in the same way that pensions have been indexed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:

Rhodesian Information Centre

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

That there is grave concern in all sections of Australian community over the proposed closure of the Rhodesian Information Centre.

That many Australians share kinship with Rhodesians, and they, along with many other citizens feel the situation should be reassessed.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Rhodesian Information Office be allowed to continue operating in Australia and that a reassessment of the total situation be undertaken.

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

Petition received.

page 1921

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that my colleague the AttorneyGeneral, Senator Durack, is unavoidably absent today. If honourable senators have questions either for him directly or in his representative capacity, the remaining Ministers will do their best to answer them.

page 1921

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1921

QUESTION

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDS TREATY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In a statement to Parliament yesterday the Minister indicated that the Prime Minister had written to the Premier of Queensland regarding the basic elements of the Treaty on the Torres Strait and that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had conferred with the Torres Strait Islanders. Firstly, has the Premier of Queensland responded to the Prime Minister? If so, what was his attitude to the Treaty? Secondly, what was the reaction of the Torres Strait Islanders to the Treaty proposal? In particular, are they now satisfied that their rights have been fully protected?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I cannot inform the honourable senator as to any official response which the Premier of Queensland may have made to the Prime Minister because I have not seen it. However, I understand- honourable senators should realise that this is only an understandingthat, according to Press reports, the Queensland Premier has said that he supports and endorses the proposals. I understand- again, it is only an understanding- that my colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, was of the view after he had spoken with people in the Torres Strait Islands that they, too, were happy with the result which had been obtained.

page 1921

QUESTION

WHALING INQUIRY

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and refers to the whaling inquiry currently being held by Sir Sidney Frost. I refer also to the following statement which was reported in the Melbourne Age of 20 May 1978 to have been made by Mr Brian Appleford, spokesman for the Friends of the Earth: the Department of Primary Industry had insisted that the anti-whaling Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development be denied the right to make a separate submission to the inquiry.

I ask: Firstly, is it a fact that the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development is registered as or was announced to the International Whaling Commission as being one of the principal parties to the inquiry? Secondly, is it a fact that that Department is at present being denied the right to present a separate submission or separate evidence to the inquiry? If so, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Department will be freed of such restrictions and will be permitted to place all useful material, including surveys undertaken within its sphere of responsibility, before the inquiry in order to ensure that the Commission is fully informed?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-My information is that the chairman of the inquiry, Sir Sidney Frost regards as principal parties the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, along with the Department of Primary Industry, Project Jonah, Cheynes Beach Whaling Company and others. At the moment six Commonwealth departments are conferring and preparing relevant segments of a consolidated, comprehensive Commonwealth submission on the terms of reference of the inquiry. I am further informed that the submission will look at whaling from all perspectives with which the Government is concerned and that its aim is to provide a complete document to ensure that the inquiry is fully informed. I can further inform the honourable senator that the chairman naturally is free to follow up particular matters in the submission and other factual matters with individual departments. I understand further that experts from various departments will attend the inquiry and will be free to respond to questions at the inquiry’s public hearings.

page 1922

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Did he on Monday of this week in evidence to the McGregor Royal Commission say on oath that on 13 September 1977 he phoned Mr Pearson, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer, to inform him that he did not approve of the electorate name of Gold Coast which was proposed by the Queensland distribution commissioners? Did Mr Pearson give evidence to the Royal Commission to the effect that he phoned Mr Coleman following his telephone conversation with the Minister? I refer the Minister also to his statement in the Senate on 4 November 1977 in the course of the debate on the electoral legislation, when he said:

I have never telephoned Mr Coleman about the naming of electorates. I have been asked why the name of the electorate was changed. I do not know.

I ask the Minister: Did he mislead the Senate on 4 November 1977 or the Royal Commission on Monday of this week?

The PRESIDENT:

– I trust that the Minister’s reply will not involve matters which are before a court.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not wish to give the appearance of avoiding the honourable senator’s questions. I am quite prepared to answer them, but I am worried because these matters are before His Honour, Mr Justice McGregor, and they are some of the matters on which he has been asked to make a finding. I am not trying to use the sub judice rule as a method of avoiding answering the question. At the same time, I do not wish to trespass in an area which is presently the subject of a royal commission. Mr President, I do not know whether you were ruling on the question or warning me to be very careful.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I was. Nothing which could be prejudicial to matters before a judicial inquiry should be stated here.

Senator Button:

- Mr President, I ask you whether Senator Withers has taken a point of order in relation to this matter.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, I have not.

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator Button:

– The question of sub judice has now, in a sense, been ruled on by you without any point of order being taken. I should have thought it would be proper for the Senate to have the ability to discuss that question. I should have thought that it would be arguable at least.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am not trying to avoid answering the question.

Senator Button:

– If the Minister is not trying to avoid answering the question, in the absence of a point of order perhaps he could answer it.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, as I understand it, you were warning me not to trespass outside what would be a proper answer concerning matters which are before another tribunal. I am not trying to use that as an excuse to avoid answering the question. The honourable senator asked me a question in three parts. The first two are matters of fact. The answer to the first part of the question is yes and the answer to the second part of the question is yes. As to the third part of the question, it is possible that I may have, but I think the answer to the third part of the question will have to await the findings of the Royal Commission. I do not think I ought to canvass the matter further because it is in relation to that that I may start to debate the matters which are presently under inquiry before Mr Justice McGregor.

page 1923

QUESTION

HERBICIDES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. I refer to the considerable publicity that has been given to the herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and the alleged dangers to people from these herbicides. Can the Minister assure the Senate that the properties of these chemicals have been carefully examined, especially in regard to, firstly, the possible long term biological effects on humans due to the accumulation and persistence of chemicals in fatty tissue and, secondly, the carcinogenic and mutogenic effects of low toxic doses of such chemicals over long periods? What mechanism exists for monitoring these effects?

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

-The honourable senator’s question involves the Minister for Health more than me. That Minister probably would be better qualified to answer the question. Discussion and research have taken place in regard to this matter. I have some information before me that I think would cover some of the aspects raised by the honourable senator. I hope it will be sufficient for him. I say that because on several occasions I have answered basic questions relating to the effect of these particular chemicals, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. I understand that the properties of these chemicals have been most extensively examined by the World Health Organisation and in the United States and recently in New Zealand. Further, the poisons schedule committee and the pesticides and agricultural chemicals sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council which, of course, is within the area of responsibility of the Minister for Health, examine all new reports as they come to hand.

Whilst the properties originally were studied in animals, recent experiments have been done using human volunteers. The reports of these experiments currently are being reviewed by the bodies of the National Health and Medical Research Council that I have mentioned. It is possible to monitor the incidence of disease in any health statistics collection which includes information on individual diseases. The best known of these would be statistics of causes of death and statistics of diseases treated in hospital. However, it must be remembered that, where there is a long latent period, effects may not be apparent for many years. Also, using this approach, a small increase in a relatively common disease is virtually impossible to detect. The best mechanism for monitoring the hazardous effects of a possible toxic substance is therefore the following-up of individuals who have been most heavily exposed to it. Even then, in the case of carcinogenic effect, no answer may be obtained for many years. Basically, I refer the honourable senator to the answer, relating to 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, from a scientific point of view, that I gave to Senator Missen on 3 May. That answer is directly related, from the health point of view, to the answer that he now seeks.

page 1923

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate refers to that asked by Senator Button. I do not wish in any way to conflict with your ruling, Mr President, or to place Senator Withers in any difficulty with the Royal Commission, but I ask: Can he explain to me how he came to answer my question concerning the change of name of those seats in the McPherson-Fadden area in this way: I have been asked why the names were changed. I do not know. ‘ That was his answer to me. Can he say now, in view of the statement which he has made publicly, whether or not he misled me on that occasion?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-This is what I was trying to say earlier, being very careful about it. I said in fact, in the answer, that I may have. I still do not know why they changed the names. I thought this was what Mr Justice McGregor was inquiring into. It may well be that His Honour will find- well, I do not know whether I should discuss what his Honour could or could not find. That is why I am in difficulty in trying to answer the question.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why don’t you tell the Parliament -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I think this matter has gone far enough at this stage. The matter is before the court. Nothing must be done in this chamber which could be prejudicial to a matter before a court.

Senator Button:

– I rise on a point of order in relation to this matter. With the greatest respect, sir, what you are doing is, without any point of order being taken in this chamber, making a ruling about a matter which the Senate has not had any opportunity to debate. That is the question whether this matter is in fact sub judice or not. I think it would be proper for the Senate to have that opportunity. I think it is debatable as to whether it is sub judice. In that sense I find difficulty with your ruling, Mr President.

Senator Missen:

- Mr President, I am prepared to take a point of order on this matter because I believe that the matter of sub judice is much canvassed in the Clerk’s book Australian Senate Practice and, of course, the rule is not confined just to court hearings: It extends also to inquiries and to other matters which might prejudice the conduct of an inquiry where there is some issue that may be raised and where publicity of debates in this chamber on the question may well affect it. I suggest that it puts the Leader of the Government in a very awkward position of not being able to answer fully questions that may be raised. It may be useful to the Opposition to have that situation occur, but it is not useful to this Parliament or to the people that there should be, as it were, a mini-trial of issues here when major issues are being determined by a commissioner appointed for that purpose. I therefore take the point of order that this question should be ruled out of order because it is not fair to the Leader of the Government, not fair to the Parliament and not fair to the people that prejudice should occur against the proper investigation of these items that is being undertaken in another tribunal at this very time.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Senator Missen has clarified the point of order. I take it that the point of order is that the question should be ruled out of order. Although a matter may be sub judice a total prohibition is not placed on senators to discuss such a matter. The Parliament has a right to discuss a matter if it is in the interests of the nation that it should be discussed. I think there would be much reluctance to discuss this matter, and possibly it should be ruled out of order if a discussion on it would prejudice anyone appearing before the Commission. However, the question asked by Senator Georges does not prejudice anyone. The question is whether the Minister answered correctly; whether he informed the Parliament correctly. The answer to that question has nothing to do with the Commission and it cannot influence the Commission’s decision. It is the character or the credibility of the Minister that is on trial in this case. Not only does Senator Georges owe it, but also we owe it to the Minister to give him the opportunity to exonerate himself if he can.

Senator Withers:

– I would like to speak to the point of order. I said earlier that I did not wish to use a normal ruling as a device to avoid answering questions. My own inclination is to answer as frankly and as openly as I can. That is why I said in the answer to the third question asked by Senator Button, ‘I may have’. One of the terms of reference before Mr Justice McGregor is for him to discover why the commissioners changed the names. I still do not know.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We do not want to know that. All we want to know is why you gave that answer.

Senator Withers:

– What I am saying is that I still do not know. I put it in these terms, and if I am trespassing on what is happening in the royal commission I suppose it is too bad: It may well be that Mr Justice McGregor will find they changed the names solely because of my intervention. I do not know. He may find that they changed the names for some other reason. That I do not know. He may have found that my intervention had an influence and no more, and that is why I say at this stage that my answer is that I may have misled Senator Georges when I said, on that date, ‘I do not know’. This is my dilemma, Mr President. That is why 1 do not wish to canvass the matter too far. The matter before Mr Justice McGregor is one of particularity, of why the commissioners changed the names. I still do not know. They may well have acted because of my intervention. My intervention may have been of absolute irrelevance as to why they changed the names. I think that answers the honourable senator’s question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I believe this matter has been adequately discussed. Although there is no Standing Order or rigid practice relating to sub judice matters, there is a convention that we should avoid any possible prejudicing of judicial proceedings. In many cases the Chair has to draw a very fine line. Senator Cavanagh pointed out that discussion should not be completely debarred on a matter which is sub judice. However, I believe we should not do anything in this place that would be prejudicial to a matter which is before a court. I say no more then that and I ask that Question Time be continued.

page 1924

QUESTION

MILK PRODUCTION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I point out to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry that the last available milk production figures released to 28 February indicate a drop in production of 509 million litres on last year’s figure. As this represents approximately 2Vi per cent on the 4,070 million litres produced in the same period of the previous year, can the Minister advise whether this is in line with the reduction being sought, or what percentage level it is hoped to have the figure reach?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I understand that in the Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin entitled Milk Statistics, Australia ‘of 28 February 1978, from which the honourable senator apparently has obtained his figures, the Australian Statistician has pointed out that serious distortions in statistics relating to total milk production have been detected. They have resulted in an overstatement of total milk production prior to 1 July 1977. The Australian Statistician has pointed out that the overstatement of total milk production was caused mainly by interstate transfers of whole milk and the inadequacy of conversion factors used to calculate the amount of whole milk used in the production of daily products. As a result, the provisional figures published in the bulletin for the period 1 July 1977 to 28 February 1 978 are not directly comparable with statistics published for previous years. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics presently estimates that whole milk production for 1977-78 is expected to decline only marginally- that is, by one per cent or two per cent- on the 1976-77 production.

page 1925

QUESTION

HEALTH BENEFITS TO SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Under the new health arrangements that have been announced does the Government intend to make any provision for the more than half a million social security beneficiaries who are not entitled to pensioner health benefit cards but whose weekly income is below the poverty line? Is the Government considering issuing special health benefit entitlements, such as under the subsidised health benefits program, or extending the pensioner health benefit program, or extending the pensioner health benefit card to this already financially disadvantaged group?

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

– Following changes that were made to Medibank and the health scheme generally, there have been comments about those people who are social security beneficiaries but not holders of the pensioner medical card. I am unable to announce any specific arrangements for further extensions that would give assistance to those people. The Minister for Health has advised me that once bulk billing is abolished, except for those pensioners and their dependants who are covered by health benefit cards, people will be able to send their doctors’ accounts to either Medibank or their private health insurance funds. They will then receive a ‘pay doctor’ cheque which will meet 75 per cent of the schedule fee. They will give this cheque to their doctor, as has been the common practice for many years, and it is then a matter for their doctor to decide whether the person can afford to meet the gap or whether he will accept the ‘pay doctor’ cheque in payment in full for the service he has rendered to the patient. I understand that for many years doctors generally have judged each case according to the circumstances of the individual patient and I hope that the medical profession will continue to show the same compassion and consideration for disadvantaged individuals.

It also ought to be said that many people who receive partial pensions from the Department of Social Security- they were among the numbers mentioned by the shadow Minister for Health when he responded to a debate in the other place a day or two ago- are people who have considerable other income. It will be realised that this group includes all the over 70 years of age pensioners who are not means tested- they are still society security pensioners- and other pensioners who receive part pension but have a considerable other income source. This is the sort of factor that would need to be taken into account if a medical practitioner wished to make special arrangements. However, in answer to Senator Mcintosh’s question, I do not foreshadow that the Minister for Health will announce any other special arrangements for social security pensioners and beneficiaries.

I turn now to other people, such as Aborigines and people in that category, who require special consideration and who may need special arrangements made. I am advised by the Minister for Health that many Aborigines are pensioners with pensioner health benefit cards or are dependents of such persons and it is not proposed to abolish bulk billing for these people. This has already been announced. The present system of pay doctor’ cheques will, of course, still be available. This system should ensure that doctors treating other Aboriginal patients receive payment for their services. If it appears that there are difficulties with regard to Aborigines and that special problems arise and special needs are noted, the Minister for Health says that he will ensure that the matter is looked at in depth and will try to find a quick solution to any problems which may develop regarding Aborigines.

page 1925

QUESTION

UNIVERSAL PROUTIST REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION

Senator KNIGHT:

– Is the Minister for Administrative Services aware that many slogans have appeared on walls and fences in Canberra recently expressing the ideas or explicitly proclaiming the ideology of the Universal Proutist Revolutionary Federation? More particularly, is the Minister aware that some slogans which have appeared- I make the point that I am not sure that they are Proutist in origin, but they have appeared in the same locations in some caseshave stated that two students of the Australian National University should be killed? Is it true that the Universal Proutist Revolutionary Federation is in fact a revolutionary terrorist organisation? Can the Minister say what action is being taken to ascertain whether the Proutist organisation is established and active in Australia, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-My attention has been drawn to the fact that slogans have appeared in Canberra recently which claim to expound the ideas and ideology of a Universal Proutist Revolutionary Federation. Many threats and violent actions have occurred for which responsibility has been claimed by individuals or a group calling themselves the Universal Proutist Revolutionary Federation. I can assure the honourable senator and the Senate that the Government is taking this matter very seriously and that every endeavour is being made by the various government agencies to apprehend the perpetrators. As to the question concerning the threat to kill two students of the Australian National University, I am informed that the Australian Capital Territory Police are currently conducting investigations which relate to the threat and that matter also is being taken very seriously. Again, I give the honourable senator the general assurance that the Government does take these threats quite seriously.

page 1926

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services, relates to the matter about which Senator Button has asked questions this morning. I seek this factual information: Did Mr Pearson, the Commonwealth Chief Electoral Officer, at any stage after the Minister telephoned him on 13 September last year regarding the name of the new seat, the Gold Coast, report back to the Minister on the outcome of his relaying the Minister ‘s suggestion to the Queensland Electoral Commissioners or on any other matter relating to the naming of the seat?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– As far as I can recall, no. The only information I had back was that he had passed on my suggestion that the Queensland Electoral Commissioners should look at both the Fox Committee report and the naming of the seats. I have had no communication other than that either from Mr Pearson or from any other person connected with the redistribution.

page 1926

QUESTION

ILLITERACY

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, refers to the recent media reports that an estimated one million Australians are functionally illiterate, that is, they cannot cope with the basic reading and writing tasks that the community requires of them, such as the reading of road signs or the writing of their own name. Since the report states that only 2 per cent of these people are receiving remedial help, can the Minister say whether a proportion of the budget of the Curriculum Development Centre has been spent on supplying both schools and adult education centres with the necessary materials to rectify this appalling state of affairs?

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

– I have seen media reports to that effect. Indeed, there has been a broad thrust of argument in the community that the standard of literacy is severely low. The most noteworthy evidence we have to support this claim is the Australian Council for Educational Research report which does show some significant degree of illiteracy. The other evidence which is not quite as expert is the evidence before our eyes, particularly as regards the Education Program for Unemployed Youth. I have to report as I have done previously to this Parliament that the great majority of the young people under 2 1 years of age who are unemployed for any length of time lack the basic skills necessary even for pre-apprenticeship. That concerns my Government. It certainly concerns me enormously. I do not put any figure on it nor, as I have said many times, do I wish to enter into argument as to whether the position is worse or better than it has been in the past. The essence of the matter is that it is not good enough. The question we must ask ourselves is how to repair the situation. I think that it is important firstly to get an understanding and a recognition throughout the length and breadth of Australia of the fact that there needs to be more concentration on the basic skills. That could start the repair job and the prevention job in every classroom as such. To the extent that the Commonwealth can do so in its own Territories and by exerting influence, it is doing so. I believe, for example, that my colleagues the six State Ministers for Education are aware of this problem and are striving to solve it.

One of the major undertakings of the Curriculum Development Centre will be the development of core curricula so that there will be a fundamental platform for teaching any of the disciplines in the schools. That will aid teachers, who are often insecure in their knowledge of how to go about their business. In my view, the fundamental approach to this matter must be in the form of a national inquiry into teacher education. Only by looking at the method by which we select teachers, the method by which we train teachers, what we train them in and who trains them, can we in the end decide whether we are putting enough emphasis on these matters. Senator Walters talked about remedial help. I should like to make one comment in relation to that. The fact is- indeed, the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties shows it- that basic remedial help in specific learning difficulties must be the responsibility of every teacher, not simply specialist teachers, that specialist teachers should be used in the more extreme cases and that never at any stage will we have enough specialist teachers. I am bound to say we are concentrating on this aspect, but the real situation will come when the Australian people press upon the education system to ensure that the basic skills and the core curricula are directed towards proper goals.

page 1927

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Senator JANINE HAINES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and arises from an item in this morning’s Canberra Times which gives the names of the delegates from the Senate to the Commonwealth Constitutional Convention. Is he aware that the motion relating to this matter is not due for debate by the Senate until later today? Does he credit the reporter concerned with clairvoyance or is the publication of this item an indication of the Government’s intention in the future to issue to the Press statements regarding decisions of this Senate before those decisions have been made?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-My understanding of what happened is that yesterday in another place the Prime Minister put down a statement about the Commonwealth Constitutional Convention and gave the names of the Commonwealth delegates to it. I think I am correct in saying that. The statement was not put down in this place because it was put down there after the time statements normally are put down here. I have not seen the report in the Canberra Times. I understand that the Prime Minister made a statement to the House of Representatives in which he listed the names of the delegates from both chambers.

page 1927

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION RATES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, refers to the changes to Medibank and, in particular, to a Press report this morning which indicated that the Minister for Health had told a Press conference that the changes to the health insurance scheme should bring about a reduction in family health insurance contribution rates of about 46c a week and that the health funds would be made to pass on those savings to contributors, if necessary. I ask the Minister whether that represents a firm decision by the Government. Will it be enforced? Has the Minister seen the reaction of the voluntary health funds, as reported in the Press, that some of them have no intention of passing on those savings? Will the Minister inform the Senate of the answers to those questions as the Senate has not yet been given that sort of information?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Minister for Health recently announced changes to the health care system and, in itemising the changes, statements were made that they could result in a reduction of some 46c in the levy paid by people who are within the health fund system. The Minister also outlined that he needed to have discussions with the health funds in regard to the proposed changes and in regard to the optional deductibles that could be introduced, and that arising from those discussions determinations could be made as to what would be the appropriate rate. I read the statements this morning by some health funds which said that they would not alter their rates because they anticipated further changes after the discussions had been held. I am unaware of how the Minister for Health has responded to statements of that kind from the health funds today but I will ensure that the question is referred to the Minister for his response to it.

page 1927

QUESTION

EDUCATION: PER CAPITA FUNDING

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Education. I refer to an announcement by the State Minister for Education in Western Australia, Mr Peter Jones M.L.A., which was reported in the Press last Monday in which he criticised the Schools Commission report on per capita funding of government schools. I ask the Minister: Firstly, was the amount received by Western Australia in the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 approximately $20 a student less than that received by New South Wales and Victoria? Secondly, will the Commission’s recommendation for 1979, which would give Western Australia approximately $8 a student less than New South Wales and Victoria, be implemented? Will the Minister inform the Senate of the facts in this matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have of course seen the reports of the purported statements on this matter by the Western Australian Minister for Education, my colleague Mr Peter Jones. The Western Australian Government through its Minister will have the opportunity of putting in a submission reacting to the Schools Commission report. Before I deal with the specifics, let me put the matter in perspective. The Schools Commission having reported, the Commonwealth Government through me has invited all States, and indeed all those interested in education, to respond. The Western Australian Government will respond. So that it can be put in perspective I should add that of course we invite constructive criticism and indeed if there is an injustice it should be brought to the surface so that we can see it. I do not adjudicate on that at all. We wait until we see what response is made; we make a judgment on this. It will be my job to make a recommendation to Cabinet. Ultimately a report will come back through this Parliament. I should say that not many months ago when a temporary vacancy occurred amongst the four full-time commissioners I arranged that Professor Peter Tannock, a distinguished Western Australian educator, should be moved for a year or more from part-time to full-time commissioner. So one of the present three full-time commissioners is a very distinguished Western Australian, and it would be very competent for the Western Australian Government to have direct approach if it so desired.

As to the specifics, Mr Jones apparently was referring to legislated amounts for general recurrent grants, which include migrant education money and which reflect transfers between capital and recurrent funds made at the request of the States. The migrant education component reflects the migrant population and the allocation prevailing in 1976, so there is a lag to be considered. Basic calculations exclusive of the components mentioned were based on the relative needs of the States. After making adjustment for the factors mentioned, the difference between Western Australia and New South Wales and Victoria was $10 a student in 1976, $7 in 1977 and $8 in 1978. The Commission’s recommendations for the 1979-81 triennium proposed that the calculations for basic general recurrent entitlements be substantially on a per capita basis. The Commission also proposed that there be increases in funding for migrant education which would increase the amounts for Western Australia. The proposed basic entitlements for Western Australia and Victoria are identical. On the Commission’s proposal New South Wales would be allocated $3 more per person on a needs basis. I emphasise that the Schools Commission is an expert body recommending to government. On a co-operative basis the States are asked to respond. They are doing so. In due course the Government itself will respond.

page 1928

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDY SCHEMES

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In answer to my question on notice on this subject the Minister said that no information was available on the number of employers who had taken advantage of employment subsidy schemes or on the number of times they have used them. Why does this Government which employs Draconian measures to check the validity of all pension claims not keep records which would provide a means of safeguarding against abuses by employers of the subsidy schemes? Is it the case that the Government has the information but is not prepared to release it?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not know of the answer my colleague gave to the honourable senator. I suspect from her question today that she asked for statistical information and that the Minister said that this was not available. Merely because certain statistical information is not kept does not mean that records are not kept. There may well be a confusion over the use of words. I suggest that the honourable senator does not understand the answer which my colleague gave her. However, I shall make certain that Senator Durack is aware of the question. He may be able to give the honourable senator a more detailed answer on Monday.

page 1928

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It relates to the present depressed state of the wine grape industry and, in particular, the criticism of Australian wines compared with wines made overseas. Is it a fact that Australia’s natural grape ripening process encouraged by Australia’s sunny climate is the subject of considerable envy overseas? Is it also a fact that French and German wine makers seek to achieve quality levels equivalent to Australian wines by the addition of sugars? In the interest of the Australian wine industry, which seems to suffer in the public mind by comparison of its product with overseas made wine, will the Government encourage the Australian Wine Board to advertise and promote the fact that Australian wines are of the highest quality by international standards and that overseas wine makers seek to achieve our level of quality by means of artificial additives?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator is vitally interested in the wine industry in his own State of South Australia. The benefit of his asking such a question today is that obviously it will alert those who follow Hansard and certainly those who listen to the questions which honourable senators raise to the fact that they must be more active in a particular field. The honourable senator mentioned the Australian Wine Board which is an excellent group of representatives for the industry. I feel certain that they do all they possibly can to encourage the sale of wine overseas and certainly the consumption of wine within Australia. The honourable senator mentioned the ripening facility available to Australia because of its climate. Without great knowledge I would agree with the comments that are made about the excellent conditions we have. Certainly from my own experience and that enjoyed by others, Australian wine has a level of quality comparable with anything in the world and superior in many instances. The quality of Australian wine, from South Australia and other States is to be envied. I am not certain of the incidence of additives being placed in wines made overseas.

I know that if I were to give some details of the way in which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is working in this field there would be a complaint from honourable senators that they were being given too much information. Within the past few days CSIRO has provided details of a new variety which it has developed. I hope that following Question Time the honourable senator will care to experience this with me and, indeed, to take back to South Australia a reason for developing a new wine. I shall provide to members of the Australian Wine Board whom I know details of the honourable senator’s question. I am sure that a new variety will be of benefit to the wine industry.

page 1929

QUESTION

RAIL CONCESSIONS FOR PENSIONERS

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Is he aware that the South Australian Government gives to pensioners in South Australia a concession of one free trip a year on South Australian railways from a pensioner’s home station to any other station serviced by the Railway Division of their South Australian State Transport Authority? Since the country railways of South Australia have been taken over by the Commonwealth this concession by the State Government permits only one free trip a year from the station nearest a pensioner’s home to some other suburban station. Will the Minister consider the Commonwealth continuing this benefit, which previously provided free travel for one holiday a year for South Australian pensioners?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Whilst I am aware that in, I think, all States some concessions are given to pensioners for travel upon public transportspecifically upon railways- I am not aware of the facts as they apply to South Australia. I shall bring the suggestion of Senator Cavanagh to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, in another place.

page 1929

QUESTION

EXPORT INCENTIVES

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources and relates to the new export incentive grants which were announced by the Minister for Trade and Resources on 13 April last. The statement indicates that the scheme is designed to encourage Australian firms to increase their export sales and more actively to pursue export opportunities. The scheme also covers a wide range of export goods, including manufactured goods, some bulk farm and agricultural products, services provided overseas and the sale of industrial rights and property which are of substantially Australian origin. Can the Minister report on the reaction of exporters to this announcement? Is any evidence available yet to show that the announcement has given a stimulus to export trade generally?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I understood that generally the proposals were welcomed by industry and that they had been acclaimed as an initiative which will do a vast amount to help those people in Australia engaged in export trade not only to keep up their present exports but also to regain the markets which they have lost in recent times due to high costs caused by inflation at home. Occasionally there has been criticism of the scheme, but this has generally come from people who, I imagine, would normally call themselves free traders’ and who are opposed to any assistance for secondary industry, although they are not opposed to assistance to other industries. I shall ask my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Resources, whether he can provide a more detailed answer which perhaps indicates specific names of people and firms who have been in touch with him.

page 1930

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: As he said earlier in Question Time in answer to Senator Wriedt ‘s question that as far as he could recall no report had been made back to him by Mr Pearson about passing the Minister’s message on to the Queensland distribution commissioners, will the Minister undertake to search his records of phone calls and correspondence in order to be in a position- as I know he would like to be- to be totally frank with the Senate about this matter?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have already taken some action. I intended to provide the additional information at the end of Question Time. The only written information which my staff has been able to find so far in my records is a communication dated 17 October 1977, after the final reports had come out. It is a note from Mr Pearson, which states:

The Commissioners have also suggested that the name of the initially proposed Gold Coast division be altered to McPherson and that the name of the initially proposed Mcpherson division be altered to Fadden.

So far as it has been possible to ascertain during Question Time, the only communication of which we are aware is that one from Mr Pearson about the name change. In fact, he is saying that it has happened. He is not saying why it happened. I emphasise that this was after the final reports were presented to the Parliament and is part of his analysis of what is contained in the report. I understand why Senator Button asks the question. I am having my staff seek out all the available information.

At this stage let me just say that all the written records which we had, some of which were not photocopied, are at present with the McGregor Royal Commission. All the files and correspondence that we had have been taken under the wing of Mr Justice McGregor. Apart from some material of which we have kept photocopies, we do not have all the information here at present. Most probably we will not have it again until the McGregor Royal Commission is concluded.

page 1930

QUESTION

DECISIONS MADE BY TELECOM AUSTRALIA

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I ask: What rights of appeal are available to citizens who feel aggrieved by decisions of Telecom Australia? Is there any right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? Can citizens seek redress through the Commonwealth Ombudsman? Are there any other avenues of appeal open to them?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Peter Baume asked this question in four segments. My understanding is that citizens who are of the opinion that they have been disadvantaged by decisions of Telecom Australia can refer those decisions for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Ombudsman in accordance with the criteria outlined in the enacting legislation in each case. In addition, last year the Parliament passed the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1 977, which is to come into force on a date to be proclaimed. I understand that my colleague the AttorneyGeneral is to proclaim a date in the near future. My further advice is that stated simply this Act will enable the Federal Court of Australia at the instance of an aggrieved person to review, firstly, decisions of an administrative nature made under an enactment, secondly, conduct engaged in or proposed to be engaged in for the purpose of making such a decision and, thirdly, failure to make such a decision in a case where there is a duty to do so. I am informed that there is no intention to exempt any decisions likely to be made by Telecom Australia for the purposes of this Act.

page 1930

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services, follows the questions that have been asked of him already by my colleagues Senators Button, Georges, Wreidt and James McClelland. Does the Minister recall saying in the Parliament on 4 November 1977, in connection with the electoral legislation that was then before the House:

I turn now to the naming of electorates. It ought to be understood that submissions which have come in about the naming of electorates are not printed for the simple reason that they are not official submissions because the naming of subdivisions is a matter for this Parliament and no one else.

In those circumstances, I ask: Why did the Minister himself suggest to Mr Pearson on 13 September a change of names of electorates in Queensland? Why did he neglect to tell the Parliament only six weeks later, namely, on 4 November, that he had made such a suggestion to Mr Pearson?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I assume the honourable senator has read the transcript of what I said on Monday. I suggest that, before questions arising out of newspaper reports are asked, the transcript ought to be read. The form in which the honourable senator puts the question would lead one to believe that I went beyond suggesting what I said in evidence before the Royal Commission. The facts are that I said to Mr Pearson that in my opinion the naming of these seats in Queensland was not in accordance with the recommendations of the Fox Committee’s report to the House of Representatives and asked whether it would be in order for him to draw that report to the attention of the commissioners, in case they were not aware of it.

Senator Georges:

– When did you do that?

Senator WITHERS:

– I said that to him sometime early in September, I think.

Senator Georges:

– Before November, which is when you answered my question?

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes. I will come to that part in a minute. He said that in his opinion it would be in order. I said to him that they were seeking another name; I thought a suitable name would be Fadden, after a very distinguished former Prime Minister from Queensland. In fact, as I discovered later, that was the same name as was proposed by the distribution commissioners who carried out the redistribution under the previous Labor Government. Senator Douglas McClelland will no doubt remember that redistribution. It was on that basis, and on that basis only that I contacted Mr Pearson. I do not know how far I should go in this chamber in going through the evidence I gave before the Royal Commission but it is all in the public record. As I recall what I said last Monday it was that if I had ever been advised by Mr Pearson- words to this effect- that it was not proper for him to pass on that suggestion, that would have been the end of the suggestion. The inference I take from Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s question is that somehow I was deliberately and directly attempting to influence the commissioners. That was never my intention.

I turn to the interjection of Senator Georges. I regret having to take up so much of the time of the Senate at Question Time but one of the reasons why I have been saying that I may have misled him- I ask honourable senators to look at the context of the Hansard record- is that I am shown as having said:

I have been asked why the names were changed. I do not know.

I still do not know, and that is what I said earlier, because what I know is what I did. I do not know why the commissioners did what they did.

Senator Georges:

– That is subtle.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am not trying to be silly. Can I answer it in this way–

Senator Georges:

– Oh!

Senator WITHERS:

– Well, Senator Georges can have his suspicions. That is fair enough. But I said ‘I do not know’ because I have never had any communication from the commissioners as to why they did change those names. I have never been told by them. That is what I tried to say earlier. This is one of the matters that Mr Justice McGregor is inquiring into. It may well be that His Honour will find that they changed it for that reason and none other. I would suggest to honourable senators that whilst they may suspect why the commissioners changed the name, there is no evidence in the public record, or anywhere else, at the moment as to why they did so. That is one of the reasons why the Royal Commission is at present sitting. I am not trying to dodge around it. I say quite frankly to Senator Georges, as I said to Senator Button perhaps an hour ago, that I may have inadvertently misled the Senate. If I did I apologise, because I did not mean to. I said in good faith on 4 November- honourable senators opposite might say that I am being legalistically nit-picking -

Senator Georges:

– You said it.

Senator WITHERS:

-Well, you may say it. But I said that I did not know then. I do not know now. It may well be, as a result of the findings of His Honour, that it will be discovered that it was my suggestion, and my suggestion only, that was the thing which changed their mind. As I said earlier, it may well be that they changed it for other reasons.

That is one of the particular terms of reference before the Royal Commissioner at the moment. It is for him to discover why the commissioners changed the name. I think that is a deliberate reference before the Commission. Until that stage is reached, until His Honour determines as a matter of fact on sworn evidence before him from all the persons involved, I suggest to honourable senators that none of us knows why the names were changed. I do not deny that honourable senators opposite may suspect that they know why the names were changed. I do not deny that at all. If Senator Georges believes that I misled him by saying, as I believed honestly at the time, I do not know’- because I did not know then and I do not know now- I apologise. It is unfortunate that perhaps the honourable senator believes I misled him.

Mr President, today I have attempted to be as frank as I could with the Senate, and I have attempted to be as frank as I could before the Royal Commission. I wrote to His Honour and offered to give evidence. I was not subpoenaed and I was not ordered to appear. I wrote and volunteered to give evidence because I thought the whole truth and nothing but the truth ought to come out of the inquiry.

page 1932

QUESTION

PHOSPHATE MINING

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-On 24 May Senator Colston asked me as the Minister representing the Prime Minister the following question:

Was an approach for Commonwealth Government financial assistance made in the past 12 months by or on behalf of the phosphate mining company at the Monument in Queensland?

I am advised as follows: The Commonwealth Government has been approached by BH South for financial assistance for Queensland Phosphate Ltd’s operations at Duchess in Queensland. I hope we are talking about the same mine. The need by QPL for financial assistance was first raised with the Commonwealth in July 1977 and a detailed submission was made early this year.

After considering very carefully the information available to it, including from the company itself, the Government decided that no financial assistance would be granted to the company at this stage. The Government has, however, decided to hold an inquiry into the rock phosphate mining and superphosphate manufacturing industry in Australia and the question of any government action will depend upon the outcome of that inquiry.

page 1932

QUESTION

WHEAT EXPORTS: CHINA

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Senator McLaren asked me a question without notice on 24 May regarding wheat exports to China. His first question was:

Did the Australian Wheat Board sign a contract with Mainland China for the sale of three million tonnes of wheat in July 1977?

The answer to that question is yes. His second question was:

Did that contract have an estimated value in round figures of $280m or about $90 a tonne?

The answer to that question is that in his Press release on the sale, the Wheat Board Chairman said: ‘The Board has the option to ship various classes of Australian wheat, and depending on the actual quantities of each class shipped, the value of the sale could be around $280m’. As a matter of commercial prudence, and often at the request of the buyer, the Board does not disclose actual prices at which sales are made. The third question was:

Is it correct that the Australian Wheat Board hedged about one-third of the value of that contract on the Chicago grain futures market?

The answer to the question is that the Australian Wheat Board does not make public details of hedging operations on the ground that this is commercial information. His fourth question was:

Was the hedging undertaken with the knowledge and the approval of the Treasury?

The answer is: See the answer to the previous question 3. The Board has the facility to hedge individual contracts on the futures market in the USA and that facility was provided in conformity with the exchange controls exercised by the Reserve Bank of Australia.

page 1932

AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION TO THE 32ND SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the 32nd session of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York during the period 20 September 1977 to 2 1 December 1977.

page 1932

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the monthly report of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for April 1978.

page 1932

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS

Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS (Western Australia-

Leader of the Government in the Senate)- by leave- I make this statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). All honourable senators will recognise that a great deal of most valuable work is done by committees of this Parliament. It is important that the reports of these Committees, many of which reflect considerable thought, effort and often insight, receive full and careful attention by Ministers. It is equally desirable that a procedure be established to make sure that Parliament is aware of the decisions which the Government takes in connection with such reports. In some instances, such a procedure is already in operation.

As honourable senators will know, Department of Finance minutes are provided to the Public Accounts Committee in respect of each of its reports. Similarly, the Government has been careful to see that its decisions in relation to each of the Expenditure Committee’s reports have been announced to the Parliament. The Government has now decided to apply this principle to all Parliament committee reports. Henceforth, within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the reponsible Minister will make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposes to take in relation to the report. If the six month period expires during a parliamentary recess, the ministerial statement will be made at the earliest opportunity in the next parliamentary sittings.

As honourable senators will appreciate, there will be some committee reports which will not be appropriate to the procedure I have outlined. Among these reports are the reports of the Committee relating to House management, the Public Works Committee, and the Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. The present procedure relating to the Public Accounts Committee will, of course, continue to operate. There have been a number of reports tabled since the Government took office on which the Government’s attitude has not yet been announced. The Prime Minister has asked Ministers to inform the Cabinet of action taken or proposed to be taken in relation to them and, where appropriate, the Parliament will be informed in these cases too.

The procedure I have outlined reflects the Government’s firm intention to see that the excellent work of Parliamentary committees does not pass unheeded. We need to use to the full the talents and resources available in the House of Representatives and the Senate. One important way in which this can be achieved is the further development and enhancement of the Parliamentary committees, and the Prime Minister will be making a further statement on that subject in a few days. I believe the arrangements I have announced represent a further strengthening of the role of Parliament in our system of government I present the following paper:

Parliamentary Committee Reports- Ministerial statement, 26 May 1978

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveproposed:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition congratulates the Government on this decision in relation to parliamentary committee reports. We think it is an excellent decision which will help with the proper functioning of this Parliament. Certainly it will assist members and senators to have a slightly stronger feeling that in participating in parliamentary committees and functions of that kind they are engaging in a more constructive and worthwhile activity which is relevant to the proceedings of the Parliament itself. I was not aware that this statement was to be made and for that reason do not have in the forefront of my mind a collection of the reports of this Parliament which have been presented over the years and ignored effectively by the Parliament. I make no partisan political comment in relation to that except to say that in the period to which I am referring there have been governments of conservative persuasion for a much greater period of time than governments of Labor persuasion. However, I recall reports such as the 1958 report of the Committee on Constitutional Review. If I may say so with respect to the authors of that report, that report 20 years later in 1978 is still a modern document because a lot of the recommendations which it made in 1958 are still equally applicable, still equally in need of being debated in this chamber and still equally in need of implementation in our Constitution.

Of course there are numerous other reports with which other honourable senators will have been associated. I refer particularly to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts relating to broadcasting, the recommendations of which have never been implemented. I refer to the more recent report of the Senate Committee, the name of which temporarily eludes me, but of which Senator Baume was chairman, relating to drugs. I think its report ought to be a matter of serious and earnest debate in this chamber as a result of a Government attitude being expressed in the chamber to the recommendations of the report. Unless these things are done, this Parliament as an institution will increasingly appear irrelevant because a lot of the work which the committees do is relevant to the social and political problems with which this country is confronted. A lot of the debates which take pake in this chamber quite frankly and honestly I think it should be conceded are not always relevant to the problems that face this country in social and political terms. It is those sorts of reasons, which we assume were the sorts of reasons which motivated the Government to bring down this suggestion, that motivates the Opposition likewise and lead me to the rare conclusion of congratulating the Government on this course which has been suggested in the Minister’s statement. I hope it will be followed with alacrity in this Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1934

CONSULAR SERVICES FOR AUSTRALIANS OVERSEAS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Mr President, I wish to make a statement on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), on consular services for Australians overseas. As it is a lengthly statement, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

I deal in this statement with the consular services provided for Australians overseas. This is a major function of my Department and of our overseas posts. Together with the issuing of passports in Australia, it is the principal acrossthecounter service of the Department. Recent and prospective growth in the consular work load and the notoriety of several current and regrettable cases overseas make it timely for there to be a ministerial statement. Australia does not have a separate consular service or a distinct consular stream in its foreign service. It is, however, our aim to train a larger number of experienced consular officials. The other side of overseas representation work, international negotiations, political and economic reporting, export promotion, migration, information activities and the many aspects of representational work, make more recognised contributions to the national interest than routine consular work. But it is the routine consular work which, for the Australian public, is the immediate and tangible benefit of the overseas representational services.

There have been dramatic developments in the volume and nature of consular work in the past two decades. These developments have been world wide and closely related to the increase in travel. No developed countries have escaped increases in their consular responsibilities. Basic consular services are not optional. They are essential. If our own consuls are not in a position to act, others must act for us. Clearly we cannot respond by proxy to the one million Australians already going overseas each year. The number of valid Australian passports on issue is nearly 1.7 million.

It has been assessed that Australia stands on the verge of a travel explosion. According to Qantas projections, in less than 10 years’ time some three million Australians will be leaving Australia each year for overseas destinations, an increase of more than 200 per cent. Obviously I applaud and encourage such a development. What better force for international understanding than the first hand knowledge of other countries ‘ cultures, aspirations and problems which can result from such travel. As well as increased traffic, there have been other changes. Twenty years ago most Australians who travelled abroad made their destinations Britain and Western Europe. Australians now travel more widely around the world and by air rather than by sea. The character of today’s travellers has also changed. More than SO per cent of Australians who travel abroad are under the age of 30 and a substantial proportion of the remainder are in their advanced years.

Unfortunately some of our nationals behave overseas in ways that would not be acceptable in Australia. The increase in Australians being arrested overseas for drug offences in particular is a matter of great concern to the Government on consular and other grounds. Although the majority of these unfortunate arrests occur in South East Asian countries the problem is by no means confined to that area. Our consular resources are coming under identifiable strain as a result of narcotics offences alone and I have given detailed personal attention to the administrative consequences of significant numbers of arrests of Australians overseas. Amongst other considerations we cannot afford to have the services available to law-abiding Australians overseas curtailed because our Consuls are preoccupied with the problems of those arrested. This increase in arrests coincides with stiffer penalties for drug offences. Long prison and death sentences, which might become mandatory, have been introduced in countries close to us, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, the very countries many younger Australians are more inclined to visit. Increased offences mean an increase in the number of prison visits, arrangements for bail and legal representation, attendances at hearings, communications with family and, if the person arrested is imprisoned, a continuing interest in his or her welfare, sometimes for many years, under arduous prison conditions.

Alongside a reasonable consular concern and natural sense of compassion for those convicted and punished overseas, there must, however, also be a balanced view of the significance of many of these drug offences. We cannot condone, and indeed can only condemn, the actions of those proven to have played a part in drug trafficking.

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting the Government made a new commitment to examine the possibilities of further regional co-operation to suppress the illicit drug traffic. It is very welcome to us that Malaysia is convening the Working Group on Illicit Drugs set up for that purpose. We shall participate fully in the work of the Group as we do in relation to other international measures in this field. In this connection I draw to the attention of honourable members the recent useful visit by the Director-General of the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control. In relation to drug offences, and generally, we have sought to take the preventative measures open to us. My Department issues with each passport a booklet- ‘Hints for Australian Travellers’ outlining difficulties and dangers inherent in travel overseas. I am pleased at the publicity the Press has given to the contents of this booklet. Many of Australia’s major newspapers are continuing to perform a public service through thoughtful and helpful articles on consular problems documented by actual case histories known to my Department. This publicity will assist the Government in its efforts to prevent the more avoidable occurrences and make Australians realise that they can turn to their consulates in times of genuine need.

More and more Australian travellers fail to make proper arrangements to purchase return tickets, to cover risks through insurance or to take adequate funds with them. Last year over 700 Australians had to be helped and sometimes repatriated at public expense. Repatriation is only approved as a last resort on the basis of an undertaking that all costs will be repaid and much of this money is recovered. This provision is exercised strictly but compassionately. The amount of public funds used for distressed Australians has remained fairly constant in the last five years, rising only in exceptional circumstances such as the emergency in Cyprus. The funds necessary will, however, inevitably increase.

I mention next the problems of dual nationality. Many migrants who are naturalised Australians, or in some cases their children who are natural-born Australians, may be regarded by their country of birth, or their parents ‘ birth, still to be citizens of those countries. Such ‘dual nationals’ can be subject to laws of the country of their first citizenship, who may claim jurisdiction over them in such matters as military service, or taxation. My Department, and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, attempt to make dual nationals aware of the problems they might encounter on return to their country of birth. Assistance to dual nationals, however, necessarily becomes a growing part of consular work as more foreign born Australians return to visit their former homes. The problems of dual nationals cannot be overcome by citizens simply asserting that they do not accept their other citizenship. In some cases formal acts of renunciation are possible, but in other countries, no such provisions exist; the requirements should be carefully established in advance. It is for the individual to ascertain and bear the consequences of coming within the jurisdiction of another country which claims his or her citizenship, whether the individual, or the Australian Government, recognises that claim or not. Our consular officers can advise, but beyond a strict limit, they cannot assist when, in these circumstances, the jurisdiction of another country is being asserted.

My predecessors have not placed on record a general description of Australian consular functions and services, and although there are some difficulties of definition, I believe it would be helpful to do so. Broadly speaking, they fall into two parts: the provision of notarial and documentation services, and the protection of Australian citizens. The first requires that Australian consular officers perform functions including the following: notarial acts, oaths, affirmations and declarations such as the authentication or legislation of various documents, form wills and contracts to school certificates and driving licenses; the issue and renewal of passports and visas; the solemnisation and registration of marriages; payment of or advice on social security provisions including medical benefits; advice on the importation and registration of motor vehicles; advice on acquisition or loss of citizenship, particularly on dual nationality problems; provision of information on Australian Customs’ requirements; the provision of facilities for voting in Australian elections overseas; the administration of regulations arising from the Navigation Act in regard to seamen; liaison with overseas legal authorities on instructions from Australia to arrange extradition; advice on exchange control and currency matters for personal or investment purposes; serving of writs and taking evidence; advising visitors to Australia of health and quarantine requirements and reporting on outbreaks of disease in foreign countries.

The second part, consular protection, arises from the international practice of sovereign states recognising an obligation to protect the civil and legal rights of their citizens when abroad. An important consular duty is to ensure that Australian citizens arrested overseas are treated with due process in accordance with the laws of the state where the offence may have occurred and that they receive the same benefits of the law which the foreign state affords to its own subjects. We must ensure that an Australian arrested overseas knows his rights under local law and how to obtain legal assistance if he wishes it. Protection services also include assistance arising from the deaths of Australians abroad, including funeral arrangements, return of remains to Australia and the protection of estates and property willed to Australians.

In addition to its internationally accepted obligations, the Australian Government provides a range of services which are designed to assist Australians in trouble and distress of various kinds and which come, generally, within the scope of protection work. This assistance includes: enquiries relating to the welfare and whereabouts of Australians; repatriation and financial relief of distressed Australians in the form of a repayable loan as already mentioned; welfare visits to persons in gaol, hospital or in an asylum; assistance in natural disasters or emergencies; and making available to Australian citizens who have been arrested a list of local lawyers who may be able to assist them.

I have spoken in general terms of the wide range of these duties because of the difficulty of drawing lines beyond which protection will not be provided. The standards to be applied may differ from country to country depending on such factors as language and cultural differences, the opportunity for self-help and the local availability of social, charitable or welfare services. In the interests of economy and efficiency, my Department will seek to limit approved assistance while at the same time preserving the consul’s flexibility to respond to individual human problems.

Obviously not every limitation encountered in our consular services will be the result of economy measures. Indeed the investigation of complaints frequently reveals that assistance has not been provided either because it is prohibited under international convention or practice, or because the matter could be adequately dealt with privately- without official help. There is in fact something of a natural tendency for those overseas not to seek private assistance, for example the advice of a local lawyer, and to appeal instead for official help. As I stated earlier, not only are more Australians travelling overseas, but they are visiting a wider range of countries. It follows that, increasingly, there are requirements for assistance in places where we have no Australian consular office. Where the United Kingdom is represented and we are not, and it is not practicable to send in a consular officer, or the case needs continued attention, we have long turned to British representatives for consular assistance. I pay the warmest tribute to successive British governments and to the numerous British Consuls, who have traditionally extended such assistance to Australians. A great many Australians owe the United Kingdom their thanks on this score, and I here express their cumulative gratitude. This service so far has been offered freely. We must, however, count on it being contracted in future and plan on the basis of assuming greater responsibility for our own people. But we must also seek to conserve our resources.

Consular sharing, or the rationalisation of consular services between several countries is, on the face of it, an attractive proposition. There are, however, issues of sovereignty and conflict of interest inherent in this kind of arrangement. The possibility of greater use of locally-engaged staff is limited by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The question of honorary counsuls is one that has been examined but on which no definitive view has yet been reached. Although such appointments can be of help in tourist resourts or in ports where shipping and related cases are likely to occur, there are problems inherent in the practice and, of course, there would still be some costs to be borne.

On whatever basis, the prospect is for expanded Australian consular services in more centres at inevitably increased costs- not to provide a travel service for a privileged few, but in order to provide a truly public service for a large and growing proportion of the Australian people. I remind the House of the projection of three million Australians travelling abroad annually in less than 10 years’ time. Other countries expect us to look after our nationals. Only second class countries ignore their citizens in dme of need. Our geography is such that, with the exception of a few destinations, when an Australian travels overseas, he travels far. We do not just cross one of a number of contiguous borders in our own cars as in Europe. When we do travel in our own geographic region we do so in most cases to countries of very different cultures and levels of development.

There have traditionally been charges for many of the consular services we provide overseas. It will be recalled that the report on Australia’s Overseas Representation’ by the House Standing Committee on Expenditure, tabled on 2 June 1977, included a recommendation that the Government give serious consideration to means of minimising the impact of the huge growth expected in overseas travel by Australians in the coming decade, and in particular to the feasibility of recovering the costs of appropriate consular services provided by our Embassies, High Commissions and Consulates, by charging for them. As the House was informed on 12 April 1978, the recommendation has been accepted and my Department has in hand a study of the range of and charges for consular services.

The issue of passports is one of the major aspects of consular work. In a statement on 2 March 1978 I indicated that the Government had reviewed its policy and procedures for passport issue. As an outcome of that review I will at the appropriate time introduce important amendments to the Passports Act. At this point I wish only to note that the possession of an Australian passport is proof of entitlement to consular services. Many travellers value it more properly when they face difficulties overseas. It is because of this direct relationship that the costs of consular services can be offset to a large extent by revenue generated by passport fees.

A substantial part of the consular work detailed in this statement is routine. But much of it is critical and immediate. We must have the means to respond to an anxious parent in search of a missing child, to a pensioner whose social security benefits have been erroneously held up or in the aftermath of a disaster involving Australian citizens overseas. Because young Australians are arrested in another country with marijuana in their possession, are they to be treated as pariahs and offered no consular assistance in gaol conditions they may be physically and emotionally unable to tolerate?

In all the circumstances I have outlined, the Government has an inescapable responsibility to provide and plan for a growing range of consular services. Resources must be found notwithstanding requirements to contain expenditure and to maintain reasonable staffing ceilings. In our passports we ask other governments to allow our nationals ‘to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance or protection of which he or she may stand in need ‘. We can ourselves do no less.

page 1937

DAYS AND HOURS OF SITTING

Senator WITHERS (Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate)Honourable senators will recall that when the sitting days and hours for the remainder of the session were put down, I had some representations from honourable senators about sitting on what is known as the Queen’s Birthday holiday on Monday, 5 June. I advise honourable senators that it is my intention at the moment not to sit on that day.

page 1937

FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders to suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages of the passage through the Senate of the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1978, the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1978 and the Whaling 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 Webster) together read a first time.

Second Readings

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

- Mr President, I note that these three Bills, whilst being quite important Bills, have particularly lengthy second reading speeches. There is an 18 page second reading speech associated with at least one of them. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Fisheries Amendment Bill 1978

This Bill is of major significance to the Australian community. It will amend the Fisheries Act 1 952 and extend Australian fishing jurisdiction over foreign fishermen out to 200 miles beyond the low water mark by creation of a 200-mile Australian fishing zone. Australian fishermen are in fact already covered by present fisheries legislation which extends throughout Australian waters as defined in the Act and which extends to the 200-mile limit and beyond.

The Government’s intention to bring down this legislation was announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in the House on 1 6 August 1 977. It results from a firm decision by the Government to extend Australia’s jurisdiction but preferably in the context of international agreement. It is, in addition to the continental shelf legislation already in place, the first of a number of measures which will be taken to create a full exclusive economic zone, when the nature of that zone is more clearly defined by international agreement. As to fisheries, the Government has had the benefit of a report prepared by a special working group of the Australian Fisheries Council on management strategies and policies which might be employed in relation to the 200-mile Australian fishing zone. One of the principal recommendations of the working group will permit feasibility fishing operations to commence immediately without awaiting the legal steps required to establish the zone formally. Such feasibility operations will provide a better knowledge of the resources of the zone.

However, I feel I should issue a world of caution. Honourable senators will be aware of reports which speak of the vast fisheries wealth of a 200-mile Australian fishing zone which, in area, will approximate the land mass of the continent itself. Australia does not generally have a wide continental shelf with suitable trawling grounds. We do not have the upwellings of nutrients which attract large fish populations; we do not have a gulf stream meeting a Labrador current and we do not have the fast flowing rivers which are prerequisite for spawning salmon. This is not to say that there are not substantial fish resources unexploited around Australia, but one should get the position into perspective. Our waters do not produce the abundances of fish which are found in other parts of the world. Our fisheries resources therefore require very careful conservation and this is a major reason for extending our jurisdiction to 200 miles.

Honourable senators will know that there have been six sessions of the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference since 1973. At that conference, the nations of the world have been working towards a comprehensive Law of the Sea Convention. This is probably one of the most complex and difficult political, economic and legal exercises ever undertaken by mankind. Although it appears to be moving very slowly there has been a large measure of agreement. However, there are still some issues, notably with respect to deep sea mining in the area national jurisdiction, which are not yet resolved.

One area on which there is substantial agreement is the right of coastal States to exercise fisheries jurisdiction over their adjacent coastal waters to a distance of 200 miles. In recent years a number of major countries have extended their fisheries jurisdiction to the full extent of 200 miles. Among these are the United States of America, Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, New Zealand, Canada and the European Economic Community countries- in short both major fishing nations and nations with fisheries resources.

While other countries have acted before Australia, the principle reason for delay has been our desire to work towards a comprehensive Law of the Sea Convention. As honourable senators will recognise, Australia has many important interests in offshore resources and it is of prime importance that we did not take any action likely to prejudice agreement with respect to any of these. We are resolved to achieve a package which satisfies the many interests involved. The position has now developed where extension of fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles is accepted practice in international law, and such extension is no longer likely to be prejudicial to eventual agreement in other areas being considered at the Law of the Sea Conference.

A further element in the very important exercise of extending our maritime jurisdiction to 200 miles has been our desire to take account of the other nations of our region. Honourable senators will recall that, at the South Pacific Forum meeting in Port Moresby in August 1 977, Australia supported the island countries of the South Pacific and joined in the Port Moresby Declaration which provided for extension of maritime jurisdiction by the member countries of the South Pacific Forum to 200 miles. It was agreed that the legislative and adminstrative steps required to establish these zones were to be taken, if possible, by 3 1 March 1 978. There are obviously advantages in having all countries in the region extend their jurisdiction at about the same time. I should inform the House that, between passage of the legislation and its eventual proclamation, there is much to be done by way of implementation, negotiation with other countries and promulgation of management regulations. Nonetheless, proclamation will be made as soon as possible.

There is a particularly important feature of the Bill to which I draw honourable senators ‘ attention. While the general proclamation of the Australian fishing zone will not take place until about mid-year, clauses 2 and 25 of the Bill will have the effect of closing the Gulf of Carpentaria to foreign fishermen immediately this Bill receives royal assent. The Gulf of Carpentaria will, of course, be totally enclosed by a 200-mile zone. As honourable senators know, the activities of foreign fishing vessels in the Gulf of Carpentaria have been a matter of concern for some years. Most of these vessels have been fishing in accordance with the concept of the freedom of the high seas. However, to protect our prawn resources in the Gulf of Carpentaria, it has been found necessary to introduce management schemes which have the effect of closing the Gulf at certain times to Australian fishermen. While there is no evidence to suggest that foreigners in the Gulf have been fishing for prawns, the Government considers that this area should be closed off generally to avoid conflict with the Australian fishery.

Honourable senators will be aware that after the sixth session of the Third Law of the Sea Conference at New York in July and August 1 977 an Informal Composite Negotiating Textreferred to shortly as the ICNT and which is in effect a draft Convention- was produced by the Conference Chairman. This text (which was tabled in the House by the Foreign Minister on 2 March this year) embodied certain generally agreed principles with respect to extended coastal States’ fisheries jurisdiction. I refer honourable senators, in particular, to draft Articles 61 and 62 of the ICNT. A reading of these will show that, while the coastal state has sovereign rights over the living resources of the zone, it has, in turn, certain obligations with respect to management of the resources in that zone. Briefly these are so to manage these resources that they are conserved for optimum use of mankind both now and in the future. In this regard Australia will have to assess the resources of the Australian fishing zone and determine the total allowable catches of these resources. Where Australians are unable or perhaps do not wish to harvest all of the total allowable catches, we will be under an obligation to allow other nationals to take that surplus. However, such surplus will be taken under terms and conditions determined by Australia in line with internationally agreed provisions. Accordingly, we will have the right to determine who fishes these surplus stocks and under what terms and conditions.

In this respect it is important that we do not permit foreign fishing vessels to operate in any way that might be detrimental to the interests of Australian fishermen. Honourable senators will note that heavy penalties for illegal foreign fishing are included in the Bill, although I would note that they are no heavier than those applied by other countries. Hand in hand with penalties, we must also have some capacity to enforce the law, that is to say, to catch offenders. The vast size of the Australian fishing zone means that this is no simple task. However honourable senators will be aware that the Government is currently developing proposals to upgrade our coastal surveillance and enforcement effort. I am confident the outcome will be that we will be able to police foreign fishing activity in Australian waters significantly more effectively.

In establishing the Australian fishing zone it is the Government’s intention to ensure that the fisheries of this zone are developed and managed in the long term interest of Australia and Australians. Australian fishermen and fishing enterprises will be encouraged to develop the resources of the zone. As part of that policy the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and I recently announced a relaxation of the present vessel import policy to enable Australian fishermen to obtain larger second hand fishing vessels from overseas for development work in Australian fisheries. Only where Australians are not in a position to exploit a fishery will recourse be had to foreign expertise.

These principles have been embodied in the Bill now before the House. In particular I refer honourable senators to clause 6 of the Bill and to the clauses governing the licensing and control of foreign fishermen. I should add that establishment of a 200-mile Australian fishing zone will not in any way affect Australian participation in international management bodies such as the Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission and the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission. The Government recognises that international controls are essential for some fisheries and we shall continue to play an active role in the various international and regional fisheries bodies in which we have an interest. In most cases our involvement in such bodies will assist in managing our own 200-mile zone.

I turn now to the Bill in detail. The heart of this Bill is the creation in clause 3 (a) of an Australian fishing zone which replaces the former declared fishing zone and by virtue of which Australian fisheries jurisdiction is extended from the present 12 to 200 miles. Within this 200-mile zone Australia will have exclusive jurisdiction over the fishing activities of both Australians and foreigners, subject to my earlier comments as to our international obligations. As will be seen in the above definition, certain waters may be excluded from the Australian fishing zone. Two types deserve special mention. First, ‘excepted waters’ are waters which are specified in a proclamation for that purpose made in accordance with the new section 7a, which is inserted by clause 8 of the Bill. The concept of excepted waters provides the Government with the flexibility to delay or exclude the establishment of the Australian fishing zone in certain areas. In such cases, the proclamation may provide for continuation of the existing jurisdiction in the specified area.

Secondly, ‘treaty waters’ are waters that are described in an agreement between Australia and another country as waters that are not to be taken to be part of the Australian fishing zone. This recognises the possibility that where Australia’s 200-mile zone overlaps with that of a neighbouring country, treaties will be negotiated which will define the extent of fisheries jurisdiction of both countries. This will mean in some cases the delimiting line will lie less than 200 miles from Australia. By virtue of this provision the conclusion of such a delimitation agreement will automatically limit the extent of the Australian fishing zone as specified in the agreement.

I have earlier referred to the objectives which will be incorporated into the legislation by clause 6. As I indicated earlier, in practical terms, adherence to these principles means that Australia will be obliged to grant access to foreigners to fish for resources which Australian fishermen cannot adequately exploit; however, Australian fishermen need have no fear that the declaration of the 200-mile zone holds anything for them but advantages.

First, the legislation provides the means of exercising an extensive and effective control over any foreign fishing operations within the Australian fishing zone. This means that resources which the Australian industry has the capacity to exploit fully may be set aside accordingly for the benefit of that industry. Secondly, the Government by regulation can require the provision of information concerning the undeveloped or unknown fisheries which may be developed or discovered by foreigners within the Australian fishing zone. Such information will enable Australians, if they so desire, to develop quickly the expertise and equipment to exploit such fisheries. This would in turn lead to the rapid and efficient growth of the Australian fishing industry. The licensing system which operates under the present Fisheries Act will be substantially retained in its present form, although there will be a number of alterations which are set out in clause 9 of the Bill.

As the success of certain foreign fishing operations in the Australian fishing zone will depend on the availability of access to our ports, provision has been made in sub-clause 9 (a) for endorsement of licences to permit boats to be brought into specified ports at specified times and in certain cases to permit the landing of fish which are on board at the time the boat is brought into the port. Clause 17 inserts a new section 13ba which makes it an offence to bring a foreign boat into an Australian port except in accordance with such an endorsement. An endorsement, which is discretionary, will only be made where it is clear that it would not result in detriment to Australia. It would also be relevant in exercising the discretion to determine whether it would be to the advantage of Australian shorebased processing operations to allow the landing of some foreign catches.

Another alteration set out in sub-clause 9 (b), relates to the conditions which may be imposed on licences. The current power is expressed in general terms and the amendment will make it clear that the conditions which may be imposed on licences include certain conditions which are essential to the efficient management of the zone. They include conditions as to the classes of fish that may be taken, processed or carried, the quantity of or rate at which fish may be taken, and the methods or equipment that may be used to take, process or carry fish.

There is also provision in sub-clause 9 (c) for the making of regulations prescribing fees for the issue of licences to fish within the Australian fishing zone and for the remission of fees having regard to the terms of any relevant agreement relating to the taking of fish in the Australian fishing zone. Scope is thus provided for the remission of all or part of the fees payable, for example, by a foreign boat whose primary purpose is to undertake research in the Australian fishing zone, the results of which would be of value to the Australian industry as well as to the foreign country.

Under the present Act there is provision for the seizure or forfeiture of a boat, equipment or fish under certain circumstances for contravention of the Act. These amendments, in addition to inserting extremely large monetary penalties for various offences against the Act by foreigners, also delete any reference to imprisonment as a penalty and provide, at clause 1 1, that property seized under the Act may be released on certain conditions, including conditions as to the giving of security for payment of the value of the property if it is forfeited and for the payment of relevant fines. The changes give effect to provisions in the ICNT regarding punishment for offences committed by foreigners in 200-mile zones. This is another international obligation Australia has accepted and to which I have referred earlier.

Greatly increased monetary penalties are inserted by clause15 for having charge of a foreign boat equipped with nets or other equipment for taking, catching or capturing fish within the Australian fishing zone. Increased penalties have also been inserted for using a foreign boat for fishing in the Australian fishing zone (See clause 16). However, defences have been provided in clause 15 for fishing vessels whose passage through the zone is authorised.

I have already mentioned that clause 17 of the Bill creates a new offence under the Fisheries Act of bringing an unlicensed foreign fishing boat into an Australian port. The penalty for such an offence on summary conviction is $5,000 and on conviction on indictment is $50,000. For the purposes of the clause, a foreign fishing boat is defined as a boat that is designed and equipped for catching, capturing, processing or carrying fish or for supporting such operations.Various defences are provided in the new sub-section 13BA (2) in clause 1 7 of the Bill. This clause also inserts a new section 13BB which makes it an offence for foreign boats to land fish in Australia, and appropriate defences are provided.

In order to administer the vast jurisdiction to be exercised under the Act, the regulationmaking powers have been expanded. Sub-clause 23 (c) provides that matters with respect to which additional regulations may now be made are: The inspection of foreign boats, their equipment and fish; reporting of positions by foreign boats while in the Australian fishing zone; recognition and identification procedures; short methods of reference to areas of proclaimed waters; the carrying on board licensed foreign boats of Australian observers and the provision or furnishing of information related to the use of licensed foreign boats in the Australian fishing zone.

There are other amendments of a minor nature, many of which relate to providing reference to the Australian fishing zone throughout the Act as appropriate. In addition, sub-clauses 10 (d) and (e) clarify that a boat which has been ordered or brought into port may subsequently be ordered or brought into another port. Clause 12 limits the generality of section 13 of the present Act relating to offences that may be committed in the Australian fishing zone by foreigners since there will be new provisions relating specifically to foreigners. Clause 20 brings up to date the provisions relating to trial for offences. Clause 21 expands the purposes for which evidentiary certificates may be given in accordance with the revised administrative arrangements associated with the establishment of the Australian fishing zone. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1978

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968. The major amendment is designed to preclude foreign fishermen using a defence available to Australians in the present legislation to avoid prosecution for certain offences against the Act on technical grounds. The other amendment is of a machinery nature only, and results from certain amendments which were moved and accepted in the Senate to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1973. In the re-drafting consequent upon these amendments a small paragraph- (ca)- was inadvertently left in section 25 of the Act. Because of the amendments it is of no relevance and should be removed.

As to the principal amendment, section 1 5 of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 creates certain offences relating to the taking of sedentary organisms from the Australian continental shelf by unlicensed persons or vessels. The section also provides that it is a defence to a prosecution for such an offence if it can be proved that the relevant activities were not carried out for commercial purposes. This provision was originally designed to enable Australian trawlers, which may in the course of their normal activities incidentally take some sedentary species, to do so without offending against the Act. Recent experience has shown that foreign fishermen who take sedentary species from the continental shelf intend to use this provision in a manner not contemplated when the legislation was originally framed. They can take the species quite deliberately and claim they were taken non-commercially because they are used as food for the crews or the families of the crews.

The effect of this amendment, which is similar to one made in 1975 to the Fisheries Act 1952, is to make it an offence for foreigners to take sedentary organisms from the continental shelf for any purpose. This is consistent with international obligations and is a necessary step in the preservation of those sedentary species of the continental shelf which have a low regenerative capacity and which thus require special measures to ensure their protection. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Whaling Amendment Bill 1978

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Whaling Act 1960. The amendments are principally the result of Australia’s commitments as a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and as a member of the International Whaling Commission. In addition, the Bill gives effect, in respect of whaling, to the Government’s decision to extend Australian fisheries jurisdiction as outlined in my second reading speech on the Fisheries Amendment Bill.

The Commonwealth has participated since 1931 in the international regulation of whaling and has had laws in force since 1935 to control whaling by Australians. The present Whaling Act 1960 gives effect to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946, as did its predecessor Act, the Whaling Act 1935. The present Act provides the legislative authority and machinery for regulating the taking and utilisation of great whales and for controlling the taking of small whales.

Extension of Australian control over fisheries to 200 miles makes control over whaling in that area both logical and desirable. This Bill effects an extension of the Government’s jurisdiction with respect to whaling by much the same means as the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the difference being that whereas the Fisheries Amendment Bill provides for exclusive control over foreign fishing vessels within the 200-mile zone, the Whaling Amendment Bill confers a jurisdiction which is in some respects qualified. The qualification arises from the Conventions and the effect is to remove from Australian whaling jurisdiction, vessels or aircraft which are flying the flag of, or registered in, a foreign country that is a party to the International Whaling Conventions, and whose use in connection with whaling is duly authorised by that country and is not in contravention of any of the provisions of the Schedule to the Conventions. This arrangement operates between all signatories to the Conventions and reflects the concerted approach which is being taken to the preservation of whales by members of the International Whaling Commission.

The remaining significant amendments provide the legal machinery to implement the latest management measures approved by the International Whaling Commission for the taking of whales. The measures are provision for the prohibition of the taking of whales of a specified species, kind or sex in excess of a certain size or number. The prohibition is effected by the making of a notice by the Minister and is supplemented by a new requirement for the reporting of catch statistics when such notices are in force. A penalty of $200 for each day on which such information is not reported may be imposed. The remaining amendments are purely concerned with bringing the text of the Act into line with current drafting practice. Those parts of the Bill which relate to management measures will commence on the day the Bill receives the royal assent, while those amendments which relate to the extension of the Government’s jursidiction to 200 miles will commence at the same time as the related amendments to the Fisheries Act 1952. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1942

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

In a statement on 19 April last year, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) informed the Parliament of the Government’s decision to establish the Australian Science and Technology Council, or ASTEC, as a permanent statutory body. The purpose of this Bill is to put that decision into effect, thereby ensuring that the Government will have available to it, on a continuing basis, independent advice of the highest calibre on matters of science and technology. The original forerunner of the present ASTEC was an advisory committee on science and technology, the formation of which was announced by the then Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Sir William McMahon, in April 1972. The present Prime Minister was the responsible Minister at that dme, and formation of the committee reflected the great importance which the then Government attached to having independent, expert advice on these matters.

After the change of Government, the advisory committee was disbanded in February 1973. Two years later, an interim ASTEC was formed. After the 1 975 election, the interim ASTEC was re-established, with some modifications to its membership and functions. In November 1976, the interim ASTEC recommended to the Government that a permanent Australian science and technology council be established as an independent statutory body. This recommendation was accepted. Pending the passage of legislation, the permanent Council was established by Executive action in April 1977. Since that time, ASTEC has provided the Government with valuable advice on a range of matters, notably its report on energy research and development which was tabled in the Parliament on 4 April 1978.

This history of science policy advisory bodies in Australia has been chequered. It is important that ASTEC be constituted as a statutory body in order to provide the Council with the status, permanence and stability it needs to do its job effectively. It is also important to ensure that ASTEC be as independent as possible of any department of government, and statutory status is necessary to achieve this. The Council will report to the Prime Minister- an administrative arrangement reflecting both the status and independence of ASTEC.

The Bill before the House has three major purposes, intended to guarantee ASTEC ‘s effectiveness as a working body. Firstly the functions of the Council are defined. Secondly, the Council is invested with sufficiently wide powers to enable it to execute its functions.Thirdly, provisions are made for the independence of the Council to enable it to undertake its functions effectively. The functions of the Council are denned in clause 5 of the Bill. The Council’s role will be to investigate and furnish information and advice to the Government on science and technology, particularly: The advancement of scientific knowledge; the development and application of science and technology to the furtherance of the national well-being; the adequacy, effectiveness and overall balance of scientific and technological activities in Australia; the identification and support of new ideas in science and technology likely to be of national importance; the practical development and application of scientific discoveries; the fostering of scientific and technological innovation in industry; and the means of improving efficiency in the use of resources by the application of science and technology.

These functions will allow the Council a very wide charter indeed. It can range from pure science to the problems of improving efficiency in industry by applying the results of research and development. It can consider the activities and technological problems of higher education institutions and private enterprise. The Government believes that this wide overview will allow ASTEC to play an important part in ensuring that there is a worthwhile interchange of ideas, information and new discoveries between Government, industry and academic science and scientists.

The Council’s advice to the Government on priorities and balance of effort will inevitably influence the allocation of resources by the Government, and facilitate long term, wellconceived forward planning by both government and industry. In keeping with the quality of advice which the Council is to provide, only people of the highest quality and standing will be appointed as members. A proportion of the membership will have backgrounds in various sectors of industry and others will have academic backgrounds. People having a high contribution to make by virtue of special knowledge and experience can also be appointed. Members will be selected for their personal qualities rather than as representatives of organisations or interests.

To discharge its important functions, the Council is to be provided with appropriate powers, listed in clauses 6 to 9 and 20 to 24 of the Bill. The Council will be able to conduct inquiries and collect information on any aspect of its functions, either on its own initiative or at the direction of its Minister. It is intended that the Council’s reports to the Government will be made public unless there are overwhelming reasons in the national interest for not doing so. Clause 6 contains detailed provisions requiring the prompt tabling in Parliament of ASTEC reports except in the closely defined circumstances there referred to.

The Council will be able to consult widely with Commonwealth and State bodies and with scientific, commercial industrial and other organisations. Commonwealth bodies shall provide the Council with such assistance in the performance of its functions as is reasonably practicable. The Council will also have powers to engage consultants to conduct studies for it and to arrange with the Commonwealth authorities for officers of those authorities to be available to assist the Council. The Council will also be able to form committees of council members and others, who will conduct investigations on behalf of the Council and will report their findings and recommendations to the Council. These powers should enable the Council to meet its responsibilities adequately, from the conduct of basic investigations and information gathering, using such expert advice and assistance as are necessary, to reporting its advice and recommendations directly to the Government.

The third important purpose of this legislation is the provision of necessary independence for the Council in its actions, so that its advice can be provided to government freely and without unwarranted influence. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that, although the Council will be subject to direction by the Minister, these directions will not extend to the content of any information, advice or report which ASTEC provides to the Minister. This will make sure that ASTEC ‘s advice is truly independent and free of even the possibility of political influence on advice which must be founded on sound scientific judgment.

Another important area where independence is ensured is in the staffing of ASTEC. It is intended that ASTEC will be served by a small staff of skilled officers. Such staff are to be provided under the Public Service Act, but clause 1 9 of the Bill includes provisions designed to make sure that the staff of ASTEC are under the direction of the Council, free of any unwarranted influence from other Commonwealth agencies. In particular, clause 19 provides specifically that staff members shall perform their functions and duties in accordance with the directions of the Council.

Another provision designed to secure the independence of the Council is clause 25 of the Bill, which exempts the Council and those working for it from legal action in relation to any act done in good faith and in accordance with ASTEC ‘s powers and functions. People supplying information to the Council in good faith will be similarly protected. This legal indemnity will allow the Council, and its witnesses, to provide information and advice fearlessly and candidly. The Bill also provides proper protection for information provided to the Council in confidence.

The foregoing represent the more important purposes of the Bill. There are, in addition, the usual provisions of a Bill of this nature concerning the appointment, terms of office and remuneration of Council members, and acting members and related matters. The Council will be obliged to meet as necessary to perform its functions. Council members will be required to disclose any interest they may have in any matter under consideration by the Council. Such an interest will debar the Council member involved from taking part in any decision on the matter in question and, if the Council sees fit, from being present at any discussions on that matter.

The Government believes that there is an overwhelming case for establishing an effective science advisory body in Australia which is an independent and permanent statutory authority. Nothing less will properly safeguard the status, permanence and stability of ASTEC. This Bill provides the necessary safeguards. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 1944

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purposes of the Bill are: First, to ensure that the procedures for, and principles governing, recruitment into, and promotion within, the Australian Public Service in the broad sense of that term are not subject to determination or alteration by the Public Service Arbitrator; secondly, to put beyond doubt that the Public Service Arbitrator and Deputy Arbitrators can make orders standing down officers and employees in the Australian Public Service who come within the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction and to make provision for the consequences that are to attend standing down.

Exclusion of Recruitment from Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction

The amendments, designed to ensure that recruitment and promotion matters cannot be dealt with by the Arbitrator, are necessary because of events which arose out of a dispute involving the Commonwealth Employment Service in connection with appointments to CES positions from outside the Australian Public Service. Honourable senators will recall that in 1976 the Government commissioned Mr J. D. Norgard to conduct an inquiry into the Commonwealth Employment Service. In his report Mr Norgard identified the need for more staff in the CES who have relevant experience in industry and commerce, either at an operative or managerial level. The Government accepted that view. Accordingly, in November of last year, vacancies for Employment Officer (Class 4) positions in the CES were advertised both within the Public Service and in the Press. On 9 December 1977, the New South Wales Branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association imposed bans on the handling of applications from persons outside the Public Service until a right of appeal was granted against appointees from outside the Service to positions above the base grade. Bans were later extended to Victoria and similar action was taken in both States by the Australian Public Service Association.

When the matter came before a Deputy Arbitrator, he refused to deal with the central issue, that is, that there should be a right of appeal against appointments to the Commonwealth Employment Service from outside the Public Service, on the ground that he did not have jurisdiction to do so because, in his view, the matter did not, as was required under the Public Service Arbitration Act, concern conditions of employment of officers or employees of the Public Service. What the Deputy Arbitrator did do was to order both unions and their members to cease the imposition of the bans. He also made orders authorising the standing down without pay of any officer or employee in the offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service in New South Wales and Victoria who refused to perform the whole or any part of his or her duties. He directed that a period of stand down was to be regarded as leave of absence without pay for the purposes of any determination of the Arbitrator or the Public Service Act.

The unions took the matter to the High Court which held that the Deputy Arbitrator in fact had power to grant a right of appeal and that, as the other orders were made on the erroneous assumption that he lacked jurisdiction to deal with the unions’ claim, they could not be allowed to stand. The High Court’s decision has very serious implications for the management and continuing efficiency of the Public Service. It appears to mean that the whole area of recruitment into, and promotion within, the Public Service can be removed from the control of the Public Service Board and departmental management by the Public Service Arbitrator. It has traditionally been accepted that this is an area in which the Arbitrator’s determinations were not intended to, and should not, operate.

It is of paramount importance that the efficiency and standards of the Public Service be safeguarded. In order to achieve these objectives, the Parliament has enacted the Public Service Act in which are laid down the principles which govern the personnel policies of the Public Service, and has vested the principal responsibility for administering the Act in the Public Service Board which in turn delegates a number of its powers to the management of departmental authorities. The Parliament has clearly intended that the area of vital importance to the standing of the Service, recruitment, selection and promotion procedures, should be a matter for management decision. There is nothing unusual about this- it is the same principle which applies in the private sector where employers have the right to recruit the employees whom they choose. But in the Public Service there is a special need that it be the Parliament and the Board exercising the powers vested in it by Parliament which determines principles and procedures governing recruitment, selection and promotion. A duality of authority over these principles and procedures, namely, the Board on the one hand and the Arbitrator on the other, can lead only to a situation where the Board is in the intolerable position of being legislatively responsible for the efficiency of the Public Service and the maintenance of a career service, but is unable fully to achieve those objectives because of constraints imposed by an industrial tribunal.

The issue is not simply one of management prerogatives, though that is important. It is whether the efficiency of the Service might be allowed to be placed in jeopardy. The Government believes it has the responsibility to the public to state clearly and unambiguously that the responsibility for determining the procedures relating to recruitment, selection and promotion in the Public Service shall remain with the Public Service Board and the management of Commonwealth departments and authorities. The possibility of legislation being introduced to that effect was mentioned in the High Court proceedings and when the matter was resumed before the Deputy Arbitrator. The Minister also indicated during discussions with representatives of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association that legislation would be introduced. The issue has since been discussed within the National Labour Consultative Council.

Power to Authorise Stand Downs

The other matter with which this Bill deals is the power of the Public Service Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator to issue orders authorizing the standing down of officers and employees and the consequences that are to attend standing down. Section 12D (1) (b) empowers the Public Service Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator to make orders as he thinks necessary or desirable for putting an end to, or preventing the occurrence of, an industrial situation or preventing the occurrence of further industrial situations, or such other orders as he thinks necessary or desirable by reason of the existence or likely occurrence of the industrial situation. Sub-section (2) goes on to provide that the orders that may be made by the Public Service Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator are orders relating to conditions of employment or directing the cessation of the industrial situation or prohibiting the industrial situation. It had been thought that this section empowered the Public Service Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator to make orders authorising the standing down of officers and employees and it was on this view that the Deputy Arbitrator made orders standing down members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association in the CES dispute.

However, during the High Court proceedings, some doubt was raised as to the capacity of the Public Service Arbitrator and the Deputy Arbitrator to make such orders. The Government believes that it is important to put this question beyond doubt. Accordingly, the amendments proposed by this Bill will make quite clear that the Public Service Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator can make orders authorising the standing down of officers and employees (whether members of an organisation or not) who are concerned in, or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in, or affected by, an industrial situation. As a corollary to the power to make such an order, the proposed amendments also set out the consequences that flow from the implementation of a power to stand down authorised by an order of the Public Service Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator. An officer or employee who is stood down will not be entitled to salary, wages or other remuneration and allowances in the nature of salary or wages in respect of a period for which he is stood down. Nor will the period of stand down count as service, for the purposes of recreation leave, long service leave and sick leave. A period of stand down will not break an officer’s or employee ‘s continuity of employment for long service leave purposes. In addition, the Public Service Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator will be able to give directions concerning other conditions of employment of stood down officers and employees. The general effect of these provisions is to equate stand down as closely as possible to that which obtains under awards of the Commission.

The National Labour Consultative Council has considered the proposals contained in this Bill. The representatives of the peak employee councils have indicated their opposition to the measures in this Bill, in particular the measures to prevent the Public Service Arbitrator dealing with recruitment, selection and promotion matters. The Government, however, is of the strong view that these measures must be pursued for the reasons that I have mentioned. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 1946

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

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

That the Senate agrees that the Commonwealth Parliament participate with the Parliaments of the States in the continuing work of the Constitutional Convention established to review the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and accordingly resolves:

  1. 1 ) That, for the purposes of the Convention-

    1. a Delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament consisting of sixteen members of the Parliament take part in the deliberations of the Convention, of whom six shall be members of the Senate and ten shall be members of the House of Representatives;
    2. the six members of the Senate comprise two members of the Liberal Party of Australia, one member of the National Country Party of Australia and three members of the Australian Labor Party;
  2. That-

    1. three Senators, two being members of the Liberal Party of Australia and one being a member of the National Country Party of Australia, nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; and
    2. three Senators being members of the Australian Labor Party, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, be members of the delegation:
  3. That the Prime Minister be the Leader of the Delegation, and the Leader of the Opposition be the Deputy Leader.
  4. That a member of the Delegation cease to be a member if-

    1. he ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament;
    2. the House of the Parliament of which he is a member terminates his appointment; or
    3. he resigns as a member of the Delegation by writing addressed to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires:
  5. That where, because of illness or any other cause, a member ofthe Delegation is not available to attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the Convention, the Leader or senior available member of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate an alternate member (being a member of the House of which the firstmentioned member is a member) and the member so nominated shall be a member of the Delegation for that meeting, or (hat part of that meeting:
  6. That, in the event of a member of the Delegation ceasing to be such a member, the Leader of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate another member (being a member ofthe House of which the first-mentioned member is or was a member) to replace the first-mentioned member:
  7. That the Leader ofthe Delegation from time to time make a report for presentation to each House of the Parliament on matters arising out of the Convention, and that the Deputy Leader of the Delegation may make an accompanying report.

The next plenary session of the Australian Constitutional Convention is scheduled to be held at Parliament House in Perth over the three-day period 26 to 28 July 1978. The terms of the motion which I have just moved are indentical with those appointing the Commonwealth Parliamentary delegation to the last plenary session of the Convention in Hobart in 1 976. This Parliament will again have a delegation of 16, comprising eight from the Government Parties and eight from the Opposition. 1 understand that the details of the agenda which contains some 18 items, for the plenary session, will be publicly announced by Sir Charles Court, as host Premier, in the very near future. The Government’s view is that it is desirable that at least one more plenary session of the Constitutional Convention is held so that the continuing work of the Convention in reviewing the operation of the Australian Constitution may proceed further. Honourable senators will recall that the original impetus for the Constitutional Convention came from Sir Henry Bolte ‘s Liberal Government in Victoria and, particularly at the

Hobart session in 1976, valuable work has already been performed by the Convention. ‘

I believe we can all recall with some satisfaction the overwhelming approval given by the Australian electorate in May of last year to three referendum proposals, each of which had first been approved in principle at the Constitutional Convention. The plenary sessions of the Convention provide a rare opportunity for delegates from the legislatures of the Commonwealth, each of the States and the Northern Territory, together with representatives of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory and of local government, to meet together and exchange views. The Convention provides a unique forum for discussion of fundamental constitutional issues. I commend to the Senate this motion which seeks to ratify the continued participation of this Parliament in the endeavours of the Australian Constitutional Convention.

Senator JANINE HAINES:
South Australia

-by leave- I wish to move two amendments to this motion. I move:

  1. Leave out sub-paragraph (1) (b), insert the following sub-paragraph: (l)(b) the 6 members of the Senate comprise 3 members of the Government parties and 3 members ofthe non-Government parties. ‘.
  2. Leave out paragraph (2), insert the following paragraph: (2)That-

    1. three senators, being members of the Government parties, nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
    2. three senators, being members of the nonGovernment parties, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, by an independent senator or by a senator from any minority group or groups, be members of the delegation: Provided that nominations under sub-paragraph (b) shall be determined by agreement between the Opposition, the independent senators and senators from any minority group or groups, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation shall be determined by the Senate’.

Mr President, I think the two amendments are sufficiently closely allied to enable me to discuss them together. Is it necessary to seek leave?

The PRESIDENT:

– You may speak to your amendments before I ask for a seconder.

Senator JANINE HAINES:

– Thank you. I have been forced to move these amendments because of what seems to me to be a blatant attempt by the Government to deny representation at the forthcoming Constitutional Convention to honourable senators who are not members of either the coalition parties or the Australian Labor Party. The Government is attempting to deny a voice, deny an opportunity to express the point of view of a substantial number of Australians by denying their parliamentary representatives the chance to put their opinions forward at the Convention. I remind honourable senators that over one million people throughout the country indicated their support for the non-coalition and non-Labor partieslast December- a sufficient number to ensure the election of two Australian Democrats to the Senate. Consequently, from 1 July of this year there will be three members of the Senate who owe their allegience to neither the coalition parties nor the ALP. These honourable senators represent the views of a substantial percentage of Australians- greater, in fact, than the percentage of people who voted for the National Country Party last December. Yet the Government’s motion specifically allocates to the Country Party one position as delegate to the Convention while equally specifically denying it to the independent and minority groups which will be represented in the Senate from 1 July next. That is not only unethical and undemocratic but also smacks of the very worst sort of politicising possible.

I should like to remind the Senate that the Federal Constitution is the system of basic principles according to which this nation is governed. It is something in which every Australian has or ought to have a vested interest because it contains, if you like, the rules of the game of governmentthe principles which act or should act as guidelines to the Government. It is designed to facilitate majority rule, certainly, but it also aims to protect the rights of minority groups. This seems to be something that the Government has overlooked in moving this motion.

The Convention with which we are concerned here is designed to allow the people’s representatives in both Houses of Parliament and from both Federal and State parliaments to discuss and reach some consensus on amendments to the Constitution. To exclude from such discussions and to prevent contributions from representatives of sizeable minority groups represented in Parliament, is to deny the very process of democracy- something which this Government has supposedly pledged itself to uphold. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the attitude taken in 1 973 and 1 974 by Senator Murphy, the then Leader of the Government in the Senate. With regard to the composition of the Commonwealth delegation to the Constitutional Conventions in those years, the relevant Journals of the Senate reveal that a much more democratic attitude was adopted than the one adopted in the present Government’s motion, which I gather has the tacit approval of the present Opposition.

I refer honourable senators particularly to Journals of the Senate No. 20 for 24 September 1974 and No. 33 for 31 May 1973. On page 214 of No. 20 reference is made to the Leader of the Liberal Movement being included as part of the delegation for that year along with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, a senator from the Liberal Party and a senator from the Australian Country Party. Page 230 of Journal No. 33 in May 1973 shows that Senator Murphy moved:

That for the purposes of the Convention the six members appointed by the Senate should comprise three members of the Australian Labor Party, one member of the Liberal Party of Australia, one member of the Australian Country Party and one member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

I am not at all happy about the stipulation in those motions moved by Senator Murphy of specific party representation. I am no more happy about it than I am about the stipulation of specific parties in the present Government’s motion. I prefer the phraseology of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson in 1970 when moving a motion relating to the composition of standing committees. The following motion appears on page 254 of Journals of the Senate No. 41 for 19 August 1970:

That with reference to the appointment of the seven Standing Committees agreed to by the Senate on 1 1 June 1 970, the Senate resolves-

Each Standing Committee shall consist of eight Senators, four to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, three to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one to be appointed by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party to each of six of the said Committees, and one to be appointed by any minority group or groups or Independent or Independents to one of the said Committees.

That atleast acknowledged the existence and rights of individuals and groups elected by the people to represent them and their interests but not belonging to what are referred to as the major parties.

I believe that on Monday last the Standing Orders Committee agreed that a minority group or groups should have the right to be represented on legislative and general purpose standing committees and on Estimates committees. If this is correct I commend the members of the Committee for their sense of fair play and integrity. But I contend that a delegation of Commonwealth parliamentarians to a constitutional convention is to the general public in the long run of even greater importance than a Senate committee. How much more important it is then that the Senate acknowledge this and grants to all groups represented in Parliament the right to be heard at that Convention.

Let me put the rights of minority groups aside. There is at least one other reason why delegates should be selected from the ranks of non-Labor, non-Coalition parties. It is this: At the moment the Convention is in danger of becoming nothing more than a party political forum for the purpose of points scoring between the ALP and the Coalition. Apart from the fact that this does precious little to improve the general standing of Parliament and parliamentarians in the eyes of the general public, it means that the Convention runs a very real risk of being imbalanced in its outlook and presentation of facts. An over emphasis on the majority point of view and discussion based on adversary politics without the knowledge of or contribution from smaller groups represented in our Parliament will clearly produce one-sided recommendations. I remind Opposition senators that this point of view has been strongly and consistently taken by the President- I mean the Premier- of South Australia. I suspect he has aims to be President but I leave that aside for the moment. He has made it a point always to include my South Australian colleague, Robin Millhouse, as a member of delegations from that State.

Senator Withers:

– Political point scoring.

Senator JANINE HAINES:

-Just see what Parliament does to even the most altruistic and idealistic of us. I remind the Senate that Mr Millhouse ‘s voice was the only voice raised against the constitutional amendment concerning the replacement of senators. It was he alone who saw the problems inherent in that amendment. I refer honourable senators to the official record of debates of the Hobart Convention in 1976. Pages 280 and 281 show that Mr Millhouse, rather prophetically as it has turned out, expressed his doubts about the practicability of that amendment. I need hardly remind the Senate that my appointment here was somewhat controversial, despite the amendment to the Constitution and for the precise reason that Mr Millhouse raised in Hobart. I have never been able to work out whether I am here because of that amendment or in spite of it. This sort of muddle is hardly something the Senate would want to see repeated.

If the Senate rejects the idea of having delegates from non-Labor and non-Coalition parties at the Convention it will be doing a disservice to genuine constitutional reform. It will ensure that proposals coming from the Convention will not bear the stamp of endorsement by all significant political groups represented in our parliaments. I am aware from reading the Canberra Times this morning that I am indulging in a somewhat futile exercise at the moment, as it would appear that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has already decided not only what parties but also what members will be represented at the Constitutional Convention. Nevertheless, I make a plea that, if the Senate considers it is independent of the machinations of the Prime Minister, it give serious consideration to the amendment that I put forward.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded? It is not, and the amendment lapses.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition welcomes the statement made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, in relation to the Constitutional Convention. It is the intention of the Opposition in the Senate to be represented by Senator James McClelland, Senator Robertson and me at that Convention. We regard it as something of a pity that the same motion which was moved in relation to the previous Convention has now been moved in relation to a convention in 1 978 without any agenda. This does not allow for any of the flexibility which Senator Haines suggested might have been desirable in the comments she made a few minutes ago. Quite frankly, I wish to place on record that the Opposition has not had an opportunity to consider at a party meeting the matters which were raised by Senator Haines in her speech. That is a matter of regret.

Senator Janine Haines:

– You were issued with a copy of the amendment yesterday.

Senator BUTTON:

– It does not matter what the honourable senator says; as I said, the Opposition has not had an opportunity to consider the matters raised in her speech. In the absence of that consideration, we are unable to express a firm position on it. For my part, I find some sympathy with the suggestions she made about representation for other than the two major parties. But from what she said I gained the impression that she interpreted the results of the past general election as indicating to the Senate and to the people of Australia that the Australian Democrats had something significant to say about the Australian Constitution. As I recall the Press discussion on the policies of the Australian Democrats at the last election, it was to the effect that the Australian Democrats had no policy, particularly in relation to matters such as constitutional reform. I think that is a factor which we will have to bear in mind. One could scarcely say that Australian Democrats come here with a mandate- if one can use that expression- on the basis that they have shown an interest in constitutional reform, because that is not so. One would have thought that Senator Haines’ argument would have been strengthened if that had been the case.

If I might interrupt the Minister’s unusual practice of reading the paper, I would like him to comment on one or two matters which are of concern to the Opposition. I refer to the terms of the motion which relate to what might be termed proxies. I do not think they are termed proxies in the motion, but the Minister will recall that the motion provides that if a delegate is unable for any reason to attend a meeting of the Convention a substitute for him can be provided. I alert him now, if I may, both in his capacity as a delegate and as Minister for Administrative Services, to the fact that that presents a problem for the Opposition in the Senate in view of the fact that senators will be retiring from this Parliament on 30 June and we will have at least three new senators here, some of whom might both desire to attend and be appropriate persons to attend the Constitutional Convention in Perth.

I make one other comment about the Convention, which I suppose is in the nature of a pious hope. First of all, we have not yet seen an agenda for the Constitutional Convention. It is to be hoped that the agenda will not be arrived at on the basis of the lowest denominator of issues which the Convention ought to be discussing. Earlier today in the Senate I referred to the report of the Fifty-eighth Constitutional Review Committee. I repeat that in those days the members of that Committee saw grave defects in the Constitution and made recommendations about those defects in relation to matters which I think are of increasingly fundamental concern to the economic efficiency of this country and, if we are to be a viable democracy in the 1980s, issues which are of the utmost importance.

We come now to a convention in 1978. 1 have the very strong suspicion that that Convention will not deal with important issues, such as the nature of Commonwealth industrial power, the nature of Commonwealth economic powers, the nature of Commonwealth foreign affairs powers, and matters of that kind which were dealt with in 1958, apparently as matters of importance then. I hope that the Convention will not be just an empty exercise. I hope that those of us who are there who have different points of view about these issues will be able to debate them on a pretty free agenda. That is what a Constitutional Convention ought to be. It ought to be a forum for debating issues of national importance as they relate to a document which Senator Haines properly described as providing the political framework- I think that was the expression she used- for the carrying on of government and politics in this country. We express our very profound concern that it should be a meaningful convention. I was also a little perturbed by the words of the Minister, I think to the effect that the Government has decided that the Convention should once again meet in plenary session.

Senator Withers:

– Once again, or at least once again.

Senator BUTTON:

-He said that it should meet at least once again in plenary session. I have some doubts about the connotations of those words and of the Government’s intention. It is no good the Constitutional Convention meeting again in plenary session after the Perth meeting if it is not to be a meaningful convention which discusses questions of fundamental importance to this country.

Senator Janine Haines:

– But 90 per cent to 95 per cent of -

Senator BUTTON:

-I have conceded Senator Haines’s point about that. I have said that it is a matter of personal preference. I agree with her. But what I hope will happen is that in July when the Australian Democrats come here in their full glory- I do not wish to detract from Senator Haines at all- they will argue the case for a popular convention to consider constitutional issues and not just for a convention which is confined to the sort of grey bureaucrats of politics, such as the Minister and I.

Senator Withers:

– The black bureaucrats.

Senator BUTTON:

-The black bureaucrats.

Senator Robertson:

– Red bureaucrats.

Senator Withers:

– Black and red.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I think Senator Button is quite capable of making his speech.

Senator BUTTON:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am colour blind in these matters; therefore I was happy for those two gentlemen to have that exchange. I commend my suggestion to the Democrats as the desirable policy which they might adopt- perhaps the first they adopt. Then in July they will be able to do what I indicated in relation to the reform of the Australian Constitution. We hope that it will be a meaningful convention. We hope that because it is a meaningful convention it will not be the last convention and that the subject of desirable constitutional reforms will continually be brought forward and debated in this country as an issue of national importance.

Senator WITHERS (Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate)- by leave- My colleague, Senator Rae, wishes to move the adjournment of the debate, but I think I ought to mention a couple of matters first. Senator Button raised two issues. I understand that the agenda has been settled by the Agenda Committee and will be published shortly. No doubt a colleague of Senator Button in this Parliament is a member of that Agenda Committee. I suggest that Senator Button should speak to him. Senator Button also raised a problem with respect to a senator who will retire on 30 June being appointed a member of the Constitutional Convention. He asked what would be that person ‘s position at the Convention after 1 July. I must admit that I thought about this yesterday. If the honourable senator has any suggestions I should be pleased if he would muli over the matter and let me know what he thinks. Paragraph (4) of my motion states:

That a member of the Delegation ceases to be a member if- (a) he ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament;

In other words, a senator retires on 30 June and is not coming back. I wonder how far would such a person be picked up in paragraph (5) of the motion, which states:

That where, because of illness or any other cause . . .

Is ‘any other cause’ related only to illness, or does it include someone who ‘ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament’. If any other cause’ includes ‘ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament’ paragraph (5) of the motion provides that:

  1. . the Leader or senior or available member of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate an alternate member . . .

I take it that ‘an alternate member’ would be, in this case, a senator who was eligible to take his place as from 1 July. But I shall have to seek the advice of the President or someone else on whether he would be eligible if he was not sworn as a senator. At what stage does someone become a senator? That is one of the more interesting points. I take it that one is entitled to be a senator as from 1 July. Does one become a full, true or absolute senator before one takes that oath or affirmation of allegiance and signs the roll? That is a matter on which I would not be competent to give advice. I put it to the honourable senator that he may like to mull over those problems, which I was thinking about yesterday myself. Whilst I cannot given an undertaking on behalf of the Government, I am quite certain that if the honourable senator has any suggestions as to overcoming what he sees could be a problem, the Government would give it sympathetic consideration.

Senator BUTTON (Victoria)-by leave-The Minister has perhaps been more specific about the nature of the problem than I was. Let me be quite specific. There are at least two senators coming into this place next July who are lawyers and who would be appropriate people to attend the Constitutional Convention. I hope that matter can be clarified because they would have a contribution to make. If they are, in fact, senators for the purpose of attending the Convention, that is the course we may desire to take.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I want to comment briefly about certain matters raised by Senator Haines when she said that the only person who foresaw the problems that can arise in relation to the Senate casual vacancies amendment which was made to the Constitution last year was the South Australian representative of her Party who attended the Constitutional Convention. Whilst that may be true of those people who were at the Constitutional Convention, I would draw attention to the fact that members of this chamber very clearly expressed their concern and their reservations in the No case which was published at the time of the referendum last year. All of the matters to which Senator Haines referred and more were set out in the No case in relation to this proposal which now has become part of the Constitution. It was unfortunate that for reasons which history records, the opportunity for debate in this chamber was extremely limited and those who may have wished to put some of those arguments at the time the Bill was being discussed in this chamber were not able to do so. I think practically the whole time for the debate was taken up by Senator Colston talking about his experience in Queensland. Those senators who voted against this referendum proposal set out in the No case their reservations and their concern at the unworkable nature of the proposal. It was not limited to one person -

Senator Janine Haines:

– It was at the Convention.

Senator RAE:

– I wanted to make it quite clear that whilst Senator Haines was talking about the Constitutional Convention, there were others in this chamber who were not at the Convention who had reservations. There are a number of other aspects which arise in relation to the motion at present before the chamber which I believe require further consideration and discussion. For that reason I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1952

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (ALLIGATOR RIVERS REGION) BILL 1978

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 25 May.

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1978

Clause 13.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition believes that undue concern has been given to protecting mining interests in this whole series of Bills. For example, I refer to the question of penalties for a supervising scientist who discloses a matter that he discovers in the course of his supervisory duties. That is dealt with in the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill. The principle now is enshrined that business confidentiality must come before the thoroughness of the work of the supervising scientist. For that reason the Opposition objects to this clause.

If it is necessary to have an industrial or health inspector or any other kind of authority to monitor and restrain the activities of a corporate body, surely the least we can do is to give that authority the freedom that is extended to industrial inspectors and other authorities who have a responsibility, by virtue of their public position, not to disclose information irresponsibly. The Opposition feels that this clause is an unwarranted concession to private interests. It will enable private interests to withhold information on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate them. We feel that it is a dangerous clause which smacks of totalitarian procedures rather than democratic procedures and we strongly urge the Senate to accept the amendment.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government will oppose the amendment. These provisions were included after legal advice to the effect that they are necessary in accordance with normal legal procedures to protect civil liberties of a person who seeks to avoid the possibility of conviction for the failure to supply selfincriminating material or information. The Government believes that this is a good provision and that it should stand.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Proposed new sections 17A and 17C (4) deal with the necessity to answer questions and comply with a request to supply information that may tend to be incriminating. I understand that in relation to the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill dealt with yesterday, Senator Wright and the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) had some discussions during the luncheon or dinner adjournment in order to consider this aspect. Could the same thing perhaps apply in relation to this Bill? Is there any proposed alteration?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I have no inclination at this stage to make any alteration. Discussions took place yesterday between Senator Wright, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and myself. If Senator Wright, privately or otherwise would care to indicate whether this is, perhaps, an associated, but not directly associated, matter, I am prepared to take it on notice and transmit it to the relevant Minister.

Question put:

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

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.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

Proposed sub-section (4) reads:

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.

Our objection to the inclusion of this sub-section is similar to our objection to the provision on which the Senate has just divided. The Opposition believes that already there are adequate safeguards for individual rights in court procedures. The only incrimination we can envisage is of the very type that ought to be brought out. The problem is that if people, businesses or companies breach the enviromental protection measures outlined in the Bill in such a way as would be destructive to the environment, to the health of workers in the industry, or to the community generally, they may conceal that breach by claiming that the information which would establish it would lead to their incrimination. So much protection is offered by this sub-section against prosecution for certain breaches of the law that no remedy would be possible. All sorts of powerful restraints are available to corporate bodies to restrict the flow of information- to such an extent that it is very difficult to police their behaviour.

The court ought to have the discretion, privately or in public hearings, to have access to that type of information. Certainly, the subsection refers to the incrimination of a person, but in many cases acts for which corporate bodies are responsible can be punished only by prosecuting an individual. We believe that such individuals, acting as agents of corporate bodies, would have undue blanket protection under this sub-section. Of course, in the particular case we are dealing’ with, it would be the mining companies- the corporate bodies- that would have this built-in protection against prosecution for breaches of the legislation before us. We believe that the proposed sub-section should be omitted.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For essentially the same reasons as we were given in respect of the previous amendment, the Government opposes this amendment also.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 19

NOES: 27

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

This provision is similar to provisions which were introduced yesterday in respect of other legislation. It simply acknowledges the development of the Northern Territory as a self-governing body and its likely development in terms of ombudsman provisions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 14a.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The amendment is designed to bring the Northern Territory as a self-governing body into these matters. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to debate this matter at length. I have said all I want to say about it. I want only to indicate again my objection to the fact that there is no suggestion of consultation with the Aboriginal owners of the land.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I want to indicate, without wasting words, that of course there will be full consultation. This matter concerns the programs in respect of parks and wildlife protection. Indeed, the park itself will emerge from a lease from the Aboriginals. There will be full consultation at all times. Consultation will be provided for in this provision, as it has been provided for in others.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Contracts and leases).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition opposes clause 16. For the reasons I outlined earlier we want it to be omitted from the Bill. Aboriginal interests should take priority over national parks, wildlife or any other interests in the disposal or administration of Aboriginal land or the allocation of purposes to Aboriginal land. We believe this clause makes an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion into those rights if in the administration of those lands we are really interested in Aboriginal land rights and Aboriginal priorities.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government opposes the deletion of clause 16. This clause removes the requirement for ministerial approval of contracts and leases involving a lease of Aboriginal land. The Parliamentary counsel has advised that the amendment is necessary as printed because the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill will require the relevant Aboriginal land trusts in the region to enter into leases with the director of National Parks and Wildlife. It would be totally improper for the Land Trust to be placed in the position of being required to grant a lease to the Director if he could be prevented from entering into the agreement by lack of ministerial consent. The proposed new sub-section 21 (2) merely ensures that both parties are required and have adequate power to enter into the proposed lease agreement. We therefore oppose the deletion of clause 16.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– On my interpretation of it, proposed new sub-section (2) does a bit more than the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has indicated it does. Section 2 1 of the Act states:

The Director shall not, without the approval of the Minister-

enter into a contract involving the payment or receipt of an amount exceeding $50,000; or

take any land on lease for a period exceeding 10 years.

My opposition relates to this period of 10 years. Under the Act there is some restriction placed on the Director in taking a lease for a period over 10 years. I presume that the purpose of that is so that these can be a revision each 10 years of the justification for holding the land as a national park. This means that the lease has to be renewed every 10 years. It is now proposed that this provision shall not apply to an Aboriginal reserve. Why do we place Aboriginal land in a different position from any other land? Why are we permitting the lease of Aboriginal land for an indefinite period? It is very difficult to follow. The Land Council has to consent to the granting of a lease in the first place and I cannot see why the Land Council could not repeat its consent to the leases every 10 years. Of course, if the Land Council does not consent to the lease, the arbitrator has power to intervene and there are powers under section 7 of the Act for the Government by proclamation to take over the area. The distinction created by this clause is that we restrict the term of leases in respect of other areas to 10 years but allow the lease of Aboriginal land to be for a lot longer than 10 years without review. I am trying to find out why that is so.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I remind the Senate that the Fox Commission recommended that the leases should be for 100 years and this amendment is in line with that recommendation. The Aborigines advised the Fox Commission that the leases should be perpetual leases. The thrust of this amendment is to bring the term of these leases in line with the recommendations of the Fox Commission for leases of 100 years.

Question put:

That clause 16 stand as printed.

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 19

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 1 8A.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

This amendment seeks to amend section 36 of the Principal Act which relates to officers and employees of States and government authorities. When reading the amendment honourable senators will realise that what the Government has done is to recognise the existence of the Northern Territory as a self-governing territory. We have made a series of consequential amendments which in effect bring the Act into parallel with that recognition. This provision is similar to many others we have introduced in recent legislation. I commend it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I again want to record my protest that there is no provision for consultation with the Aboriginal owners. This proposed new clause goes further than others we have dealt with.

It states:

  1. The Government of the Commonwealth- (a)shall,-

There is a compulsion- from time to time, consult with, and have regard to the views of, the Administrator of the Northern Territory . . .

This matter becomes more important because it is not just a question of the Government of the Commonwealth consulting with the Administrator of the Northern Territory in relation to the performance of functions and the exercise of powers under the Act by officers or employees of of the Territory or of any authority of the Territory, and making arrangements with the Administrator for the performance of those functions and the exercise of those powers by such officers or employees.

Not only do we have to consult with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly; we have to have regard to its views. Yet the views of the Aboriginal owners are completely left out of the question. Of course the Minister has said, as has been said in all ministerial statements dealing with Aboriginal affairs, that the Government will consult with the Aboriginals. As I said yesterday, we do not know what future Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs might do. But under this legislation whoever occupies the portfolio of Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, there is a compulsion on him to consult with the Administrator of the Northern Territory. Yet there is no compulsion on him to consult with the vital sector of the Northern Territory in this matter or to take any cognisance of their views. This is the thing to which I am opposed. I think when we have a clause making it mandatory for us to take note of the Northern Territory Administrator, it should be mandatory also for us to take note of the views of the owners of the land.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I draw Senator Cavanagh ‘s attention to the fact that on page 4 of the explanatory notes to this Bill it is stated that:

  1. ) An arrangement under this section shall not be inconsistent with any law or with any agreement between the Commonwealth and an Aboriginal Land Council established by the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 or between the Director and any such Land Council.

I stress that the intention throughout this legislation is for constant detailed and meaningful consultation at all times with the Aboriginal people.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– Once again Senator Cavanagh is overlooking the situation as it exists today. To repeat myself, it is not a question of referring to the Territory as having black or white representation. We are referring to the people of the Territory. Senator Cavanagh must realise that time and time again in this debate this has been pointed out, but he refuses to see the situation. The Minister has mentioned that with any agreements the land owners must be consulted, but let us go a little further on this point. This legislation provides that Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the chairman of the Northern Land Council, shall be on the planning committee. Also the Northern Land Council is being represented on the Northern Territory Wildlife Commission which will be consulted by the Federal Government. I understand that there will be further Aboriginal representation on the Central Land Council. So there is Aboriginal participation there.

A further look at the legislation reveals that under this particular clause, this consultation will involve employees. I have just mentioned the representation by Aboriginal people on the Northern Territory Wildlife Commission. So honourable senators can see that there is a thread of Aboriginal people being put in positions involving consultation and that there is Aboriginal representation. So what this new clause is all about is the Federal Government consulting with the people of the Northern Territory. The people of the Northern Territory consist of blacks and whites. That is the way they are being represented. I ask Senator Cavanagh to endeavour not to keep on with what he has been doing. I repeat, he has been endeavouring to bring about a divisive situation in the Northern Territory which does not exist at present.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I agree with Senator Kilgariff when he says that he accepts that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory represents the people of the Northern Territory. But he would know, from living in the Territory and from his experience on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee which heard evidence in the Territory, that there is not that harmony or unity in the Territory. There has been a complete split between the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Senator Kilgariff says that as we accept that the people of the Northern Territory, as one, are represented by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, we make it mandatory to discuss with the Legislative Assembly and to take notice of its views, but another section has views and we do not make it mandatory to talk with that section. I am reinforced in my opinion that there is not the harmony between the Legislative Assembly and the Aboriginal people that Senator Kilgariff suggested by comments in the Territory Watchdog, a very educational publication. It is stated in that publication:

The Aboriginals are very much aware of the local pressure groups that wish to exploit the park, and they rightly feel that the Legislative Assembly would take greater notice of the local ‘get-rich brigade’ than they would of Aboriginals’ wishes. They feel that a national park controlled by the Commonwealth will ensure that Kakadu becomes just that … a park for the nation and not a preserve for a few for a short time.

The publication expresses doubts that have occurred in the minds of the Aboriginals. All we ask for is consultation with them to take notice of their views. There is a difference between the views of Senator Kilgariff and of the Minister because Senator Kilgariff is saying that we are consulting the Aboriginals by consulting with the Northern Territory Administrator. But the Minister says that we acknowledge that the views of the Aboriginals should be taken into account and we have made provision for this under subclause (5). But what the Minister does not explain is that sub-clause (5) offers no protection of the rights of Aboriginals. It states:

  1. 5 ) An arrangement under this section shall not be inconsistent with any law or with any agreement between the Commonwealth and an Aboriginal Land Council established by the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) /lc/ 1976 . . .

Of course the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act gives the land to Aboriginals. This other Act enforces on Aboriginals the leasing of land for use as a national park. The Aboriginals are not opposed to a lease being held, making it a national park because, as they say in the Territory Watchdog, they want it for the whole of the nation. They are prepared to go along with that. But its development, its operation and use, go to that section which Senator Kilgariff sees as speaking for the whole of the Northern Territory and which the Minister does not see as speaking for the whole of the Northern Territory. Therefore we have this conflict. But this still comes back to the question of why we introduce legislation which provides that it is compulsory to consult with and take notice of the views of one section and not the other. I stress that the Minister admits that this section will be consulted and their views will be taken into account. Nevertheless, we are afraid to write it into the legislation so that we can repudiate it at any time we so desire.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– Obviously it is the intention of Senator Cavanagh to continue to endeavour to drive a wedge between the people of the Territory. I thought he could have made it plainer when he referred to the Territory Watchdog. I ask Senator Cavanagh why he did not say that the Territory Watchdog is a newsletter put out by his colleague, Senator Robertson. Senator Cavanagh can have his viewpoint, but he should be truthful about the matter.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I do not doubt that Senator Kilgariff is aware that he has brought a new element into this debate. I do not think he should be allowed to get away with his comments. He fails in spite of being a Territorian, to realise that the Aboriginal people are in a special situation. They are indigenous people. They are a dispossessed people and they are a people who have had little compensation. What the Government- and the Labor Party Government did when in office- is trying to do is give some compensation to those people, some special understanding, in fact, discrimination in their favour. Senator Kilgariff, who no doubt serves well the great vested interests of the Northern Territory, endeavours to place Aborigines -

Senator Kilgariff:

– That is a lie.

Senator GEORGES:
Senator Kilgariff:

– You heard me.

Senator GEORGES:

-Senator Kilgariff said to me, and said it plainly, that it is a lie. I have repeated his words. He has not denied that those are the words he used. Those are the words that will appear in the Hansard record. They are offensive words. Nevertheless, let the record stand clearly that Senator Kilgariff said that I was a liar because of the statement that I am making. I am making it very clearly. Let those who read the Hansard record judge for themselves. Senator Kilgariff now in this place has the reputation of serving the great vested interests that have held large sections of the Northern Territory for many years and which look with some concern at what will happen at the end of this century when these large leases are broken up and reduced. It seems to me that Senator Kilgariff continues to disregard the rights of the Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. He is using a device which the Premier of Queensland has used time and time again- that is, to say that the Aboriginals are citizens as are all other Australians citizens. I do not deny that but to confine Aboriginals to that classification alone is to place the Aboriginals in a disadvantaged position. Neither this Government nor the Opposition intends that to be so.

What Senator Cavanagh is saying and insisting upon by way of change to this particular clause is that the Aboriginal people in that special situation need to be consulted. That is all he is saying. He is saying that it ought not to be just an acceptance of the Minister’s assurance, because, as Senator Cavanagh clearly stated, that situation could change. It ought to be entrenched in the legislation that is before us and the Minister, in spite of what Senator Kilgariff said, ought to accept what Senator Cavanagh is saying and simply amend the legislation to make it clear that in consultation with the people of the

Northern Territory through the Administrator we go one stage further and make certain that the Aboriginal people are consulted also.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I do not want to delay the Senate but because the whole thrust of the arguments put forward in the last five minutes might be misunderstood, the Senate should understand that what this legislation is doing in fact is providing for a great national park- the Kakadu Park- and within it all the hereditary lands for the Aborigines in the way that the Aborigines have asked; that is, by way of a perpetual leasehold in the national park. I had hoped that we could have had some amity. I said yesterday and the day before that I found it singularly distasteful that people felt that they could polarise their views that they had a monopoly of the practical welfare of the Aborigines.

Senator Georges:

– I did not say that.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, but the inference, with great respect Senator Georges, is that someone here is alleged to be the representative of vested interests- that is, that they are polarising their interests. I simply say that I have been privileged many times in the Northern Territory to associate with senators from both sides of this chamber who, in my judgment, are dedicated to the welfare of the Aborigines. I make that point clear. I have spent time with Senator Kilgariff in the area in which he has lived virtually all his life. No man I know is more greatly respected for his work with the Aborigines. I do not think it does us any good at all to pursue this matter. With respect, I acknowledge the sincerity of Senator Cavanagh. I ask, in the name of good sense, that the Opposition accept this Bill. This Bill fundamentally is one which the Labor Party wants to accept in spirit. It wants the National Park. It wants–

Senator Ryan:

– It does not want the mining leases.

Senator CARRICK:

– This Bill has nothing to do with mining interests. This Bill is for the creation of Kakadu National Park. The Labor Party will be in great difficulty when it votes on this Bill because it does not want to be seen to be opposing this Bill which, in fact, it has opposed- tooth and nail- the whole way through. I just plead with you–

Senator Ryan:

– We moved an amendment at the second reading stage.

Senator CARRICK:

-Look! No honourable senator on either side of this chamber has any monopoly of practical sympathy or goals for the reform of the Aborigines. Name calling such as : Anything you can do, I can do better’, adds nothing to the dignity of this debate or to the truth of the past. Indeed, the records will show that honourable senators here on both sides of the chamber have done a great deal for the Aborigines and will do a great deal more in the future. I ask honourable senators to put to rest this kind of argument.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not think that the remarks of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) can go unchallenged because yesterday he made the same comment that no one has a monopoly of the interests of the welfare of Aboriginals. I agree with that. As I said yesterday, I think those who have the interests of Aboriginals at heart are supported by the majority of Australian people. I do not think there is such a monopoly; I think there is mass support for the Aborigines. The only people who are in the minority seem to be members of the National Country Party and sections of the Liberal Party.

It is no use making statements in this chamber about how well Senator Kilgariff gets on with the Aboriginals. I do not know whether he does get on with them. But Senator Kilgariff is greatly interested in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. A colleague of Senator Kilgariff’s from the same party and I were visiting an area in the Northern Territory at the same time. At one meeting I had to prevent Aboriginals from verbally attacking the National Country Party member from that district. At another meeting, I had to appeal to the crowd in order to stop an Aboriginal from spearing this particular person. That is the sort of respect that the Aboriginals in the Northern Territory have for members of the National Country Party. Even though the Aborigines do not respect these people, the Bill seeks to give the Country Party dominated Northern Territory Legislative Assembly the right to represent the Aborigines. The Aborigines will not be consulted.

All the arguments put forward by the Minister are phoney. It is as though he is making a ministerial statement. The Aboriginal people have no respect for the National Country Party. They are suspicious of that party; that is the basis of their appeal for consultation. They have referred to this not only in the Territory Watchdog but also in a publication put out by the Northern Land Council. They have said: ‘Keep responsibility for us out of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly’. I agree that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has some responsibility. It should be consulted but not to the exclusion of the Aboriginal people.

I make a greater appeal to the Minister. I realise that the Minister may have difficulty agreeing to any amendment at this stage. I realise that he must try to get this Bill passed. We have considered the question of whether Aboriginals are worthy of consultation equal to the consultation with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. In the interval before the Bill comes into operation I ask the Minister to see whether he could introduce amendments to give Aborigines that right and to give them the prestige of equality in regard to their National Park.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 24- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 25.

Section 7 1 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting paragraph (d) of sub-section (2) and substituting the following paragraph:
  2. regulating or prohibiting the pollution of soil, air or water in a manner that is, or is likely to be, harmful to people or wildlife in, or to the natural features of, parks and reserves; (da) regulating or prohibiting tourism in parks and reserves; ‘;
  3. by omitting paragraphs (m) and (o) of sub-section (2); and
  4. by inserting after sub-section (3) the following subsection: (3a) a law of a Territory does not have any force or effect to the extent to which it is inconsistent with a provision of the regulations having effect in that Territory, but such a law shall not be taken for the purposes of this sub-section to be inconsistent with such a provision to the extent that it is capable of operating concurrently with that provision. ‘.
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

This provision relates to the regulations under section 7 1 of the principal Act. In fact, proposed new sub-section 71 (3a) needs rephrasing. In other words, the amendment seeks to leave out the words ‘A law of a Territory does not have any force or effect to the extent to which it is inconsistent with a provision of the regulations’ and to state in a positive way that ‘A ‘aw of a Territory has effect to the extent to which it is not inconsistent’. I would have thought that this amendment would have been effective. It is well known that laws do in fact have effect to the extent to which they are not inconsistent. I commend the amendment.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I would like to raise a matter with the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) while we are dealing with section 7 1 of the principal Act. Proposed new paragraph (d) of section 71 (2) of the legislation reads:

  1. regulating or prohibiting the pollution of soil, air or water in a manner that is, or is likely to be, harmful to people or wildlife in, or to the natural features of, parks and reserves;

I question the use of the word ‘regulating’. I would have thought from what the Government has said about its feelings about national parks and wildlife conservation that it was of a mind to keep those areas safe and unpolluted and that it would have been more in line with those statements to have prohibited pollution rather than to regulate it. Once we talk about regulating pollution we accept that there will be some pollution; we simply do not put limits on the amount of pollution that there can be, but we will regulate the amount that there can be.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I have no doubt at all that the parliamentary draftsmen looked at this aspect in the strictest sense. If one were to accept that one should prohibit pollution in the strictest sense, no vehicle would ever go near the place. I am not terribly sure whether those of us bringing alien kinds of materials into the place could do so. I think what this means in the legal sense- and I ask for an understanding of this view- is that, to the maximum extent and in the understanding of the restriction of pollution, so that provision should be carried out.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Surely the point is that in a national park there should be a prohibition and a fairly strict prohibition on the introducing into, and the taking out of, that area of any material whatsoever. I would have thought that from that there would flow the understanding that pollution of any part or any stream of that area should be prohibited, not regulated. I think Senator Melzer has pointed out a factor that should be taken into consideration; there should be a prohibition. I know that there are difficulties about prohibition. But in an area of this sort prohibition is absolutely necessary; otherwise the ecology can be affected and the ecosystem can be brought under some threat.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Very briefly I wish to draw Senator Georges’ attention to the Bill which was proposed by the previous

Government which he supported. We are using precisely the same wording and it has the same intention as the previous government.

Senator Georges:

– Surely you are not going to use that as a justification, because you have never done so before.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Georges should have paused for a moment because I was about to say that I did not intend to rely- as I never have relied, with very good cause for my lack of reliance- on what the Whitlam Government did. I refer to section 71 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, which says:

  1. 1 ) The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.
  2. Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1) regulations may be made-

A whole host of areas in respect of which regulations may be made are listed in section 71 (2). The section provides for regulating or prohibiting camping in parks and areas, regulating or prohibiting access to the whole or part of a park or reserves by persons and so on. I simply come back to the ordinary meaning of the words. There is no way on God ‘s earth that one can prohibit pollution in its true sense in the ordinary way. If it were possible, no city would exist, no home would exist and no individual would walk around. The fact of the matter is that we all in our own way in an alien fashion pollute. We are not all biodegradable, only partially so, and sometimes I wish more so. The fact of the matter is that in plain words what this means is that to the extent that man can restrict pollution around him he does so but clearly that does not meanhe does not use elements which will add marginally to pollution as we do every day of our lives.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Senator Carrick:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, on this legislation there is an arrangement with the Opposition, with which I concur. Although the three Bills have been dealt with in a cognate fashion the Government is prepared to allow the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill to be reported separately and also for the motion for the third reading to be moved separately. I simply draw the attention of the Committee to that arrangement. The Committee may wish, procedurally, to suspend at this time. On behalf of the Government I am perfectly happy to allow such a procedure to be adopted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that that course be adopted? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m.

Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Bill 1978

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (interpretation)

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The aim of the amendment is to give the Commission standing within the substance of this Bill. I commend the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

The amendment is self-explanatory. We wish to involve that office in the provisions of this legislation.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government is opposed to the amendment of the Opposition. It is well beyond the concept of the office and duties of the Supervising Scientist as envisaged, firstly, by the Fox Commission and, secondly, by the Government itself. The Supervising Scientist is not seen to be a person connected with enforcement. The role of the Supervising Scientist is to collect information and to advise and recommend to governments. Since the officer himself is not to be in an enforcement situation he should not, in our view, have special standing.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4.

  1. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia has jurisdiction, at the suit of the Director or of a Land Council, to make orders for or in relation to the enforcement, in relation to uranium mining operations in the

Alligator Rivers Region, of any requirement of or having effect under a prescribed instrument, so far as the requirement relates to any matter affecting the environment in that region.

  1. The Director is not entitled to maintain a suit by virtue of this section unless the matter in relation to which the requirement is sought to be enforced is a matter affecting the environment in a part of the Alligator Rivers Region that is included in the area of a park, reserve or conservation zone under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975.
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

  1. . In sub-clause ( I ), leave out ‘at the suit of the Director or of a Land Council’, subsitute ‘at the suit of the Director, the Commission or a Land Council’.

This amendment gives standing to the Commission in addition to the Director and the Land Council. I commend the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

-by leave- I move:

The Opposition has moved these amendments because it does not favour the legislation as whole; it favours the jurisdiction for this legislation being given to a Federal court. However, we were not successful with our amendment to that effect to the second reading of the Bill. We are now trying to improve some of the weaknesses in the Bill with these amendments. It is clear from the wording of the two amendments that it is our intention to widen access to the jurisdiction by including persons or groups which have a legitimate interest in the effects of uranium mining in the Territory.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Senator Ryan seeks to increase the access to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by changing the standing of a wide range of people and authorities. The Government will oppose the amendments. It will do so because they go well beyond the concept envisaged either by the Fox Commission or the Government. The amendments give a definition of standing well beyond the general concept of law. I point out that recently the Government announced that it proposed to invite the Law Reform Commission to review the access to civil proceedings. The Law Reform Commission will be looking in the widest of terms at the question of the standing of people before the courts. The concept of the Bill before the Senate at the moment, however, is that the bodies to have standing are the three bodies which have responsibility for enforcement within the Territory. Therefore, they obviously require that status. I commend the clause.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I rise to speak because the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) referred to the functions of the Law Reform Commission. I hate to think that the Government will transform the Law Reform Commission into an advisory body as to the appropriateness of modern law. The Law Reform Commission should find mountains of antidiluvian stuff in the law to reform, synthesise and make logical and clear. Where government is striving for a policy, I object to the Law Reform Commission being the functionary that should formulate it. More importantly, if the Law Reform Commission is to advise the Government as to the people who have a right of action in the realm of the environment, I put forward the enormous weakness in the Constitution of Australia whereby the right to object to unconstitutional expenditure of money is denied to anybody but the State Attorney-General. The ordinary citizen and taxpayer does not have that right. If the Law Reform Commission is to be entrusted with the function of defining appropriate plaintiffs in the environment sphere, I hope that its members will read in Hansard my expressions with regard to a deficiency of a much more important character whereby private individuals are not entitled to approach any court to declare unconstitutional appropriations which in fact are unconstitutional.

Amendments negatived.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

At the moment sub-clause (3) provides that:

The Director is not entitled to maintain a suit by virtue of this section unless the matter in relation to which the requirement is sought to be enforced is a matter affecting the environment-

We seek to have the sub-clause read: ‘The Director or the Commission is not entitled’. This amendment is consistent with the inclusion of reference to the Commission in other parts of the Bill. I commend the amendment to honourable senators.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6.

This Act does not prejudice any jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, any right of action of the Director, a Land Council or any other person, or any civil or criminal liability of a person, apart from this Act.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The effect of this amendment will be to make the clause read:

This Act does not prejudice any jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, any right of action of the Director, the Commission, a Land Council or any other person, or any civil or criminal liability of a person, apart from this Act.

This is eminently in common with the rest of the amendments.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– Two proposed amendments to clause 6 were circulated in my name. Those proposed amendments were consequent on an earlier amendment I moved, which was unsuccessful. The second of my proposed amendments was designed to protect private individuals who might have access to the court from running the risk of having to pay costs. But as no private individuals will have access to the court, such an amendment would not be appropriate. Therefore, I do not wish to move my proposed amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) The question now is that the three Bills with which we have dealt in Committee be reported with amendments.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-At this stage I indicate to the Committee that we would like each of these Bills to be reported separately. We wish to take a position on the third reading of the Bills. Perhaps, Mr Chairman, you could suggest to us the best way to do that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Clerk advises me that perhaps the best way of doing that is to do as I was going to do and to report the Bills together. Then, when the Minister moves the third reading you can indicate the Opposition’s position.

Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Readings

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

Senator Georges:

– I suggest to the Minister that he might move the motions for the third readings of these Bills separately because the Opposition has a position on the third readings of these Bills.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Government has no objection to that course being followed.

Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Bill 1978

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is:

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Question put.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Bill 1978

The PRESIDENT:

– The question now is:

That this Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1978

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is:

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1963

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received message No. 69 from the House of

Representatives acquainting the Senate of a resolution agreed to yesterday relating to the participation by the House in the continuing work of the Constitutional Convention.

page 1963

ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

In Committee.

Consideration resumed from 24 May.

Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1978

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

Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill 1978

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

This Act shall come into operation on the day on which is receives the Royal Assent.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I move:

The proposed amendment has just been prepared and has, I trust, by now been circulated. The Opposition is highly dissatisfied with the way in which the Government has handled this legislation. Initially, the Government sought to impose upon the States a uniform code of practice relating to uranium mining. Upon being confronted by some opposition from the States, the Government has gone to water and has signified its intention of introducing amendments which I presume the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) will later be moving, which in effect give the States power to veto any code of practice which may be laid down by regulation pursuant to this Act. We find that proposal highly unsatisfactory. In effect, the Commonwealth has completely abdicated from its responsibility to impose standards of safety on the mining and milling of uranium.

There are, we recognise, difficulties inherent in this sort of legislation where there is any doubt concerning the Federal Government’s power to legislate, but the Opposition stands by its view that rather than carry the Bill in the form the Government now proposes, a further attempt should be made to apply a uniform code of practice throughout the country. There is little possibility of such a uniform code being achieved if the Bill is carried in the form foreshadowed by the Government.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I rise to support the amendment to Clause 2 moved by my colleague, Senator Walsh, concerning the date of operation of the provisions of this Bill. It refers specifically, of course, to the provisions of clauses 1 1 and 13, and to amendments to those clauses which I understand the Government intends to move.

As Senator Walsh has pointed out, the effect of the Government’s proposed amendments to clauses 1 1 and 1 3 would be to provide that Australia would have a uniform code on nuclear safety and environmental protection, only if certain circumstances arose; namely, if the State governments request the Governor-General, and thereby the Commonwealth Government, to proclaim a code in respect of the territorial areas of their States. The consequences of that, as Senator Walsh pointed out, would be simply that, in dealing with uranium and uranium mining, to put it somewhat bluntly, the Government of Victoria could request that a code be proclaimed which would apply to that State. The Government of Queensland- and let us not beat about the bush- might have a different view concerning safety requirements in connection with uranium mining in that State. It might say: ‘We do not want you to proclaim the code in relation to the State of Queensland. We will have our own Queensland law on this matter, just as we have it in relation to demonstrations, the Aboriginals at Aurukun and Mornington Island, and so on. ‘ Just as it believes that those laws should apply, that any laws which the Federal Parliament is empowered to make in relation to those matters should not be made because it asserts a prior right, it can say the same thing in relation to uranium mining.

The recommendations of the Fox Committee of inquiry, to which this Government gives so much lip service, are quite specific. Point No. 4, as set out in the first report, states:

Any development of Australian uranium mines should be strictly regulated and controlled, for the purposes mentioned in Chapter 16.

One does not need to go to Chapter 16 because that deals with the question of the hazards of uranium mining. Point No. 7 states:

Policy respecting Australian uranium exports, for the time being at least, should be based on a full recognition of the hazards, dangers and problems of and associated with the production of nuclear energy and should therefore seek to limit or restrict expansion of that production.

Point No. 10 states:

The Government should immediately explore what steps it can take to assist in reducing the hazards, dangers and problems of and associated with the production of nuclear energy.

Those are just points taken at random. One could go on, but what is significant is what this Government is doing when confronted with telegrams from Sir Charles Court and other people. Earlier the Government insisted that when it came to power it said that there should be a uniform nuclear safety code for the whole of Australia; that it considered that desirable in light of the Fox recommendations. However, on 4 May, the Government received a telegram from Sir Charles Court which, by implication, threatened a High Court action if it went ahead with this legislation, and noises were heard from other State Premiers also. The Government then abandoned the principle that it had derived from the Fox report, that there should be uniform standards in relation to safety. The Government simply abandoned it. The consequence could be that, in relation to uranium mining, potentially there could be a different standard in relation to safety codes in each State.

Senator Wright, as I recall, put his finger on the point in an earlier contribution to this debate. He said that the uranium issue was a matter of such concern that the States should cede their powers in that regard to the Commonwealth. Of course, he was right, but the Government, in pursuit of a bizarre notion of federalism, is hiding behind a Constitution devised in 1900, when the horse and buggy were just attaining relative sophistication. It is attempting to apply those principles in 1978, when we are dealing with the nuclear power industry and with uranium. That is a ridiculous situation, because whatever wisdom the Founding Fathers had, it was not of the kind which would have helped them understand the Fox report on uranium mining. They did not have the sort of wisdom that would have foreseen some of these things.

In the face of widespread concern both in Australia and in the world, the Government has, on this fundamental issue of the importance of safety codes in the development of uranium mining, backed away- in the pursuit of some peculiar notion of its own, derived perhaps from Montesquieu and Adam Smith about the nature of the separation of powers and the desirability of having regard to the views of the States. The amendment moved by Senator Walsh simply says that there should be further consultations with the States before these clauses are proclaimed with a view to reaching agreement with the States on a uniform code relating to safety matters. Surely that is the correct way to approach this matter. One does not, as is suggested in the amendments to be moved on behalf of the Government, just slip glibly out of all the pious statements that have been made about the importance of this legislation because, as I have said, the Government received a telegram from Sir Charles Court and a few other people who want to have their finger in this pie.

I say to the Minister that there are other ways of going about this which the Government may have in mind. But the important point is, of course, the desirability of uniformity. This industry is seen as so important that the Government is not going to allow a different situation to arise in different States. I appreciate the constitutional difficulties but surely the first approach to the States should be one of consultation first to see whether they will agree to give the Commonwealth powers in relation to this matter and secondly whether they agree to a uniform code. I understand that even that approach has dangers because different standards may be applied by different State governments as to what they want in that code. I support the amendment.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– So that the Senate will understand why the Government will oppose the amendment, I think I should put this matter into perspective. The fact is that we are debating the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill which sets out to achieve in Australia a series of nuclear codes and practices to provide the highest possible safeguards. Against that background may I say that following correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the States regarding the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill Commonwealth and State Ministers met in Canberra on 1 8 May of this year. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the legal, technical and administrative issues raised by the States in correspondence. The discussions were wide ranging and frank. I believe the one consensus that emerged was that there should be firm procedures to ensure the full involvement from the outset of Commonwealth and State governments in any work in the drafting of national uniform codes of practice.

Equally I believe it was recognised that uniform national codes are essential. Certainly, the Commonwealth holds to this view. We nevertheless respect the desire of the States to act within their prerogatives in the making of laws to give effect to the codes. In recognition of this and as a gesture to allow the States to act for themselves, the Government has decided to amend the Bill to provide that clauses 1 1 and 13 will operate in a State only at the request of that State. We further propose to amend the Bill to provide for consultative procedures. It is our view- and I emphasise this point- that the consultation should be directed towards the achievement of national uniform codes of practice through complementary legislation.

I will be dealing with the amendments later. Perhaps I should read to the Senate the text of a telex which has gone out today from the Prime Minister to each of the six State Premiers. The telex reads as follows:

My dear Premier,

I refer to our recent correspondence on the uranium legislation currently before the Parliament and to the meeting of 18 May 1978 between State and Commonwealth officials to discuss the State governments’ concerns about the legislation.

I am advised that the discussions between officials indicated that the States were most concerned about two of the six Bills introduced into the Parliament last month- the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. The officials indicated that the States saw these particular Bills as raising the possibility of Commonwealth intrusion into areas of State responsibilities in respect of uranium mining and nuclear energy, that the Bills were seen as being of doubtful constitutional validity, that their passage raised the issue of constitutional impropriety with the Commonwealth resiling from its cooperative federalism policy, and that the Bills lacked specific arrangements for Commonwealth/State consultation. The State officials, I am advised sought withdrawal of the two Bills to allow time for the governments to meet and discuss them with a view to identifying alternative courses of action satisfactory to the States.

I understand however that there was more or less general State agreement on the need for a system of uniform national nuclear codes which might possibly be applied by way of complementary legislation.

I think that these matters of broad concern to the States can fruitfully be discussed further between our governments and I would expect that this will be possible in the near future. In the meantime, however, and not in any way meaning to prejudge the outcome of such discussions, the Government has decided that it is important to proceed with the passage of the legislation through the Parliament. But it is proposed to amend the codes Bill along the lines of an option which I understand was discussed at the meeting last week. This Bill will be amended to provide that clauses 1 1 and 13 will operate in a State only at the request of that State. There will also be other amendments relating to consultation in the formulation of codes of practice. We would expect that this action by the Commonwealth will facilitate consultative arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth so that a system of uniform nuclear codes can be drawn up and applied nationally by way of complementary legislation if that is the most satisfactory procedure.

It is not proposed to make any amendment to the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill at this stage. I should perhaps explain that this Bill is of particular importance for two reasons. Firstly, it provides a firm legal basis for an authority under section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act for Ranger to mine, and it is essential that Ranger proceed this dry season. The proposed amendments also provide a firm legal basis for the application of safeguards within Australia in accordance with our international obligations.

As I have said, this action is not intended to close off full and meaningful discussion on the legislation at government level. Any further amendments which we might agree to can be introduced in the Budget sittings of the Parliament.

I hope you will agree that the steps we are taking are a significant response to your representations pending the opportunity for further discussions.

Yours sincerely MALCOLM FRASER

Because it is important for us to understand the situationI say with the best of goodwill that, if the Federal Opposition were to go through copies of Hansard of recent days, it would find that the main thrust of its opposition to this nuclear codes Bill was directed to the allegation that there had not been full discussion or cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States. Indeed, that was the thrust of most of the speeches by Opposition members. Now, of course, the Opposition is taking a diametrically opposed stance. The Government having demonstrated that it is consulting in full, we now find that the Opposition says that the Commonwealth should be acting within its powers.

I believe it is important to understand- and I do not seek to be vexatious in any way- that the States are saying that there is some question of constitutional status in this matter. Let me try now to put this together so that we can see what this Bill in its proposed amended form means. The Bill will mean that a national nuclear code will be drawn up and it will aim to be a uniform code. It will be known to the public and drawn up in consultation between the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth will propose a new clause 6A which will empower the Minister to arrange for the formulation of codes of practice and require him to ensure that the States and the Northern Territory are afforded an opportunity to consult on the formulation of those codes. The purpose of the amendment is to guarantee that the States and the Northern Territory will be consulted on the formulation of those codes. On the basis of past debate as recorded in Hansard that would be entirely acceptable to the Federal Opposition.

Clause 7 is consequential upon new clause 6a and ensures that proposed codes of practice formulated in accordance with the requirements of clause 6a are furnished to the States and the Northern Territory and that they will be afforded an opportunity to consult on those proposed codes. Quite clearly, on the basis of the thrust of the Opposition ‘s argument to date, that would be totally acceptable to the Opposition. The amendment to clause 8 prohibits the making of codes unless the Governor-General receives advice that the codes have been formulated in consultation with the States and the Northern Territory in accordance with the requirements of proposed new clause 6a. Again the Opposition should look to its debating thrust of the past because it has been very much concerned with what it has taken to be the powers of the Governor-General to intercede in this matter. In this amendment there is a safeguard for the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory. The amendment to clause 1 1 requires that the regulations be not made for carrying out or giving effect to or for securing the observance of a code of practice in any State unless the Governor of the State has requested the Governor-General to make regulations to give effect to or secure the observance of the code in that State. The new amendment to clause 13 prohibits an order from authorising a Minister to give directions that have effect in a State or to take any action in a State unless the Governor of the State requests the GovernorGeneral to make the order.

These amendments should not be seen as a weakening of the Government’s resolve to achieve, in co-operation with the States, effective and uniform regulation and control of nuclear activities insofar as those activities affect the health, safety and environment of Australians. The Government will keep the matter under review to ensure that uniform regulation is achieved by this mechanism. As a national government we accept our responsibilities in the area of nuclear activity both at home and abroad and look forward to the assistance and cooperation of the States in discharging these responsibilities. I have spoken at length to put this matter in perspective. What we are saying is that a common uniform code is going to be developed through discussions between the States, the Territory and the Commonwealth and that the Commonwealth then aims, by complementary legislation, to have this uniform code adopted throughout Australia. I hope that everyone would urge that that be done, particularly as there has been a warning from the States that there is some threat to the constitutionality of various aspects. Nobody here, even the greatest of lawyers amongst us, would be able to assert that there is an absolute head of power so to do. Taken as a whole the proposal looks to be eminently reasonable. Should there be perceived to be difficulties along the way they will soon become public and be the subject of spirited public debate because the public will have before it knowledge of what is regarded as the optimum code and will be able to test the bona fides of the actions of particular States. The public also will be able to test the actions of the Commonwealth Government in achieving an optimum standard throughout Australia. Therefore, I commend the Governments foreshadowed amendments and reject the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Senator Carrick has given the impression that he has put the whole matter in perspective. I suggest that he has done just the opposite. Ever since these Bills came into Parliament the Opposition has taken the view that there has been inadequate consultation with the States. That has now been established beyond question. The first indication the States had that these Bills were to be drafted was some time last year. They were allegedly invited at that time to enter into consultations on the provisions of the legislation. The next they heard about the legislation was some months later when they were confronted with draft legislation and given four days by the Federal Government to be briefed on its provisions. When the legislation came into the Parliament the Opposition took the view that there had been inadequate consultation. Each State Premier is on record- and their comments were read into the Senate Hansard only two weeks ago- as objecting in the strongest terms to the manner in which he had been treated by the Fraser Government.

The upshot of that was that on Thursday of last week, which was a week when the Parliament was not sitting- these Bills were held over for debate this week- there was a hastily called meeting of officials only. As I understand it not one Minister, Federal or State, was present. I understand that the meeting was chaired by the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It was not a ministerial meeting, anyway. It was an attempt by the Government to placate the States. Despite the fact that we have had restated again today the claims about this Government’s intention to achieve a national nuclear code, the Government is now to introduce amendments, which we will deal with later, that will open the way for a disaster to occur in relation to the formulation of a nuclear code. The foreshadowed amendments are an invitation to all the States to go their own way if they choose to do so. I am not saying that at present there is one State government which will do that but there could well be.

The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) told us only a few moments ago that in the letter sent out today by the Prime Minister to the Premiers the Prime Minister referred to the general consensus that we need a strong national code. I think that was the wording in the telex that the Minister read. That indicates that the States themselves recognise the need for a strong national code. That means that if the States had been properly consulted- that could still be done- a national code that is acceptable not only to the State governments but also to the Commonwealth Government, including perhaps the Opposition, could be arrived at. But how can it be arrived at in the piecemeal way that this Government has gone about it? It has been nothing more than a face-saving exercise which has backfired badly. It is unfortunate that we have not had the opportunity to study the letter that the Minister just read. There were several things in it which indicated to me an inconsistency on the part of the Government in respect of all it has said and done in this Parliament concerning the whole of this legislation. There was no suggestion that the passage of the legislation was necessary for the Ranger project. In fact, the Commonwealth officials admitted at the meeting of 1 8 May that it was not necessary. I suggest that there are other reasons why this Government is literally racing this legislation through the Parliament. It has bowed to certain pressures from the States in a manner which has left the chance of arriving at a strong uniform nuclear code up in the air. I suggest that if the Senate were to accept the amendments which the Government will be moving to clauses 11 and 13, we will be going backwards.

The Opposition will maintain two basic positions. Firstly, it believes that there should be a strong uniform national code. It believes that with proper consultation that can be achieved with the States. It will not be achieved by the Government’s proposed amendments to clauses 11 and 13.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I follow up one or two of the remarks made by Senator Wriedt. Senator Wriedt has pointed out the sort of consultation that has taken place with the States. I find it extraordinary that Senator Carrick should cite in this chamber a telegram sent today to the State Premiers in which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sets out his view about the effects of those consultations as evidence of a satisfactory process of consultation. Irrespective of the telegrams that the Minister sends, we in the Senate have to debate the legislation as it is and we have to draw the attention of the Senate to what the legislation means, irrespective of any pious statements of intent by the Prime Minister.

As Senator Wriedt has pointed out and as I believe it was pointed out earlier, the meaning of the legislation is quite clear. Senator Carrick said that the consequence of the action which the Prime Minister suggests in his telegram should take place will be that we will have uniform legislation in the States and the Commonwealth relating to nuclear codes. That is no answer because even if uniform legislation were ultimately achieved, and we of the Opposition hope that that endeavour will be successful, it would still carry with it the grave weakness that that legislation is the legislation of State parliaments and is subject to interpretation by State courts.

So the consequence even of uniform legislation could conceivably be a set of quite distinct and different judicial interpretations of what the legislation in fact means. The consequence of the course upon which the Government has now set itself is one of potential confusion, as the point was made earlier. I think we must concedeperhaps even more readily than did the Ministerthat there are problems of constitutional power for the Commonwealth Government in dealing with this matter. We find it extraordinaryI think Senator Wriedt touched on this point- that, in the process of consultation which the Minister says he has had, it never occured to the Commonwealth Government to advert to the weakness of its own constitutional power until it was pointed out by a State Premier. That is extraordinary.

I should like the Minister, in any subsequent comments he has to make, to clarify two other issues. In remarks the Minister has just made, he began by saying that there was a meeting of State Ministers and officials last week. I ask the Minister whether there was in fact a meeting of State Ministers because it is my firm conviction that there was not. It was a meeting of officials only.

Senator Carrick:

– I think the words I used were: The meeting was of officials. Commonwealth and State officials met in Canberra on 1 8 May. I read from a prepared text.

Senator BUTTON:

– With respect, Mr Minister, you read those words from the Prime Minister’s telegram.

Senator Carrick:

– No. With respect, I read those words from a separate statement. Hansard will verify that I read precisely from that statement. No mention at all was made of any ministerial meeting.

Senator BUTTON:

– With the greatest respect, Mr Minister, two statements were made by you in relation to this matter. In the second one you referred to a meeting of officials and in the first one you referred to a meeting of State Ministers and officials. I am only concerned to clarify the matter. I am not suggesting that it could have been anything other than perhaps a misreading. I am concerned to clarify that point.

Senator Carrick:

- Hansard will show what I had to say.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, I am sure that it will provided it accurately reflects what took place. The second point to which I should like the Minister to respond is whether in those discussions between State officials- perhaps that was not an appropriate place for it to be done- any discussion was on the agenda or took place relating to the desirability of State power, of the States giving powers to the Commonwealth in relation to this matter of a code. I should be happy to be advised about that. I should also like to know whether, if that was not on the agenda, why it was not on the agenda because, as people like Senator Wright have pointed out in the course of previous debate in this chamber, it is a very important suggestion.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– The Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill, which we are discussing in Committee, deals with nuclear codes which in effect may exist after consultation with the States. In the letter that the Minister read out and in his own summary of that letter, he said that a code was going to be developed. In other words, the Minister is not quite satisfied with the Bill that has been introduced. If a code is going to be developed, I cannot see the Minister’s objections to our amendment, which states in part: . . a date to be fixed by proclamation: which date shall be after the Commonwealth and the States have further consulted and reached agreement on a uniform code.

What is the objection to waiting? I fail to see the Minister’s objections to that amendment when he himself says that a code will be developed.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I shall be very brief in my remarks. I wish to make it clear that certainly it was my intention to say that there was a meeting of officials. It was not my intention to say- and I think Hansard will show that I did not say- that there was any meeting of Ministers.

Senator Wriedt:

– There was no meeting of Ministers?

Senator CARRICK:

-No. I read two statements. I read a statement and then I read the text of a letter. I have them both here. Just to remove any possibility of error, which I hope did not occur, I repeat that there was no intention on my part to say that there was a meeting of Ministers. I wish to again make it clear as to the meeting of officials. I am instructed that at the officers ‘ meeting last week, Commonwealth officials took the view that the Bill was constitutionally valid. I think that is important. That was the advice I received as the representative Minister when I perused the Bills earlier. As honourable senators opposite will know, these Bills are highly complex. Equally they will know that a series of heads of power from defence to trade and commerce right throughout the situation was sought. Some State officials did not agree with that contention.

One of the honourable senators opposite asked whether there was a discussion on the transfer of power. My advice is that no such discussion emerged. The purpose of the meeting, I am advised, was to allow officials to discuss without commitments to governments, the legal, technical and administrative aspects of the matters raised by the States, with the matters then being taken up quickly between governments in the light of the officials’ reports. Lest anyone feels that this was a hastily convened meeting, I point out that when I was the Minister in charge of this Bill in this chamber some week or two ago, I was aware of and had before me the information that that meeting was to be convened on that date. So the meeting had been pre-arranged. That may help to clarify matters.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I would like some clarity on clauses 1 1 and 13. 1 take it from what the Minister has said and from what Senator Button has said that there is some doubt about the constitutional validity of the legislation. In fact I think the Minister said that State officials had some doubts about it, although Federal officials did not. I take it that it would be accepted by the Minister that the proposed amendments at least tighten up the possibility of a successful challenge in that it is not a case of the Commonwealth, by legislation, imposing mining codes on the States; it is a case of the Commonwealth, by enactment of legislation, imposing mining legislation at the request of the States. Therefore it is felt that the Commonwealth is on more solid constitutional ground.

It is an admission of the necessity to make such amendments. But this defeats the whole purpose of the code. First, it may or may not give us a national code. A national code can be implemented only with the States’ agreement. This makes untrue the statement, set out in a large booklet, as to what the Government would do if the country gave it permission to mine uranium. We were told that there had to be safeguards and we were assured that every safeguard would be made. This Bill is only one of the Bills needed to assure Australia that the safeguards that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised in return for the right to mine uranium would be carried out. Clause 13 reveals that it is not a question of uniform codes at all. Clause 13 states:

  1. 1 ) Where the Governor-General is satisfied that-

    1. the health or safety of persons, or the environment is likely to be harmed by a situation resulting from a nuclear activity that exists in a State or Territory;

No control can be introduced unless the GovernorGeneral is satisfied that the danger exists. The clause goes on to provide that the GovernorGeneral can make regulations and to prepare a code to get around this danger or harm. Under the proposed amendment if the GovernorGeneral is satisfied that there is harm or danger to the community he can take action. Of course, he has to be satisfied that there is harm or danger before he can act. Despite the fact that a particular danger may exist because of the mining of uranium in one State, the Governor-General cannot take action unless he is requested to do so by a State Minister. Therefore, if the State Minister does not request such action, the mining can continue and the dangers will continue to exist. This is a breach of the assurance that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that he was going to give us. If it is not possible for the Government to legislate without this amendmentif the directions have to come from State Ministers- then it should say so. It should say that the Commonwealth cannot control uranium mining; perhaps it is better left to the States.

There are some doubts about whether some of the States at some time or another will insist on the safety provisions required for mining uranium. If radioactivity results from uranium it may have not only a local effect but also may extend beyond the border of the particular State in which uranium mining is taking place. The wind has no knowledge of borders. Mining of uranium in parts of Western Australia could have deleterious effects on parts of South Australia. Because it would have deleterious effects on parts of South Australia and not on the metropolitan area of Perth, it could well be that the Western Australian Government would be more satisfied with profits from uranium mining than with the safety of South Australians.

If this situation occurred, the safety of Western Australians would not be in question but it could well be that Western Australia would not insist on the code. If the Governor-General is satisfied that harm and danger exist the Commonwealth cannot do anything about it unless the State asks the Commonwealth to take action. One wonders whether the States will realise the danger which the Governor-General may realise exists. One wonders whether the States will realise that it is necessary to implement a code for this purpose. Of course, the amendment to clause 13 is that there can be no regulation under sub-clause ( 1 ) of the code. Clause 13(1) states:

  1. the health or safety of persons, or the environment, is likely to be harmed by a situation resulting from a nuclear activity that exists in a State or Territory; and
  2. the laws of the Commonwealth (other than this section) and of that State or Territory do not make provision for protecting the health or safety of persons likely to be affected by that situation, or for protecting the environment insofar as it is likely to be affected by that situation, he may, by order, authorise a Minister, during the period that the order remains in force, to give such directions and take such action as, subject to sub-section (2), the Minister considers necessary to control and eliminate hazards associated with the situation.

That is the position. A danger has to exist before the Governor-General can act. The GovernorGeneral has to be satisfied that sufficient danger exists to warrant action. This clause permits the Governor-General to take action to remove the danger only at such time as the laws of the Commonwealth or the laws of the State do not protect the citizens of that State or the citizens of the Commonwealth. That clause can then come into operation. We are putting an embargo on it, despite the fact that the effects of uranium mining might be poisonous to part of South Australia. Despite the fact that the mining of uranium at Roxby Downs in South Australia might be detrimental to the whole of South Australiait might be detrimental to the environment and to the health of the people- and the laws in South Australia do not provide the necessary protection, whether or not the laws of the Commonwealth provide the necessary protection, the Governor-General cannot do anything about it unless the State Government asks him to do something about it. This completely destroys the suggestion of the Prime Minister about the operation of guarantees.

Clause 1 1 applies in much the same way. If there is an undesirable practice, it cannot be acted on until the Governor-General decides that it is unsatisfactory. I used clause 13 as an illustration because it concerns safety and environmental protection. No protection is given under this clause unless the State takes action. Whilst I admit that I am not a legal man, these provisions may be necessary in accordance with constitutional rights, but if they are necessary we have to admit that the Commonwealth Government cannot protect the environment from uranium mining unless we first get a uniform code of agreement which all States will observe.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Following Senator Cavanagh ‘s remarks, I should like to get a definitive answer on this question from the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). Amendment No. 5 which has been circulated by the Government states that regulations made in regard to a code of practice shall not operate in a State unless the Governor of the State has requested the Governor-General to make regulations for carrying out or giving effect to, or for securing the observance of, that code of practice in the State. Does the Minister agree that that clause quite clearly gives any of the States power to veto regulations which comprise the code of practice which the Commonwealth Government may issue at some time in the future?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I think very understandably, almost a second reading debate has developed on clause 2 of the Bill. Indeed, I have contributed to it. It is understandable because the Commonwealth has introduced a series of amendments, the thrust of which is quite significant. It is for the Senate to decide whether it should continue to debate all the amendments. I acknowledge that I indicated the nature of all of the amendments. In terms of Senator Walsh’s query, perhaps we should take them seriatim. When we come to the fifth amendment then he can seek that information. I suggest we adopt that course. I do not think there is any other procedural way because we cannot take the Bill as a whole. We have to take the amendments seriatim. I think we should put the amendment to clause 2 which the Government will oppose.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I want to express concern in view of the answers given earlier by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). When speaking about the safety codes of nuclear practice he said that they would be introduced after this legislation was passed. He said that then the public could judge for themselves. Is that not far too late for the public to make a judgment? What can the public do about it then? There will not be an election for nearly three years. The public will have to suffer whatever codes the Government decides to introduce. The amendment moved by the Opposition to clause 2 of the Bill deals specifically, of course, with clauses 1 1 and 1 3.

It concerns me that, as has been pointed out by Senator Cavanagh and Senator Walsh, unless the Governor of the State has requested the Governor-General to make regulations for carrying out or giving effect to, or for securing the observance of, that code of practice in the State, there will be no action taken by the GovernorGeneral. What are we going to do in the case of the State of Queensland? We know that the Premier of Queensland could not care less about the safety code so long as he can mine uranium and get dollars for it. What can we do in Western Australia where there is a person, Lang Hancock, who publicly states that there is no danger at all and we ought to be mining uranium as fast as we can go and selling it as fast as possible? We know the hold he has over the Government of Western Australia. So where will safety come into it in those two States in which we know from past experience the two Premiers could not care less about any safeguards as long as they can dig the uranium out of the ground and sell it for money. They could not give a hoot, nor could Lang Hancock who is on record time and time again as saying that he has come in close contact with uranium, he has flown over it and he has as good as eaten it and it has never affected him. I could not care less whether it does affect him. What I am concerned about is the effect it will have on future generations of this great country, and this Government ought to be concerned too.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say in answer to questions that have been posed on this Bill that the public can judge for themselves after this Government has drawn up a code of practice because the Minister has said from the public platform- the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) also has said it- that the Government already has a code of practice which is far better than any other code in the world. Yet the Minister cannot produce conclusive proof. He has even said- he repeated it here a few moments agothat the uranium safeguards are split among a series of divisions. When I posed questions in my search for information during the examination of the estimates for the Department of Trade and Resources I found that there are seven divisional heads, two of whom are responsible for uranium matters. But when I posed questions as to where the safeguards were I was told that I had to go to another department.

I repeat, this Government has the uranium issue scattered round this country like shrapnel. We cannot get a definite answer from any one department. When we try to get an answer we are fobbed off onto another department. When we try there we are told that is not the right place, go somewhere else. The Senate should be given the information this afternoon. Government supporters have always claimed that this is a House of Review: Review is what the Opposition is seeking this very day. We are trying to review this legislation. We are trying to point out the weaknesses that exist in it because we are concerned for the safety of the people who live in this nation and the safety of the generations that will come after them. As I said the other day when I spoke to the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill, it will be far too late when the mines are fabricated and operating because the Government, if it is then proved that it does not have the necessary safeguards will not have the fortitude to prevent the mining companies from going ahead because they will have too big a hold on the Government. I hope that the Minister can give us some answer now.

What I am really concerned about- I cannot find mention of it in the Bill- is whether there are any safeguards in the legislation to prevent a country like Japan from trying, because it relies to a great extent on nuclear power and no doubt will enter into contracts with Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Sir Charles Court with the sanction of this Government’s granting an export licence, to return to Queensland or Western Australia boatloads of nuclear waste for burial in the backblocks as has been suggested. It has been suggested that it should be buried in Central Australia because Japan has nowhere to dispose of it. Is there anything in this legislation which will prevent the re-entry into Australia of uranium waste. I ask the Minister to answer that question.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I have endeavoured to keep this debate as reasonably nonpolitical as possible and I deprecate some of the rather wandering at large passages. Let us get this perfectly straight: The Whitlam Government, of which Senator McLaren was a supporter, signed a memorandum of agreement for a mining company to go ahead without anything being done about national parks, the preservation of Aboriginal land, nuclear codes or anything else. The fact is that it had one thing; it had a document on health codes and that document, I should tell Senator McLaren, is adopted in full by the States and specifically by Queensland. So when Senator McLaren asks me what is happening, he should recall that very document that his Party commended and indeed to which I add my support. The Committee will know that I have had the document in this chamber and have drawn attention to it on several occasions. Let me make the position clear, because the thrust of the argument put by Senator McLaren is that when the public knows the position it will be too late. The fact of the matter is that at any stage in the drawing up of a code the Government and the Opposition are in agreement- at least the Opposition was in agreement last week but apparently it has changed its mind today- that there ought to be consultation and discussion between the States and the Commonwealth. I take it that that position has not changed? That is what this Bill is saying. The Bill says that before we draw up and thrust a code we will consult. That was the whole of the argument of the Opposition a fortnight ago but apparently it has changed its mind today. We are saying that consultation is precisely what we are going to seek. What I said was that having got a uniform code of practice drawn up we would then measure it -

Senator Mcintosh:

– Have we got it?

Senator McLaren:

– You have not got one.

Senator CARRICK:

– Have we got it? Last week the Opposition was specific and said that we should consult with the States, which is what we are now seeking to do. The Opposition is delaying the Bill so as to ensure that its views are put into the uniform code.

Senator Robertson:

– Will you consult with the Northern Territory?

Senator CARRICK:

– Indeed, we will consult with the Northern Territory too. Having done that, which is in accordance with what the Opposition wants, we will then look to see how much of those codes as drawn are already enshrined in State legislation- if they are they are enforceableand how much by persuasion or without the necessity of persuasion the States will add to their codes. We will ourselves enact within the Territories and we will then reach, by consensus and complementary legislation in Australia, a uniform code. What I said was that if there is as a result of this any deficiency perceived in it in any of the States the public will know, it will become part of public dialogue and the pressure of the public will be on all governments to uplift the degree of safety.

Apart from that, the Commonwealth itself has adequate safeguards. There is no question that the Commonwealth will permit the return to Australia of any uranium waste from overseas for burial or disposal in this country. Senator McLaren and other honourable senators have heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) and me say this and give an undertaking on this a number of times. The

Government has ample power to ensure that. Beyond any doubt at all it has the constitutional power to ensure that, and it will not occur.

All we are asking at this moment is that we do basically what the Opposition asked us to do a fortnight ago; that is, be permitted to have full consultation to draw up a code. Because there is some worry about where constitutional powers lie in Australia we will do this as far as possible by complementary legislation. If there are any defects in it we can revise our procedures and take the necessary steps. I would have thought that that would have been eminently acceptable to everybody.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– A few minutes ago the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) referred to the relevance of some of the matters the Opposition is bringing up in this discussion. I speak merely to a point of procedure. As I understand it, the only opportunity which the Committee will have to defer the proclamation provisions in clause 1 1 and clause 13 is by accepting the amendment which I have moved. Therefore it is necessary to discuss some of the matters covered in clause 1 1 and clause 13 which are in fact relevant to the amendment which has been moved. I do not want to broaden the debate any more than is necessary but in particular I ask the Minister whether he agrees with my interpretation of the Government’s proposed amendment No. 5 which has been circulated and which relates to clause 1 1 of the Bill. Does the Minister agree that if the Government’s proposed amendment is accepted it will effectively give the States power to veto any regulations which the Commonwealth may issue on a nuclear code of practice?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I ask for a ruling from the Chair. I take it that v/e will deal with the clauses one by one. I hope we will do that. I will be happy to answer the query when we come to the relevant clause.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Maunsell:
QUEENSLAND

– Despite Senator Walsh ‘s claim that this matter has a bearing on this clause, we should discuss the clauses as they come up. I ask the Committee to make a decision on clause 2 of the Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I refer to clause 2. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in reply to my queries reinforced most strongly the amendment which we have put forward. So that the Minister is conversant with it, I shall repeat the amendment moved by the Opposition. It states:

At the end of clause, add- except that clauses 1 1 and 13 shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation; which date shall be after the Commonwealth and the States have further consulted and reached agreement on a uniform code ‘.

That is the very safeguard about which the Opposition is concerned. The Minister said that the Government will not accept the amendment yet when he replied to me he said that the Government would do this very thing but that it would not be in the legislation in black and white. We have to take the Government’s word for it. This Bill has to go back to the other place to have the Government’s amendments ratified. We know they will be carried. Why can the Government not agree to this amendment? If Government supporters in the other place will not agree, the Bill will come back to this place to have the amendment deleted. The Government has the numbers in this place to win its way. In view of the Minister’s own words, why does the Government not do this? He said that the Government will have these consultations but that it will have them after the legislation is passed. Why can the Government not accept the Opposition’s amendment to include this provision in the Bill. This would be a double safeguard to achieve the desire which the Minister himself expressed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I am speaking on the amendment which seeks to defer the proclamation of clauses 1 1 and 13 of the Bill. This is the only opportunity which the Committee will have to defer the proclamation of those clauses. Later in the Committee stage it could defeat those clauses. I think that is unlikely. It could defeat the whole Bill. But this is the only opportunity to defer the proclamation of those two clauses. Therefore, I make these points. Senator Carrick has not responded to my invitation to state definitely whether the Government’s fifth proposed amendment effectively gives all the States power to veto any Commonwealth regulation made pursuant to this matter. In the absence of his reply I assert that it does give the States that power of veto.

In his first speech on this amendment, Senator Carrick read out a lengthy letter or telegram from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) which stated the objective of the Commonwealth Government to have complementary legislation to establish and enforce a uniform code of practice. I do not think that anyone disagrees with that objective. What has been placed before us in this Bill and in the amendments which the Government proposes is that a code of practice which has not yet been drawn up will be subsequently enacted through regulation- of course the regulations have not been made- and it can be vetoed by any of the six States. We have travelled a long way from the objective of complementary legislation to enforce effectively a uniform code of practice to the actual achievement. This is an unstated code of practice by regulations which have not been drawn up and which can be vetoed. That is a completely absurd position. This amendment should be carried.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– Is the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) prepared to answer the question that Senator McLaren and I have asked? I should like to know his specific objections to our amendment.

Senator BROWN:
Victoria

-I wish to raise a point despite your response, Mr Temporary Chairman, to the request by Senator Walsh. I would be reluctant to take this position if what you said was a ruling.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Maunsell:

– It is my suggestion that, despite what Senator Walsh said, his amendment deals with clauses 11 and 13. 1 think that the Minister has responded and that we can deal with those clauses when they come up.

Senator BROWN:

– With respect, the matter before the Committee at the moment is clause 2, concerning the date of commencement of the Act, to which the Opposition has moved an amendment seeking to stand over the date of operation of clauses 11 and 13 until such time as the Commonwealth and the States have had further consultation and reached agreement on a uniform code. It seems to me contingent in some respects upon the fifth proposed amendment of the Government. I should like clarification whether our interpretation of that proposed amendment could alter our views in respect of our proposed amendment. This is not a question of debating the Government’s fifth amendment. It is a question of seeking clarification so that we can look at clause 2 of the Bill to see whether our amendment is still appropriate. I think that is a quite legitimate exercise.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Committee will realise that I put myself in its hands. I asked whether there was a desire for a general debate in which I would respond finally to the amendments to the Bills or whether we would take them seriatim, which is the way I have responded. I have not indicated that I would not willingly respond to the queries about the fifth amendment. I have been asked specifically by Senator Mcintosh why the Commonwealth will not accept the Opposition’s amendment to clause 2.I shall dispose of that question first. He will recall that in the many words I have said this afternoon I apologise for the length of my remarks- I have set up a framework of steps whereby there is the development of a code by discussion and that there is general inspection of what individual States have and what they will add to. There will be an episodic series of actions taken by the States and the Commonwealth through which in the end will run a thread of uniformity of an optimum level. If that is grasped, this amendment would prohibit this happening.

The amendment simply says that there cannot be a proclamation until after the Commonwealth and the States have further consulted and reached agreement on a uniform code. None of us can do these things episodically. None of us can move unilaterally as one would want to within a Federation. This is a binding together and once and for all action, we having reached one tight agreement. Nobody believes that that is so. Each State has gone a considerable way towards developing nuclear codes and practices. Each State will have approached things differently. There will not be precise wordings. There will be differences. I would say that we can best achieve the goals by our legislation. The amendment would prohibit the freedom of action necessary to do that. I hope those comments help honourable senators with regard to clause 2. I am prepared to respond to other queries as we go through the clauses.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I wish to take further the comments which the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has made. I suggest that what I have to say is relevant to clause 2, which deals with the coming into operation of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill, and to the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition as well as the Government’s proposed amendment. I am rather surprised that the Opposition’s amendment is in the terms it is. If this amendment were accepted it would inhibit in the way the Minister has said the operation and development of an agreement. It would also mean that the agreement would not operate in any way at all not only until there has been further consultation but also until agreement has been reached on a uniform code. In other words, if one State chose to be very difficult, not to agree to anything, to be obstructionistI leave it to the imagination of honourable senators as to which State that might beunder the Opposition’s amendment there would be no code.

The Government has presented this legislation and I have expressed some criticism of it and indicated that I demur to some parts of it. But, having presented this legislation, surely the Government does not want to find itself inhibited entirely because one State chooses not to reach agreement and therefore an agreement cannot be reached. I know that the Government has not yet moved its amendment but, with respect, Mr Temporary Chairman, I believe it is important to know what it says. It seeks to leave it to each State to request that there shall be regulations affecting that State. That is a different proposition altogether from that embraced in the Opposition’s amendment. Surely Opposition senators are not saying that nothing should be done in the development of this code unless we can obtain 100 per cent agreement from every State.

Senator Melzer:

– You cannot have a code without agreement.

Senator MISSEN:

– Of course it is possible to have a code without 100 per cent agreement.

Senator Melzer:

– Where?

Senator MISSEN:

-Under this Bill the Government will be given power to do that, to bring it in by regulation. The Government is endeavouring to obtain uniform agreement, but honourable senators opposite seek to make the introduction and establishment of the code dependent upon absolute agreement. The Opposition’s amendment appears to me to be a foolish amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Maunsell:

– Order! The Minister has responded to remarks made by Opposition senators and others on clause 2.I suggest that we should move on and make a decision on this clause.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, may I respond to Senator Missen ‘s point?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– We are more or less having a second reading debate. We are only wasting time.

Senator WALSH:

– With respect, I do not believe we are doing so. The amendment which the Government proposes to move radically alters the situation which confronts us. If the Government’s proposed amendment is carried- I expect it will be- there will be no possibility of achieving a uniform code unless all the States agree. Any of the States could veto it. With respect to Senator Missen ‘s remarks I think that the Government’s proposed amendment radically changes the situation with respect to this clause.

That is why the Opposition has moved its amendment. This amendment would not have been moved if the Government had proposed to pass the Bill as printed.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman, D.F.C.)

AYES: 21

NOES: 28

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Interpretation).

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I move:

I do not think there is any need to speak to this amendment. It is pursuant to the amendment which the Opposition proposes to move later to clause 7 (a) (i). The alterations detailed in this amendment are consequential to the major amendment.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I refer to the definition ‘prescribed substance’. It seems to me to be quite a broad definition and it appears to me that perhaps an attempt could have been made to specify cut-off levels in regulations. It occurs to me that this definition is broad enough to cover things such as beach sands and other materials that could appear in association with radioactive substances. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) whether any thought has been given to prescribing cut-off levels of the type I have suggested to clarify this definition. I know that the State of South Australia has expressed some difficulty with this aspect. I ask the Minister to respond.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Opposition’s amendment, and indeed all the subsequent amendments which the Opposition proposes to move, relate to the proposal by the Opposition to establish an environmental protection nuclear activities advisory council. That is not the Government’s intention and, therefore, the definitions are irrelevant. With regard to the substance of the amendment, I simply say that the kinds of activities such an advisory council could undertake already are done very well by a variety of expert bodies. I remind the Committee of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Upon reflection others will come to mind. The Government will oppose the Opposition’s amendments.

Senator Jessop talked about prescribed substances and cut-off levels. My advice is that the mechanism for the exclusion of these activities lies in the development of the codes themselves and the use of the cut-off grades in the codes. It is not proposed that codes relating to the medical, industrial and agricultural use of radioisotopes will be developed under the Bill, as satisfactory arrangements for controlling the abuse of these substances already exist. In other words, there is ample protection for the development and establishment of codes, as Senator Jessop would know. The existing code of practice in relation to radiation protection in the mining and milling of radioactive ores excludes or does not apply to the mining of ore that contains less than 0.02 per cent by weight of uranium and less than 0.05 per cent by weight of thorium, that has not within it at least a radon daughter concentration in excess of 0.33 wasting level. Nor does it apply to a mill that produces concentrates that at no stage of milling contain more than 0.05 per cent by weight of uranium or thorium. It is anticipated that similar exclusion mechanisms will be included in other codes that are developed. In addition, the States will be deeply involved in the development of codes and the codes themselves will be subject to the normal disallowance procedures of the Parliament. I think that should answer Senator Jessop ‘s question.

Amendment negatived.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I move:

This amendment is similar to the one which has just been defeated. Nevertheless, I move it.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government opposes the amendment for the reasons previously given.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 6A.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The proposed new clause is aimed at obliging the specific process of consultation with the States and Territories. It requires an inquiry. It states that the Minister may, from time to time, arrange for the formulation of proposed codes of practice and proposed variations. It states also that the Minister shall ensure that there is afforded to the appropriate Minister of each State and the Northern Territory the opportunity to consult.

Honourable senators have the proposed new clause in front of them. It is devoutly in line with every comment made on both sides of the Senate in recent weeks.

Senator Wright:

– Hardly.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am wrong. It is certainly not in line with Senator Wright’s thoughts. If I do him justice, he asserted that the Commonwealth should act unilaterally in this matter.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I seek clarification from the Minister. The original intention of the Government was, of course, spelt out in clause 6 of the Bill. In view of the other amendments to be moved by the Government, I wonder whether the Minister could explain in what respect this Bill binds the Crown in the right of the States in relation to nuclear codes. I take it that proposed new clause 6a is expected to be some qualification of that which is designed to promote the process of discussion, about which the Minister spoke earlier. I assume that clause 6 remains as it stands.

Senator Missen:

– It has nothing to do with clause 6.

Senator BUTTON:

-The Minister has moved a proposed new clause 6a. I thought he nodded his agreement when I asked whether it was intended in some respects to be some form of qualification, having regard to other amendments to clause 6. If it is not, what is the intention now of clause 6 in relation to nuclear codes, in respect of which I should have thought the States are not bound?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The lawyers may correct me but I think that clause 6 and proposed new clause 6a stand on their own quite separately and that their intention is clear.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 7.

The Minister-

  1. shall cause to be furnished to the appropriate Minister of each State, and, on and after 1 July 1978, to the appropriate Minister of the Northern Territory, and may, if he thinks it desirable to do so, make available, or arrange to be made available, for public comment-

    1. proposed codes of practice for regulating or controlling nuclear activities in Australia (including codes of practice to replace existing codes of practice approved by orders under sub-section 8(1); and
    2. proposed variations of codes of practice, being codes of practice approved by orders under subsection 8(1); and
  2. shall ensure that each Minister to whom a proposed code of practice, or a proposed variation of a code of practice, is furnished under paragraph (a), or a person nominated by the Minister concerned, is afforded an opportunity to consult with the Minister or another Minister, or with a person nominated by the Minister, in relation to the proposed code of practice or the proposed variation of a code of practice.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The effect of this amendment is to link clause 7 with the consultative practice that emerges from clause 6a. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I move:

This is the major amendment proposed by the Opposition, with the possible exception of the insertion of new section 4A which will later be moved by Senator Button. The Government’s amendments to this clause, just adopted, were not opposed by the Opposition. We regard them as representing a marginal improvement, but they do not remove the major objections that we had to this clause. These arose from a common root, that we do not believe that there are adequate provisions either for specialist advisers on the conduct of uranium mining and milling, or for adequate public disclosure of the conditions which may be laid down and the practices which are being followed.

In particular- and this has not been affected by the Government’s amendments just passedclause 7A states that the Minister may, if he thinks it desirable to do so, make available, or arrange to be made available, for public comment the proposed codes of practice and so on. So it is clear that the Minister is under no obligation to make the proposed codes of practice available to the public. We do not believe that this is satisfactory. Our specific amendment is, of course, to delete clause 7 as printed, and now amended, and to substitute our proposed new clauses 7 and 7A. The major changes are precisely these: In the early part, which largely reproduces the clause as printed in the Bill, we seek to add a provision naming the Minister administering the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, so that he too will become directly involved. More importantly we require that a public inquiry be held before the codes are confirmed. We propose to establish an Environment Protection Advisory Council which is to be independent of government control, it being required further that no codes will be confirmed until there has been a public inquiry and the findings of that inquiry have been reported to the Minister. Most importantly, it is made mandatory that the Minister disclose all these proceedings publicly.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government opposes the amendment as moved. It would oblige a specific process of consultation with States and Territories to be followed. The Government has indicated how it envisages these things being done. The amendment requires that there be an inquiry under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act on environmental aspects of every code. Existing clauses 6 and 7 ensure consultation with the States and the Northern Territory to no greater or lesser extent than is proposed, and enable public comment to be sought. If an inquiry under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act were to be appropriate the Minister could direct it to be undertaken without the need for this amendment to be adopted. Consequently, the Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I move:

This amendment seeks to establish the Advisory Council, the functions of the Advisory Council, its membership and other matters relating to it.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the reasons stated previously, the Government does not envisage the need for such a body. It is convinced that the work, advice and research of any such body as is contemplated is being done at least adequately and expertly now by other bodies. The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8.

  1. 1 ) Subject to sub-section (2 ), the Governor-General may, from time to time, by order in writing-

    1. approve codes of practice for regulating or controlling nuclear activities in Australia;
    2. approve variations of such codes of practice (including codes of practice as previously varied); and
    3. revoke such codes of practice (including codes of practice as varied ) or variations of such codes of practice.
  2. ) The Governor-General shall not make an order under sub-section ( 1 ) approving a code of practice or a variation of a code of practice unlesshe has been informed by the Minister-

    1. that the code or the variation, as the case may be, has been furnished to the appropriate Minister of each State, and, in the case of an order proposed to be made on or after 1 July 1978, to the appropriate Minister of the Northern Territory, as mentioned in paragraph 7 (a); and
    2. that an opportunity has been afforded to each such Minister or his nominee to consult with the Minister or his nominee or with another Minister in relation to the code or the variation as mentioned in paragraph 7(b).
Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The amendment substitutes, for paragraph (a), new paragraphs (aa) and (a), which ensure that an opportunity is afforded the appropriate Minister for each State and, in the case of an order proposed to be made on or after 1 July 1978, the appropriate Minister for the Northern Territory to consult the Minister, et cetera. Simply expressed, it provides that the Governor-General shall not make an order under sub-section ( 1 ) approving a code of practice, or a variation of a code of practice, unless he has been informed by the Minister that the opportunities now being widened have been availed of. Those proposals seem to be eminently reasonable and I move their adoption. They give an added consultative character to the measure.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Opposition opposes the amendment just moved. The matter has been fairly well canvassed. I suggest that it is a significant misrepresentation to say that this just provides for additional consultation. What it clearly provides is that the code of practice, when drawn up and implemented by legislation, may be vetoed by any State government. We did not regard the Bill, in its initial form as satisfactory. In this form it is highly objectionable and would torpedo any chance there might have been of obtaining uniform codes of practice. The Opposition strongly opposes the amendment.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman, D.F.C.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 21

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I move:

The purpose of this amendment is consistent with the Opposition’s unsuccessful move–

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order ! It being 4.30 p.m., under 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 1980

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.30 p.m.

page 1981

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circula

Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 262)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What action has the Government taken to extend the activities of the Australian Industry Development Corporation to establish joint ventures with State private sector institutions for the provision of finance to small businesses.
  2. How many small businesses have taken advantage of these joint ventures.
Senator Durack:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) In October last year it was announced that the Government had decided that the activities of the Australian Industry Development Corporation in respect of small business would be extended, possibly by way of forming joint ventures with State and private sector institutions for the provision of finance to small businesses. At present this and other matters are under close examination and consultations are being undertaken with relevant financial institutions. It is expected that a further announcement will be made at an appropriate time.
  2. Not applicable.

Industries Assistance Commission: Light Commercial Vehicles (Question No. 299)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Was the reference to the Industries Assistance Commission, relating to the light commercial vehicle industry, considered by the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Assistance to Industry.
  2. Was the reference recommended by the Department of Industry and Commerce.
  3. Was the reference a result of direct agreement between Sir Brian Inglis, of the Ford Motor Co., and the Prime Minister.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

The Government’s decision to refer the light commercial vehicle issue to the Industries Assistance Commission for public inquiry and report was made only after careful and detailed examination of all available information. It is not widely known that the light commercial vehicle issue has been one of relatively long standing and as such the Government has received representations which have incorporated most points of view.

Representations for increased assistance against imports of light commercial vehicles have come from at least four other companies producing cars or commercial vehicles in

Australia in addition to the Ford Motor Company and support has been expressed by the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers and the VBEF.

More recently the Government has received a report from the Automotive Industry Advisory Council which represents manufacturers, unions, importers and consumers. The Council made no recommendations either way but clearly spelled out the complex issues and arguments involved on both sides.

It was against this background and in the light of departmental advice that the Government decided that the most appropriate course of action was to have the Industries Assistance Commission report on the matter after public inquiry at which all interested parties could express their views.

The reference to the Commission was initiated in the normal manner by way of a request from mc to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs who is responsible for sending references to the IAC and the TAA.

Social Welfare: Children’s Services (Question No. 441)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 May 1 978:

  1. What consultative arrangements for children’s services exist at present in New South Wales and Victoria.
  2. What are the details of the role of the Children’s Services Sub-Committee of the Australian Capital Territory Consultative Committee on Social Welfare.
  3. Does the Minister intend to establish similar committees in the States.
  4. What mechanism exists for the Australian Capital Territory Sub-Committee to consult with community groups interested in children ‘s services as users or producers.
  5. Must approval for funds spent on children’s services in the Australian Capital Territory go from the Australian Capital Territory to the Director-General of Social Security in New South Wales before obtaining final Ministerial approval.
  6. Who will make decisions on the allocation of funds in the Australian Capital Territory.
  7. Is the Minister aware of a great deal of dissatisfaction among deliverers of children ‘s services because their Child Care Office cannot guarantee funds for more than three months in advance.
  8. Is the Minister aware that the Belconnen Family Day Care has a waiting list of more than 400 children; if so, can the Minister assure the Belconnen Community Service that priority will be given by the Child Care Office to finding a solution to this problem.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Both the New South Wales and Victorian State Governments have agreed with the Commonwealth Government on the establishment of joint CommonwealthState officer committees to oversight the management of approved projects, and to assist in the identification of projects of high priority to be considered by the Commonwealth for funding. The views of both States have been sought on appropriate community mechanisms which may assist in the identification of gaps in services and emergency needs.
  2. The role ofthe Children’s Services Sub-Committee of the Australian Capital Territory Consultative Committee on Social Welfare (ACTCCSW) is to advise the Office of Child Care on the operations of the Children ‘s Services Program in the ACT. including Jervis Bay, and to encourage the coordination of Commonwealth Government programs in the child care field with other children ‘s services and family welfare programs in the Australian Capital Territroy. The SubCommittee reports to the ACTCCSW
  3. The views of all States have been sought on what they regard as the most appropriate community advisory mechanisms to bc establshed which may assist in the identification of gaps in services, and emerging needs.
  4. In determining the membership of this SubCommittee I was conscious of the desirability of obtaining the broadest possible representation in the field of children ‘s services in the Australian Capital Territory. The membership of this Sub-Committee allows an input into an extensive community network and includes representatives who have an understanding of the service requirements of high need families in the Australian Capital Territory including migrant families, families with handicapped children or parents, and single parent families.
  5. Under present arrangements, applications for funding of children ‘s services in the Australian Capital Territory arc referred to the Director of Social Security in Sydney for examination and recommendation to the Director-General of Social Services in Canberra; these arrangements are being reviewed with a view to providing for organisations in the Australian Capital Territory to apply directly to the DirectorGeneral in Canberra.
  6. Allocations of funds for children’s services in the Australian Capital Territory are determined by the Minister for Social Security.
  7. I am not aware of any dissatisfaction with the funding procedures for children’s services. Under the Children’s Services Program, the majority of child care services are approved for ongoing funding and payments of grant moneys are made quarterly.
  8. The Belconnen Community Service has not advised me or the Office of Child Care of a demand for child care exceeding the capacity of their service. There are two family day care services conducted by that organisation; each has a capacity for 100 children and recent advice from the organisation indicates that the child capacity of these services has not been reached.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 May 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780526_senate_31_s77/>.