31st Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1691
– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) left Australia on 2 November to visit France to attend the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Armistice and to have discussions in Britain. He is expected to return on 23 November. During his absence, the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) is Acting Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.
page 1691
ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance
– I present the following petition from 2 14 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-
That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-
1 ) retain this Ordinance, and
) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
-I present the following petition from 24 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the people of Australia having taken part in the government of Australia through universal suffrage in December 1 975 and again in December 1 977 and that on the basis of their expressed choice at the ballot box the people of Australia gave authority to the LiberalNational Country Party Coalition to form a federal government to bring into affect specific policies promulgated throughout the length and breadth of Australia by the said Coalition and that, whereas by virtue of being elected through universal suffrage, the Government Members now sitting in the House of Representatives were authorised to implement their state objectives by legislation and that such authority did not extent to acting otherwise or to enact legislation not previously submitted to the will of the people, namely:- ° Revoking the legislation for twice-yearly pension payments. ° Imposing a freeze on the free-of-means-test pension. ° Unemployed divided into those with dependents and those without. ° Imposing income tax on pensions under age pension ageinvalid and repatriation service pensions; rehabilitation allowances and incentives; sheltered employment and allowances for tuberculosis sufferers (civilian and service) and any other impositions.
Your petitioners submit that all or any of the foregoing proposed legislation of the Lower House, if implemented, will greatly disadvantage many thousands of citizens as either against their expressed will or not submitted to universal vote as the democratic right of the Australian people, therefore,
Your petitioners call on the Senate as the House of Review to take appropriate action to release these persons from burdens unfairly placed in order to finance a deficit not of their making.
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance
– I present the following petition from 246 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-
That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-
1 ) retain this Ordinance, and
reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clincs to operate in the ACT.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance
-I present the following petition from 439 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-
That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-
1) retain this Ordinance, and
) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the proposal by the Australian Government to abolish Paternity Leave and restrict the provisions relating to Maternity Leave which are currently contained in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973.
Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject the passage of any legislation which has as its purpose the abolition of Paternity Leave and the restriction of the Maternity Leave provisions.
And you petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Senator Mulvihill.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-
That abortion is the Deliberate killing of a human beinganathema to God and man.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that his house direct the Government-
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senators Carrick, Jessop and Scott.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:
That withdrawal of Government benefits under schedule 6469 for first trimester abortion would discriminate against and disadvantage the least privileged in our society.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:
Under no circumstances withdraw Government benefit under schedule 6469 for first trimester abortion.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Jessop.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, and the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled.
The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth;
That whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index Figures;
And whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November;
It is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics, of Democratic Government, and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their Subsistence.
The foregoing facts impel the under-signed Petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that trustworthiness of Governments should at all times be above question.
And to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship upon Australian Pensioners, by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of Pension rates.
And your Pensioners in duty bound will ever pray by Senator Mulvihill.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the people of Australia having taken part in the government of Australia through universal suffrage in December 1975 and again in December 1977 and that on the basis of their expressed choice at the ballot box the people of Australia gave authority to the LiberalNational Country Party Coalition to form a federal government to bring into effect specific policies promulgated throughout the length and breadth of Australia by the said Coalition and that, whereas by virtue of being elected through universal suffrage, the Government Members now sitting in the House of Representatives were authorised to implement their state objectives by legislation and that such authority did not extend to acting otherwise or to enact legislation not previously submitted to the will of the people, namely:- ° Revoking the legislation for twice-yearly pension payments. ° Imposing a freeze on the free-of-means-test pension. 0 Unemployed divided into those with dependants and those without. ° Imposing income tax on pensions under age pension age- invalid and repatriation service pensions; rehabilitation allowances and incentives; sheltered employment and allowances for tuberculosis sufferers (civilian and service) and any other impositions.
Your petitioners submit that all or any of the foregoing proposed legislation of the Lower House, if implemented, will greatly disadvantage many thousands of citizens as either against their expressed will or not submitted to universal vote as the democratic right of the Australian people, therefore,
Your petitioners call on the Senate as the House of Review to take appropriate action to release these persons from burdens unfairly placed in order to finance a deficit not of their making.
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Lewis.
Petition received.
To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.
That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60.000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Missen (4 petitions), Chipp (2 petitions), Primmer, Carrick, Hamer, Webster, Guilfoyle, Lewis and Jessop.
Petitions recieved.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-
That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the A.C.T.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Martin (2 petitions), MacGibbon (2 petitions), Mulvihill, Thomas, Jessop, Carrick, McAuliffe, Colston, Maunsell, Collard, Scott, Bonner and Lewis.
Petitions received.
page 1693
-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That a referendum of voters of the Australian Capital Territory should be held, as soon as possible, to confirm or reject the recommendations of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health in its Report No. 26- Pregnancy Termination.
page 1693
page 1693
– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, relates to the construction in the United States of America of three patrol frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. Does the Government have a current estimate of the costs of the frigates? Does the contract provide that the Australian projects offices receive an uptodate estimate of the costs and, if so, will the Parliament be advised accordingly? Is the Government aware that the United States Government is currently investigating the liquidity of the Todd Shipbuilding Corporation which is constructing the three frigates? If such is the case, is the Government investigating the consequences this may have for the cost and delivery of these vessels?
– I have some information as to the purchase and construction of the FFGs. I will seek what information remains outstanding. My advice is that the total project investment cost for the first two ships is estimated to be $4 14.8m at January 1977 level of prices. This sum includes the acquisition of the two shipsthat is $244.6m- supporting equipment, spares, training and helicopters which operate from the ships. The third FFG is estimated to cost $ 186m in August 1977 prices, the sail-away cost being $121m. The memorandum of arrangements provides for a withdrawal by Australia from the FFG program for a number of contingent reasons, including a significant change in cost factors and poor performance in lead ship trials, in which event the United States shall consider accepting the Royal Australian Navy ships and associated equipment with equitable reimbursement to Australia.
The contract for the Royal Australian Navy ships is between the United States Government and the United States shipbuilder. It is a fixed price incentive type with a ceiling price and an agreed basis for escalation. Twenty-nine ships, including three for the Royal Australian Navy, are on order from the three United States shipbuilders. The United States Department of Defence fully expects that 50 FFGs will be built over the next decade.
That is the background. I am not personally aware of an investigation into the liquidity of the particluar shipbuilding firm mentioned by the honourable senator. I will seek information on that. I shall also have investigated his subsequent question which related to the consequences which may flow from the investigation. Should Senator Wriedt require any further information I will be happy to give it to him.
page 1694
– I direct a question to the Minister for Science and Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the $656,000 grant to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to provide three teams to monitor resources within the 200 nautical mile Australian fishing zone in support of the management role of the Department of Primary Industry. I ask the Minister: Is it true that none of these teams will be operating in the area of Portland, Victoria, which is now known to have substantial fish stocks? Is it also true that only one modern deep-sea trawler, the Margaret Philipa, is available to support these investigations off-shore from Portland? I appreciate that the fishing fleets themselves will generate much standardised data, but they are used to operating fairly close inshore. Under these circumstances, I further ask how long it will be before a further program can be developed for the proper conservation and management of these resources.
-The 1978-79 Budget made provision for funds to be made available to the Department of Primary Industry for management of the declared Australian fishing zone. The figure stated by Senator Lewis is the amount made available from those funds for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to undertake certain research. I am unable to answer the two questions asked by the honourable senator, that is, whether there will be a team- one of three research teams which CSIRO will put together and will be providingand whether it will be working out of Portland. I recognise the honourable senator’s intense interest in the area of Portland and in the interests of the fishermen there. I will certainly take up this matter with CSIRO. I understand that temperate fish species will be looked at by the several CSIRO teams. As the Great Australian Bight is a particularly important fishing area and that area runs across to Victorian waters, obviously it will be necessary for CSIRO to undertake that particular work.
The honourable senator has asked whether one boat is available. He has more knowledge on this matter than I have. I have said previously that the amount of work that is required for Australia to understand fully the resources of its Australian fishing zone is enormous. The $656,000 which will be made available to CSIRO this year indicates just a part of the work that is to be done. There are certainly other areas of Australian waters which it is vital for us to understand. We must understand many of the problems that are associated with the ecosystem and with the living marine resources that may be within our waters.
page 1694
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. I refer the Minister to a statement made on the program AM this morning by the Prime Minister in which he described the policy on mineral export announced by Mr Anthony on 24 October as guidelines for discussion. I also refer the Minister to his answer to me in the Senate on 26 October when I asked him whether the full implementation of that policy was required in the national interest. He replied yes. I ask the Minister: Does the Government in fact have any policy at all on mineral exports? If so, what is it? Further, does the Government change its policy in the light of public discussion after the event?
-As I understand it, the question for discussion is how in fact the Government’s policy- the broad terms of which were announced by Mr Anthony- is to be applied. The Government has constitutional power over exports. It has exercised that power traditionally in certain situations. There is a very fundamental difference between the way in which a Labor government has exercised that power and the way in which a Liberal-National Country Party government would exercise it.
What is under discussion are the detailed guidelines that were drawn up following Mr Anthony’s statement. It is clear from the discussions that have taken place between the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia that they are prepared to discuss the methods by which the guidelines should be implemented and the details that should be included in them, together with the forms of consultation that should take place. It is also clear that the Prime Minister has been emphasising these as matters for discussion- the application in detail of the draft guidelines which have already been circulated.
– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister stand by the answer he gave to the question on this matter which I asked him last week.
-Yes.
page 1695
– My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate, relates to a speech made by Professor Jack Richardson, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, on 18 October at the Australian National University. Is the Minister aware that in his speech Professor Richardson stated that he was facing increasing resistance from the Public Service when investigating public complaints and that the cause of this resistance was the doubt held by some about the precise jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman? Is the Minister also aware of contentions mistakenly made by public servants that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is not entitled to investigate advice given to Ministers? Does the Minister concur with Professor Richardson ‘s view that his work is being frustrated due to the existence of these doubts? Will he take action to remedy the situation so that the important duties of the Ombudsman can be performed effectively?
– I preface my answer to Senator Missen ‘s question by reminding the Senate that this Government established and fully supports the office of Ombudsman. I understand that a question has arisen concerning the interpretation of the Ombudsman Act. I also understand that Professor Richardson has made some comments in that regard. I can assure Senator Missen and the Senate that the Government is investigating the matter. Meanwhile, the Government would expect all departments to give the Ombudsman every co-operation.
page 1695
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: In the light of the knowledge that both airline companies have purchased a controlling interest in rent-a-car services, will the Minister reconsider the number of rent-a-car services to be permitted at each airport to ensure that the present Australian two airline policy is not extended and enforced as a two airline rent-a-car service, thus excluding all other operators from this competitive business?
– I understand that recently the Government has extended the amount of competition available at airports in terms of hire car services. I will refer the precise facts stated by the honourable senator to the Minister for Transport and get a reply from him.
page 1695
-Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister able to confirm that the Royal Australian Air Force has finalised its consideration of the possibility of equipping the VIP flight with two Boeing 727-100 series aircraft but has not been able to find aircraft suitable in range? Is it true that the Air Force is now considering the purchase of two Boeing 707 aircraft and that such aircraft would cost over $20m? Will the Minister confirm that the cost of running these aircraft which, I am told, will be called Air Force 1 and Air Force 2, will be of the order of $ 15m a year, or about three times the annual cost of all salaries of senators and members of the House of Representatives? Does the Minister agree that such expenditure at this stage is contrary to common sense? Will the Minister arrange to table in the Senate all correspondence that has taken place between the Government and the Air Force so that the Senate can see to what stage this matter has progressed?
– The Senate and the people of Australia will know that the Government was told by its security advisers that if the Prime Minister used commercial aircraft, par.ticularly for overseas journeys, there was a significant risk not only to the Prime Minister and to those travelling with him but also to all other passengers on that aircraft. Because of the threat to those around the Prime Minister, and the very real threat to persons not connected in any way with the Government, the Government has been looking at alternative transport to be used on overseas visits by the Prime Minister and senior Ministers. I think that would be accepted as being a significantly important situation if one accepts the security reports as being, unhappily, correct, as I think one must accept them.
I am able to say that no decision has been taken as to the type of aircraft which might be used. My understanding is that the Royal Australian Air Force and others have been looking at long range aircraft capable of undertaking international journeys. Those aircraft include not only the 727-100 series but also the 707s, as well as, presumably, other aircraft. I am unable to say what the cost of maintenance of a Being 707 would be in a year. However, I think that the figures put forward by Senator Townley would be extreme. I certainly would expect the cost to be much less. I am not able to respond to his request that the papers between the RAAF and the Government be tabled. It is common practice that because all departmental and ministerial papers are confidential they are not normally tabled. Nevertheless, I will refer his question to the relevant Minister.
page 1696
-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether taxpayers’ funds were used to mount a publicity campaign earlier this year to explain income tax reductions. If taxpayers’ funds were so used, does the Government plan to employ public funds to outline to the Australian people how it has now increased income tax rates?
– With regard to the first matter which Senator Colston raised, 1 remind him that he received full and detailed explanations on that matter. If he needs to have his mind refreshed, I draw his attention to the Hansard record of Estimates Committee A of which he was a member. All governments from time to time- including the Whitlam Government, of unhappy memory- have used public funds to explain highly significant factors. Unhappily for Labor senators, the fact is that the tax reforms, including the tax cuts of the Fraser Government, have been the greatest tax cuts and tax reforms in governmental history. The fact is that had the tax reforms not occurred, and allowing for the recent temporary 1.5 per cent increase in personal taxation, an additional $3,000m of taxation would have been taken from the Australian taxpayers. In fact, the Fraser Government has relieved the people of Australia of the burden of $3,000m in taxation. In contrast, the Whitlam Government, during its term of office, nearly trebled personal income tax revenue, doubled sales tax revenue, doubled customs duty revenue and doubled excise duty revenue. I do not think that Senator Colston wants those facts advertised.
page 1696
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that in recent years some six or seven Federal and State inquiries have been established to investigate the use, abuse and potential dangers of cannabis? Was the most recent of these the report of an inquiry conducted by a committee of this Senate? Have all of the reports from these inquiries endorsed recommendation 60 of the Senate report which called for the Minister for Health to direct that appropriate studies be made of the health implications of cannabis in order to provide data on which an adequate national strategy could be based? If this is so, can the Minister now say why the National Health and Medical Research Council has cut off research funds to Doctors Jackson and Cheshire at the Sydney University School of Pharmacology who are recognised as Australia’s leading researchers in this field? Does this come on top of an earlier Federal Government decision to withdraw research funds from Dr Cheshire’s study on the interaction of cannabis and alcohol? Lest the government’s concern to get data will be seen to be quite hypocritical, will the Minister investigate ways of providing funds for Dr Cheshire’s work to continue, especially as the critical sum in question is less than the purchase price of some luxury motor cars now on the market?
– I am unaware of the accuracy of some of the points raised by Senator Puplick. With regard to the Senate committee ‘s recommendations, I think they are well known in the Senate. From time to time I have made comments on them for the Minister for Health. As far as the provision of research funds for Dr Cheshire’s work is concerned, I shall refer that to the Minister for Health. In response to the general matter that was raised, it is true that the National Health and Medical Research Council is unable to renew in 1979 a specific grant into research for cannabis. All applications for support by the Council are assessed on the basis of their scientific merit, projects then being funded in accordance with this rating to the point where funds are exhausted. The cannabis research project was considered worthy of support by the Council but, in view of the present position of funds for medical research, this project could not be supported in preference to others of greater scientific merit. The Council is aware of the need for research into drug and alcohol problems generally and it will continue to support highly rated projects in this area. 1 shall refer the other matters raised by Senator Puplick to the Minister and seek an early answer for him.
page 1696
-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources explain why it is that on 12 October 1978 the Government announced that it had accepted a recommendation by the Industries Assistance Commission against giving short term assistance to the production of asbestos at Woods Reef, Barraba, New South Wales, but that 12 days later the Government offered a loan of up to $1.4m to assist in maintaining the operation of the mine? Is it a fact that before the last Commonwealth announcement was made the New South Wales Government announced that it would waive royalty payments in the case of the mine up to the end of 1979 and advance to the company$2m on a dollar for dollar basis with the Commonwealth? Now that the Commonwealth Government has had a second look at the matter, will it give further consideration to lifting its offered loan from $1.4m to S2m in order to match the New South Wales Government’s advance so as to preserve the jobs of about 400 workers at Barraba itself and about 1,100 others indirectly associated with the operation of asbestos mining in New South Wales?
– Certainly the original Industries Assistance Commission report on Woods Reef indicated that assistance should not be given to maintain this company in business. However, a number of lengthy discussions took place between the Minister and the company and its bank and ultimately with the New South Wales Government in relation to various proposals by which this company could be maintained in business. Investigations had to be made in great detail as to what prospects the company had if assistance were given, including investigations of the importance of its overseas earnings and the likelihood of its being able to maintain contracts and obtain contracts to achieve that result and to achieve viability for the company.
Discussions about these things went on for a fairly long period. There was no assurance at one stage that the New South Wales Government would be interested in giving assistance, but then it indicated that it was prepared to give assistance. As I have said, having considered the position of the company and discussed it with the company’s financial advisers, and taking into account other forms of assistance, including that from the New South Wales Government, and other prospects open to the company, the Government ultimately came to the decision that by an advance of up to $ 1 .4m the company could keep going and would be given at least a breather to find out whether it was going to be a viable proposition on a permanent basis. As far as the Government is concerned and as far as I am aware, the figure of $ 1.4m is considered adequate for that purpose as a contribution from the Commonwealth Government. The Government has no reason to believe that any further contribution is needed, and it proposes to proceed with the decision it has already made, which is to give up to that sum of money.
page 1697
– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Firstly, does the Federal Government allocate funds to the Ananda Marga School in Hobart? Secondly, does the Government allocate funds to any Ananda Marga school in the Commonwealth?
– My recollection is that there are three non-government schools in Australia of Ananda Marga origin which are duly certified by the State governments concerned as conforming to the State laws and the standards for secular education of the children concerned and which are in fact inspected by those States. That being so, and in conformity with our policy with regard to non-government schools which are duly certified by the States, those three schools receive some Commonwealth Government support in the same way as any other non-government school does.
page 1697
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity. I explain that in May of this year I asked the Minister whether, as a matter of urgency, he would initiate an inquiry into the health of workers who had been subject to radiation in their work place. In a reply received only recently the Minister maintained that this was unnecessary because ‘personal monitoring of a large section of Australian radiation workers over many years shows that doses received by them are, in general, only a small fraction of the set standards’. I now ask whether the Minister will inform the Senate of the details of that monitoring, the number of workers checked, the period of time over which they were checked, the industries they were engaged in and the nature of the monitoring, together with information regarding those areas of industry where radiation is a risk but which have not been monitored.
– I will seek a reply to the detailed question asked by the honourable senator and let her have it.
page 1697
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. Following discussions between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Northern Land Council and the traditional land owners at Bamyili and Oenpelli in the Northern Territory last week, documents have been signed which give the green light for the mining of uranium. However, Mr Tom Uren, M.P., shadow minister for urban and regional affairs, has indicated that the Australian Labor Party will not honour uranium contracts made by the Australian Government and overseas clients. If this is so, does the Minister believe that it may impede the arrangement of future contracts? Does the Government consider the Uren statement as a threat to the economy and possibly the future security of Australia?
-The signing of the agreement referred to by Senator Kilgariff, the efforts made by my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the attitude of the Northern Land Council and of the traditional owners are all of the utmost significance to this nation. I think that that decision is one for which there will be a very wide measure of support, despite the attitude of the Opposition. It now means that there can be a significant new development in the Northern Territory not only for the benefit of the Territory but also for all Australians by the creation of jobs and in the earning of large export income for the nation from which the people will benefit. In this context it is, I believe, quite irresponsible for a leading member of the Opposition, Mr Tom Uren, to make the statements which he is reported to have made and which were referred to by Senator Kilgariff. The question, of course, is whether anybody will take any notice of those statements.
One has to bear in mind that the Government of which Mr Uren was a leading member was very active in promoting the development of these very same resources. It entered into an agreement with the companies for the development of these resources. Really we as a government are carrying on the terms of the arrangements that had been entered into by a Labor government. The question may well be asked whether people will take seriously the statement by Mr Uren when a government which he supported- he did not resign from it over the issue- takes a different view when it is in opposition. He now says that if the Australian Labor Party gets back into government it will, of course, repudiate the whole arrangement. If people do take seriously what Mr Uren is saying then that will be most damaging to Australia’s interests. When the leading Opposition party in Australia says that if it gets back into government it will repudiate the arrangements which the lawfully and democratically elected government has entered into and the trading arrangements which have been entered into as a result of government decisions, of course that will be most damaging to Australia’s reputation as a reliable trading partner in the international sphere.
page 1698
-My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs refers to the recent signing of the Ranger agreement. I ask: Is it a fact that less than half the traditional land owners eligible to sign the agreement did in fact sign despite the published comment of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that the agreement had the unanimous support of traditional land owners? Is it a fact that at the Bamyili meeting a motion was moved and seconded that the Northern Land Council leadership be declared vacant and that at least 12 members spoke in favour of that motion? Is it also a fact that the Minister is on record as denying that there were challenges to the leadership?
Can the Minister assure the Senate that all Northern Land Council representatives were advised of the time, place and purpose of the meeting at which the decision to sign was taken? Did the Minister tell members of the Northern Land Council that the agreement would be translated and sent to communities only after it had been signed? If these are facts, is the Minister satisfied that what has been called an historic document truly represents the wishes of the Aboriginal people involved and meets the requirements of section 23 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act?
– I will need to refer to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs some of the questions raised by Senator Robertson for a response. The information I have from the Minister with regard to the signing of the agreement is that the decision of the Northern Land Council was taken after an assessment was made of the acceptability of the terms of the agreement. It was made on the basis that the time for a decision had arrived. The Northern Land Council ‘s vote in favour of the resolution to ratify the agreement was 35 with two abstentions. After ratifying the agreement the Northern Land Council approached the traditional owners to confirm the decision. The Northern Land Council was satisfied that the signing of the agreement was in accordance with the wishes of the traditional owners and documents were duly executed on Friday, 3 November. I am not able to deal with any questions specifically seeking the names and numbers of the traditional owners who endorsed the Northern Land Council. I will take those questions and any other matters that were raised in Senator Robertson’s question on notice and refer them to the Minister.
page 1698
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that expenditure of private health funds in South Australia on payouts for medical services rose steeply in the March quarter this year compared with last year? Can the Minister provide the exact percentage increase for each fund in South Australia? Will the Minister provide a comparative estimate of the increased payments for specialist and general practitioner services? Will she also provide these details for the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory?
– Subject to the information being readily available, 1 will certainly seek it for Senator Jessop. If the Department is able to provide immediately the breakdown that has been requested, I will see that it is made available immediately. Otherwise I will seek what information I can for him.
page 1699
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I want to assure the Minister that the subject matter of my question has nothing to do with the ‘also-rans’ in an event not long concluded. In fact, it is a rather serious question. Is the Minister aware of reports that feral goats are being introduced into western Victoria on a commercial basis and that farmers in the Prime Minister’s electorate of Wannon are concerned because of the fact that these animals are not subject to footrot regulations? Will the Minister request his colleague to liaise with his Victorian counterpart to ensure that legislation is introduced to cover these animals in that respect?
-Mr President, as you may imagine, I have a very long answer to this question which goes into the research being done in this area by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I will take the question on notice and if this is taking place, as Senator Primmer suggests, I will see that attention is paid to his comments.
page 1699
– My question is addressed to Senator Durack in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware of the imminent failure of petrol supplies from the Fort Stanvac refinery to South Australian consumers as a result of the Seamen’s Union ban on the use of tugs for tankers carrying crude which are presently lying off-shore? Has the Minister any information for the people of South Australia regarding this matter as in the next few days they face severe disruptions to the supply of petrol as a result of a run-down in stocks which is partly contributed to by other apparently co-ordinated industrial action in New South Wales and Victoria?
– I do not have any direct information on the matter raised by Senator Messner. I believe that the ban on the movement of tankers by tugs is part and parcel of the campaign concerning the employment of Australian seamen which has been conducted for some time by the Seamen’s Union. I presume that that is what this issue is about. However, I will refer the matter to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and endeavour to obtain an early answer from him.
page 1699
– I direct a question to Senator Guilfoyle in her capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I refer to the expanded facilities of the Concord Repatriation Hospital for civilian accident victims which have been a boon to the residents of the central western suburbs of Sydney. In view of the fact that it is the time of the year when wicket keepers can be unsighted and short leg reflexes may not be what they should be, resulting in a considerable number of lost molars, will the Minister consider the possibility of appointing a dental surgeon for weekend service at that hospital?
– I understand that the planning for the emergency accident centre at the Concord Repatriation Hospital was extremely comprehensive and recognised the likely referral of weekend sports injuries. The treatment provided that the centre is administered primarily by medical staff but arrangements exist whereby facio-maxillary and dental surgeons are available on call to provide emergency services to the full range of patients presenting. Senator Mulvihill ‘s question will be referred to the hospital administration so that the adequacy of the existing arrangements may be reviewed. I think it is agreed that when planning for the emergency accident centre at Concord it was recognised that very likely there would be a referral of weekend injuries.
- Mr President, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I may have misunderstood the latter remarks made by the Minister. My question was prompted by an incident that took place last weekend or the weekend before. A player lost four teeth and I understand that he had to be taken to a dental surgeon some distance away which involved a car drive of 30 or 40 minutes. The facilities were not available at Concord. That is what prompted my question.
– I can only say again that I understand that dental surgeons are available on call. Now that Senator Mulvihill has raised this question, it will be referred to the Concord Repatriation Hospital administration to see whether a dental surgeon or any other expert needed to deal with the sort of accident that he has brought to our attention can be available.
page 1700
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry ascertain whether there has been any discussions between the Minister he represents and the Treasurer on the possibility of establishing a rural loans insurance scheme similar to that operating in the housing field? If such discussions have not been held, will the Minister ask that consideration be given to the proposition and for a response to be provided?
– I know of no approach being made for the adoption of a rural loans insurance scheme as mentioned by the honourable senator. Certainly, the idea has quite a number of attractions. Undoubtedly, Senator Archer has been giving this matter close attention on behalf of the various interests which he represents in Tasmania. I think it is an interesting proposition which I will put to the Minister for Primary Industry. I will obtain an answer for Senator Archer.
page 1700
– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is it a fact that the translation sub-section of the citizenship branch of the Department of Immigraton and Ethnic Affairs has been directed to translate the Prime Minister’s weekly electorate talk for release to ethnic affairs groups? Was the directive accompanied by an instruction that the task is to be given top priority for the next few weeks? Will the Minister explain how such a directive conforms with the policy of the translation subsection which is that it cannot accept documents whose purpose is purely to convey a partisan point of view?
– I do not know whether the translation sub-section of the citizenship branch of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has been requested to do a translation as outlined by the honourable senator. I will seek information on that matter. However, I should point out that from time to time the weekend electorate broadcast of the
Prime Minister does announce new policies. I think that ought to be taken into account if we are to look at any requests that are made to provide information to the ethnic Press. However, I am not aware whether any such request was made. I will seek that information.
page 1700
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and I draw attention to the repeated reports relating to the possible curtailment of country radio and television programs. Is it a fact that by the reported curtailments and cutbacks, programs such as Country Hour and Horizon 5 face virtual extinction? Is the Minister aware that these daily extensive services provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission to rural areas are not provided by any other agency? Will he make inquiries concerning these reports, recognising the importance of communications to rural areas, especially in Australia? Finally, will the Government confer with representatives of the ABC to ensure that these important social and information services are maintained?
– I am sure that the Government is aware how important the rural services of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are to country audiences. I have seen reports of the sort referred to by the honourable senator. I have no doubt that they have been drawn to the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I will refer the question to the Minister and seek a reply for Senator Davidson.
page 1700
– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. What is the state of progress with respect to the proposed amalgamation of the Commonwealth Police Force and the Australian Capital Territory Police into a new Federal or Australian police force? Given the possible implications for civil liberties of the establishment of a new Federal Bureau of Investigation-style of national police agency, which, as the Minister will no doubt recall, the present Government was not slow to advert to when criticising the Labor Government’s proposals for a new Australian police force, will the establishment of that force be made contingent upon the enactment of the
Criminal Investigation Bill, as the Whitlam Government in fact proposed?
– The proposed amalgamation of the Commonwealth Police Force and the Australian Capital Territory Police to form an Australian Federal police force was announced by the Government as a matter of principle in about the middle of this year. Since that time a working party drawn from both police forces and from the departments involved has gone into a good deal of the detail which has to be examined. The matter is still a little short of coming back before the Government in a formal way for decisions on some of the major questions of principle which have to be determined. It is still my hope that that process will be completed during the course of this calendar year, if not by the end of this session, and that we will be in a position to introduce legislation in the autumn sittings of the Parliament next year.
I note that the honourable senator raised in his question matters concerning civil liberties. I think it would be fair to say that the present Government has no intention of leaping into an Australian FBI, as was envisaged by the previous Government. I think I can assure the honourable senator that matters of civil liberties will remain uppermost in the Government’s mind.I do not believe that the Government will necessarily make the passage of that Bill contingent upon the passage of the Criminal Investigation Bill. I understand that my colleague the AttorneyGeneral has consideration of that Bill well in hand. It may be that he can give to the Senate information as to the precise stage that has been reached.
-I ask a supplementary question. What are the differences between the Whitlam Government’s proposal and the present Government’s proposal for an Australian police force that would justify the assertion which the Minister has just made that there are no grounds for supposing that there are any conceivable FBI-type civil liberties implications in this Government’s proposal?
– Without going into a great deal of detail, for one thing I do not think that this proposal will be sprung upon any of the parties involved without notice. A process of consultation is going on with respect to the police associations concerned, the departments concerned and the State governments concerned. In all those respects, I believe there are important safeguards in the area that has been mentioned by the honourable senator.
page 1701
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that medical referral forms are issued by doctors to enable authorised specialists to qualify for a higher medical benefits rebate than they could obtain without a referral form? Does this mean that the issue of a form of referral to a doctor is a means to a higher income. If so, does the Commonwealth have any disciplinary procedures available to cover cases where doctors improperly certify that they have referred a patient when in fact they have never seen the patient or know nothing of him- the kind of situation that arose in relation to referrals to Mr Brych earlier this year? If this is the case, what are those disciplinary procedures?
– I understand from the Minister for Health that a notice of referral is issued by a doctor to enable a patient to claim the specialist rate of medical benefit for services rendered to him by a recognised specialist in the practice of his specialty. The rate of medical benefit for specialist services is higher if the patient is referred by another doctor than if the patient approaches a specialist direct. It is an offence under the health insurance legislation for a person to make a statement either orally or in writing or to issue or present a document which is false and is capable of being used to support a claim for payment under the Act. I am not aware of what are the precise penalties, but it is an offence under the Act to make statements supporting claims in the manner I have described.
page 1701
– I have pleasure in drawing the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of the Honourable Mosese Quionibaravi, M.P., Speaker of the House of Representatives of Fiji, accompanied by Mrs Quionibaravi, the Honourable Ratu William Toganivalu, M.P., Minister of State for Information, and the Honourable Dr Santa Singh, M.P.. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to our visitors a warm welcome. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I propose to invite Mr Speaker Quionibaravi to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.
Honourable senators; Hear, hear!
The Honourable Mosese Quionibaravi thereupon entered the chamber, and was seated
page 1702
-Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the recent decision of the Victorian Government to introduce a register of pecuniary interests of members of Parliament? What other States have introduced such a measure, and what different circumstances have led to the Federal Government’s extraordinary prevarication about this issue?
-I do not think this matter comes within the area of my responsibility at all. However, Senator Button asks whether any other State parliaments, apart from that of Victoria, have introduced some measures for disclosure of pecuniary interests by members of Parliament. I will pass that matter to the appropriate Minister concerned for investigation. In this case it would probably be the Prime Minister, as this would be a question that would probably be directed to the Premiers of the States.
The Government’s policy and attitude on this question is another matter which is really within the area of responsibility of the Prime Minister. But as the question has been asked of me and as I am on my feet, I do not think there is any need to do any more than to direct the attention of honourable senators to the fact that the Government has set up a committee of inquiry under the Chief Judge of the Federal Court, Sir Nigel Bowen. That inquiry into this whole matter, under very wide terms of reference, is currently taking place.
page 1702
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether she is aware that delegations from Mornington Island and Aurukun are currently visiting Canberra. Is the Minister also aware that the delegations are experiencing extreme difficulty in securing an appointment with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner? I further ask the Minister whether she will use her good offices to persuade Mr Viner to meet the delegations.
– I will draw to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs the request made by Senator Keeffe on behalf of the visiting people from Aurukun and other places. I feel sure that if it is at all possible the Minister will see the delegations while they are in Canberra.
page 1702
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that there is deadly uranium dust mixed with topsoil at Maralinga in South Australia and whether this is being blown to other populated areas of Australia. Was this matter investigated by the English scientific team that visited the area?
– My understanding is that there is no such uranium dust in existence. My understanding is that certainly the British team went to Maralinga to look at safety matters, particularly regarding an amount of plutonium that had been buried. My understanding also is that the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council- AIRAC- has looked at Maralinga in detail. My latest recollection is that the Council has indicated that there is no threat to health. I will check on that to see whether there is any further information, but that is my clear understanding at this moment.
page 1702
– My question is also directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and also concerns plutonium deposits at Maralinga in South Australia. I refer to the British technical team that visited Maralinga in the last week of October accompanied by an Australian team led by Mr Woods, secretary of the Department of National Development. I also refer to the South Australian Government’s decision yesterday to ask, by way of a letter to the Prime Minister, that the Federal Government dig up all the plutonium at the site and send it back to Britain. I ask: Have the Federal Government’s report and the British team’s report on these investigations already been given to the South Australian Government before being presented to this Parliament? If so, why? When will the reports be tabled in the Senate? If not, is it true that the South Australian Government’s decision has been based on inadequate information and hasty emotional assumptions?
– My understanding is that the British team along with the Australian advisers and, indeed, I think, with the responsible Minister, visited Maralinga over a period of time in recent weeks and made expert investigations. My understanding is that as a result of that visit a report is being considered at this moment by the Commonwealth Government and, indeed, it will take appropriate action based upon that report. I am advised that the South Australian Government is being kept totally informed at all times on this matter. Equally I think Senator Cavanagh raised in a previous question the fact that the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council surveyed the
Maralinga area as a whole last year. Many samples have been examined over the past few months and the Government has before it or will have before it the report of AIRAC. With that report and with the information we have from recent investigations the Government will be taking the appropriate steps.
page 1703
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, refers to the substantial contracts negotiated by the West Australian Lamb Marketing Board for the supply of chilled lamb to a number of Middle East states. Has the fulfilment of these contracts been prevented because the Minister for Transport has failed promptly to approve back loading of charter freight aircraft? Is it correct as reported in the West Australian Farmers’ Weekly of 2 November that the Minister’s indecision will cost the West Australian lamb producers millions of dollars in lost lamb sales?
– I am unaware of the facts in this particular instance. I think that the answer probably is due from the Minister for Transport, but I will in the first place take the question to the Minister whom I represent, the Minister for Primary Industry, and see whether I can get an answer for Senator Walsh.
page 1703
-My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Has the Minister become aware that the continued decline in the score of the scholastic aptitude tests taken in the United States by candidates for higher education has not been uniform and that some schools have maintained their scores in that test? Is he further aware of the claims that those schools which have maintained their scores have been those which have consistently emphasised the three Rs right through high school? What analysis has been done in Australia of the schools from which candidates successful in tertiary entrance examinations come? Has it been possible to show differing educational practices in those schools whose candidates have been successful in gaining entrance to the preferred facilities from those whose candidates have been unsuccessful? Has the difference shown a different educational philosophy in those schools whose students have succeeded?
- Senator Baume asks some five questions which would require a very detailed response. However, time would not permit that. As to the first question, I am aware that the decline in the score of the scholastic aptitude tests taken in the United States by candidates for higher education has not been uniform and that some schools have maintained their scores in the SAT. I am also aware of the claim that there is a direct correlation between the use of the three Rs and the maintenance of aptitudes. The fact is that there is not enough research to indicate fully whether that is so. Research undertaken in the United States points to many causes for the decline in the aptitude scores of students. For example, a major contributing factor is the increasing proportion of students coming through to the higher school certificate, resulting in a different composition of the stream.
In Australia no scholastic aptitude tests have been used nationwide, as occurs in the United States, although an Australian scholastic aptitude test has been used in Queensland, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The form of the ASAT has also varied from year to year and the data is normed yearly at the State and Territory level. I am not aware of any research which conclusively demonstrates that the schools whose students have been more successful in gaining entrance to preferred faculties have had differing educational philosophies and practices. Of course, that does not prove anything because in Australia we have been slow to carry out basic research. Only in recent times have we done tests across the board so that in the years ahead we will be able to know more. Research evidence is more readily available to show that age, ability and socio-economic background are among the more important determinants of success.
However, I have several groups funded by the Educational Research and Development Committee investigating the effects of differing educational practices on the learning of children. I also have a study group looking at the feasibility of introducing a national program of educational assessment in Australia. This group is expected to present its report later this year. In answer to the fundamental point raised in Senator Baume ‘s question, I point out that the simple fact is that the basis of any good education must be a strong grounding in numeracy and literacy. One cannot proceed to innovation or experimentation, or indeed to the adventure of education, without the building blocks.
page 1703
– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the Minister that several weeks ago a Senate estimates committee was told that extra security staff had been sent to Maralinga as an extra safeguard over the radioactive waste buried there. In view of the Minister’s answer just given to the Senate, in which he said that there is now no danger and no radioactive dust at Maralinga, will he inform the Senate when the Government intends to withdraw that extra security staff from Maralinga?
-I think the security staff has been at Maralinga ever since the British team carried out its experiments there.
– Yes, but it was strengthened.
– I think it has been strengthened. I have no indication of whether the Government intends to reduce the number of staff. I will seek that information. I stress that I have spoken, not in an expert way, about the findings of the team. I indicate that the Government will be making its report very soon on the nature of the radiation and plutonium situation at Maralinga. I will seek further information and provide it to Senator McLaren.
– I direct a supplementary question to the Minister. Perhaps he did not understand my question. I did say that a Senate estimates committee was told that extra security staff had been sent to Maralinga because of an existing danger in recent weeks at Maralinga. I am now asking when that extra security staffnot the original staff- will be withdrawn.
– I think that this question should be answered by me as the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Police which has a group of officers at Maralinga. I think that there is some confusion apparent in the matters which have been raised in the Senate today. An earlier question related to the possibility of there being diffuse material- material spread over a wide area and which posed some sort of dust danger. The police guard at Maralinga relates to what has been described as the discrete material which is buried in pits. The guard is there to ensure that that is not interfered with. That position remains unchanged and there is no immediate proposal to reduce the guard. Rather, it is there to ensure that that material cannot be interfered with.
page 1704
– For the information of honourable senators I present a discussion paper by the Schools Commission entitled: ‘Some Aspects of School Finance in Australia ‘. I seek leave to make a very brief statement.
Leave granted.
– In announcing the guidelines for the education commissions on 9 June, I indicated that the Government welcomed the Commission’s intention to produce a public discussion paper on funding issues affecting both government and non-government schools in Australia. As well, 1 indicated that it would be helpful if I also issued a paper.
At the June Premiers Conference a special meeting of the Australian Education Council was foreshadowed to discuss administrative and financial arrangements in education, at both the schools and post schools levels. This meeting has now been fixed for early December, following which I will be reporting further to the Government. A number of issues in the Schools Commission’s paper will be of relevance to that meeting and I therefore intend to defer any substantial comment for the time being. In the meantime I will be studying the Commission’s paper and I encourage education authorities, parent and teacher organisations and members of the public to make their views known.
page 1704
– Pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1 969 I present a statement of the payments made in 1977-78 in respect of all guarantees given under this Act.
page 1704
– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Prime Minister entitled: ‘Loan Council Financing of Development Projects’.
page 1704
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the
Snowy Mountains Council for the year ended 30 June 1978.
page 1705
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral)Pursuant to section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978, together with a statement outlining the action taken during the year 1977-78 on reports made to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife).
-by leave- I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1705
– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the DirectorGeneral of Health for the year ended 30 June 1978.
page 1705
– For the information of honourable senators I present an agreement under section 44 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Land Council, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ( Mr Viner).
-by leave- I move:
I am not in a position at this stage to say anything other than that reports would indicate that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) who succeeded in obtaining this agreement and who stated that he spoke to tribal elders at Oenpelli, in fact spoke to seven tribal elders out of some 56 known elders. There is still much discontent, I believe, among tribal elders at Oenpelli as to the signing away of the right to mine their land without full discussion with the people. The reports are coming to hand and, therefore, until such time as the Senate is fully informed, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
- Mr President, I would have thought that the document was of sufficient importance for it to have been read. Obviously that is not what is intended in this respect. Therefore I seek leave to make a statement.
– Do you wish to speak to the motion?
– Yes.
- Mr President, already one honourable senator has sought and been granted leave to continue his remarks. I propose to move that the debate be adjourned and made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
– I raise a point of order. I recall that there is a Standing Order which permits an honourable senator to move that a document which is tabled be read.
– That is so. Senator Gietzelt should now seek leave if he wishes to speak. Do you wish to speak now?
– Yes.
-Is leave granted? If Senator Gietzelt wishes to speak to the motion at this stage he can do so only by leave. Senator Cavanagh has sought and been granted leave to continue his remarks.
– I thought that someone had sought that the document be read.
– No. That was raised in the form of an inquiry. Senator Gietzelt, are you seeking leave to speak?
– Yes.
Leave granted.
Senator GIETZELT (New South Wales)The leader of my Party handed me a copy of the document just before the commencement of the sitting of the Senate. I had expected the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to read the document, which would have given me and other members of the Senate an opportunity to make some statements in respect of this matter. Considerable publicity has been given to the signing of the uranium mining agreement and the ramifications thereof. One would have thought that the Government would have expected the Opposition to want to make some remarks about this document. It has been described by Government spokesmen, for example, as an historic document. On the basis of what has been published and on the basis of the information that has been handed to me one could only say that the document is more a glib document than an historic one. It is full of honeyed words. One has to ask a number of questions about it, including whether the provisions of section 23 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act have been complied with and whether the determination of the Supreme Court which, as I recall it, says that it is essential for the Government to be involved in proper and adequate consultation. Already we of the Opposition are receiving telegrams, statements are being published in the media and representations are being made to us which would suggest that there has not been proper and adequate consultation in respect of this very important document. For example, if it is true that only four of the 40 traditional land owners were in fact present and signed that agreement, clearly there is a breach of the Supreme Court judgment as well as the provisions of section 23 of the Act. If that is so, it seems to me that we are entitled to raise a number of important matters. For example, it was suggested that it was improper for some members of my Party to be involved in negotiations and discussions with the traditional land owners. That is what was said in this place by a Minister in response to questions by Government senators. Obviously they were prepared questions and answers. It was also said in the other place that this was interfering with the consultative rights of the traditional land owners. Yet the evidence that is now coming to the fore would seem to indicate that Mr Viner has in fact interfered with those very rights.
What do we have? There is a two-sided interpretation of democratic procedures and processes so that, when we endeavour to advise the Aboriginal communities on the ramifications, that is considered improper; but the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs can go to the Northern Territory, take what seems to us to be rather reprehensible actions and leave the matter open to conjecture because of the application of the principles of secrecy. One is entitled, therefore, to ask whether all the Aborigines who were party to this agreement in fact knew what was involved. As I read through the Ranger report during Question Time I wondered whether they knew the implications of the tax provisions that have been suggested. Most Australians cannot understand the taxation system. Those in business have to employ tax consultants to help them, perhaps to avoid taxation. Do Government senators really believe that Aborigines, whose culture is entirely different from our own and whose understanding of white laws is entirely different from our own, have had these provisions properly presented to them? Is that tax scale to remain for all time or for a short space of time?
We are led to believe and have no reason to doubt that interpreters in a number of Aboriginal communities were still working on the Government’s proposals and translating the agreement when it was announced that the agreement had been signed by the Northern Land Council. These surely are questions which ought to be ventilated, the answers to which surely ought to be brought to the Parliament for its consideration. Is it a fact that Mr Viner used his influence to keep the Press and other white persons away from the discussions to ensure that there would be no recording of the debate? To what extent did the 40 traditional land owners comprehend what was involved in the signing of the agreement? In Question Time today the comments of a member of my Party in respect of this agreement were mentioned in a derogatory fashion. I remind the Senate that on the eve of the 1972 elections, when one could not get odds anywhere in Australia that the McMahon Government would be returned to office, it nevertheless went forward and signed a number of agreements which were binding upon future governments, some of which we in government were forced to accept and implement.
– You have made a mistake. The Ranger agreement was signed by the Whitlam Government.
– I am talking about Mary Kathleen. The honourable senator ought to check his facts. The McMahon Government entered into a number of agreements which the subsequent government, of which I was a supporter, was forced to accept. We on this side of the House gave due warning to those who want to develop uranium mining in the Northern Territory. If, in fact, there has not been consultation, if this Government has misjudged the views of the Australian people and if it has taken steps which do not allow a proper understanding by the Aboriginal communities of what is taking place in the Northern Territory in respect of the Ranger agreement, we will reserve our rights as a future government not to honour those obligations. We were forced to honour a number of agreements which the McMahon Government entered into knowing full well that it was going to be thrown out of office in 1972. That is precisely the fate that will befall this government in 1980. Honourable senators opposite should make no mistake about that.
We are concerned not only whether the spirit and the intent of the law have been carried out but also whether the Aborigines were given every opportunity to consider all the implications. I find it rather strange that we should be regarding this document as the end of the situation. For example, it has been suggested in the document that there was no intimidation. I can well recall many Government spokesmen suggesting that if it were not signed there would be recourse to the arbitration provisions of the Act. If that is not intimidation, I do not know what the word is. The fact is that the Court and the Act require that there be adequate, proper and full consultation with the land owners. The evidence shows that only 10 per cent of the land owners were properly advised about the meeting, properly advised about the terms of the agreement and properly consulted about the decision that was made in their names. It ill behoves the Minister in the other place who presented the report- I appreciate that Senator Guilfoyle is only presenting the report in this place on his behalf- to quote only one portion of the second Ranger report and ignore the most important conclusion of all in relation to Aborigines. The report states:
The arrival of large numbers of white people in the Region will potentially be very damaging to the welfare and interests of the Aboriginal people there.
The report is referring to Ranger-
All the expert evidence on this matter was to the effect that, despite sometimes sincere and dedicated effort on the part of all concerned to avoid such results, the rapid development of a European community within, or adjacent to, an Aboriginal traditional society has in the past always caused the breakdown of the traditional culture and the generation of intense social and psychological stresses within the Aboriginals. There is no evidence which convincingly demonstrates that the result in the Region will be different . . .
The outcome in the Region will depend very much on a number of factors . . . Important among those will be the need to take firm measures to ensure that Aboriginal people can remain sufficiently isolated and sufficiently able to live according to their own lifestyle on their own land, without intrusion or interference from others.
Is it seriously suggested that that conclusion, upon which many other conclusions were reached in the Ranger Inquiry, was conveyed to the Aboriginal communities that made this decision? When questions were asked today in this place by some of my colleagues about the accuracy of reports that the Aborigines were not properly consulted, we did not get very satisfactory answers. Certainly we are being asked to trust this Government, which has proved itself to be untrustworthy in respect of a whole variety of issues. We are being asked to agree to a statement and a report which have been put before us by a government which has not carried out the spirit and letter of the law, which sends to the Northern Territory a Minister in whose presence signatures are placed on a document which this Government claims is an historic document.
I do not believe that we should pass up the opportunity to debate this question properly. I agree that to try to do so today in the absence of confirmation of telegrams and statements which are appearing in newspapers would not do justice to an adequate debate. The ink is not yet dry on the document and we are not able yet to give a considered judgment. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose and the duty of the Government to consider whether the criticisms we make are valid. Certainly on the prima facie evidence that is available to us at the moment, there would be reason for us to suggest to the Government that there is considerable doubt whether the intention of the Act, the intention of the environmental impact statement and the intention of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry have been properly put into effect. There is no evidence in the report that there has been adequate consideration of those aspects.
I am sure that there would not be very many honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber- certainly not many honourable senators on my side of the chamber- who would not assert that the Aborigines will be affected by the development of uranium mining, particularly in the Ranger area. If I may be deflected in my remarks for a moment, I am sure that Senator Mulvihill will be surprised to find that this agreement also embraces his famous Kakadu National Park. That is information which I have not read previously. The ramifications of the agreement are quite considerable. I am sure that all honourable senators must concede that there are not too many people in the black communities in the Northern Territory who would understand this agreement. All we suggest is that it is part of our responsibility and part of our obligation, having regard to what has been the attitude of white communities towards the Aboriginal people for the two centuries that we have been in occupation of the continent of Australia, to make sure that the mistakes that were made in Sydney, Melbourne and Tasmania are not repeated in the Northern Territory.
We should look at the sorry role of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in respect of Aurukun and Mornington Island when he passed up an opportunity to represent properly the aspirations and hopes of the people in that area. We just do not have any faith in the Minister’s very fine honeyed words that he has put in this report. Therefore, we would like an opportunity in the very near future to debate the report. We do not want it passed into limbo as so often happens in this place. Reports do not come back onto the business paper for adequate public debate and an opportunity to follow through the criticisms that are coming to us, criticisms which I am sure some honourable senators opposite would want to give more mature consideration. In the light of those facts, I seek leave to continue my remarks in the hope that there will be a more adequate -
-No, Senator Gietzelt; you cannot do that. You have spoken by leave of the Senate.
- Mr President-
- Mr President, I wish to take a point of order. I understood that Senator Cavanagh sought leave to continue his remarks.
– That is right.
– We have not yet been able to proceed to move for the resumption of the debate. In seeking leave to continue his remarks, Senator Cavanagh effectively adjourned the debate. That leave was granted. I wonder whether we can now move for the resumption of the debate.
– The honourable senator has a right to seek leave of the Senate to make a speech. I will put the question that leave be granted to Senator Keeffe.
- Mr President, I want to move on a different tack altogether, if I may.
– No, leave is not granted.
– Leave is not granted.
- Mr President, I am not seeking leave to speak. I did not ask for leave.
– Leave has not been granted for the honourable senator to speak.
- Mr President, I did not seek leave to speak. I wanted to refer to Standing Order 365. I wish to speak to a motion I will move under that Standing Order. I will read out the Standing Order to save honourable senators the trouble of digging out their copies of the Standing Orders. It states:
On any Paper being laid before the Senate, it shall be in order to move- (1 ) That it be read, and, if necessary, a day appointed for its consideration; (2 ) That it be printed.
I believe that that Standing Order is applicable to the current circumstances and I -
– No, it is not applicable. We have a motion before the Chair now. There is a motion before the Chair.
– This is not inconsistent with the other motion -
– There can be only one motion before the Chair at a time.
- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. In recent years, it has been traditional to move that the Senate take note of a paper. I have done that and I sought leave to continue my remarks. It is correct that the motion ‘that the matter be an order of the day for another day of sitting’ is then moved. There is an alternative course and possibly it is supplementary to that motion. If an honourable senator wants the paper read so that he might know whether he will support the motion that the Senate take note of the paper, surely he must have the right to move for that course of action as part of a separate motion. At some stage, perhaps after or before we have adjourned consideration of the matter and have set it down as an order of the day at another time, if an honourable senator wants to take advantage of Standing Order 365 and have the paper read now, the opportunity must be given to the honourable senator to give his reasons why it should be read. That is all that Senator Keeffe is doing.
– But after the resumption motion has been disposed of.
– That may be so but after it is made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Then Senator Keeffe can move that motion.
- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. The motion before the Chair was that Senator Cavanagh be given leave to continue his remarks. On the moving of his motion in that way, I suggested that we move to the adjournment of the debate and make it an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Prior to your putting that motion, leave was given to Senator Gietzelt to make some remarks about the matter. At this stage, I believe that the usual practice of the Senate would be upheld if I were to move:
That the resumption of the debate be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
- Mr President, can I now pursue my point in relation to Standing Order 365? I presume that it is now not inconsistent with the procedures of the Senate for me to move a motion in accordance with Standing Order 365 which states that in respect of any paper being laid before the Senate, it shall be in order to move that it be read and, if necessary, a day appointed for its consideration or that it be printed?
– It is finished.
– It is too late now.
– It is not. I will take a ruling from Mr President. I will not take a ruling from the back bench on the Government side. I suggest that the -
- Mr President, I wish to take a point of order. I seek your ruling, as invited by the honourable senator who has just resumed his seat. I have not had any experience of Standing Order 365. Senator Keeffe is moving for the paper to be read in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order which state that it may be read and, if necessary, a day appointed for its consideration. Presumably, a day has already been appointed for its consideration. The matter has been set down as an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. I would have thought that it was quite possible, in fact, that the provisions of Standing Order 365 are exhausted by the fact that that action has been taken. I raise that matter for your determination, Mr President.
- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. The matter has not been finalised. I moved that the Senate take note of the paper. Whether or not the Senate takes note of it eventually will be decided on another day of sitting. But there is another matter before us. Some honourable senators want to know what the paper is all about. They want it read. The Standing Order provides that they have a right to have the paper read. If the Senate consents to this after a vote is taken, these honourable senators have a right to have the paper read. It is not a matter which is dependent upon my motion. The consideration of having the paper read has not been adjourned to another day. Consideration of whether the Senate takes note of the paper has been adjourned to another day. Whether or not the paper should be read is a separate question. I do not know whether the paper should be read until I hear what Senator Keeffe has to say.
– The resumption of this debate has been made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Standing Order 365 provides that a day may be appointed for its consideration. That has been done. This matter is now closed.
- Mr President, I wish to ask you a question arising out of what you have said. I am not canvassing your ruling. Do I take it that when a day is set for the re-introduction of this document into the Senate, it will then be read?
The PRES1 DENT- Not necessarily.
– We have not seen it. It has not been circulated.
– The paper has been presented.
– No, it has not. Nobody has seen it.
– The paper has been tabled. In respect of these matters to which honourable senators wish to speak, the practice has been to present the paper. Honourable senators can then give consideration to taking note of it immediately and seeking leave to continue their remarks on the resumption of the debate. That can be done on the following day or on any subsequent day. The procedures provide for debate. This is very reasonable and in accordance with the Standing Orders. I believe that the procedure we have followed today is quite in order. I now call on the next Busines of the Day.
page 1709
– Pursuant to section 19 of the AngloAustralian Telescope Agreement Act 1970, I present the report of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board for the year ended 30 June 1977.
page 1709
– Pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1 969, 1 present the reports of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee for the years ended 30 June 1976, 30 June 1977 and 30 June 1978.
-by leave- I move:
I ask the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) why we have had to wait until this stage to get the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee reports for 1975-76 and 1976-77. We seem to have had to wait an extraordinary length of time for these reports to be presented to the Senate. Other reports have been presented in similar circumstances. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1709
– Pursuant to section 24 (4) of the Metric Conversion Act 1970, 1 present for the information of honourable senators the eighth report of the Metric Conversion Board for the year ending 30 June 1978. 1 seek leave to make a short statement relating to the report.
Leave granted.
-Honourable senators will recall that the original intention was that the metric conversion program should be substantially complete by mid- 1980. The report contains a comprehensive and factual review of the present state of conversion. Many sector programs have already been completed and are operating solely in metric units. Whilst there is still considerable detailed work to be done, no new major programs are required.
Particularly as regards the general public, most transactions are now solely metric and I am pleased to report that all States have introduced regulations which will ensure that shop scales and the pricing of products sold by weight or measure will be metric by the end of next year. Conversion of retail trading has been completed in South Australia and Tasmania and is about 80 per cent complete in Western Australia. In Queensland and New South Wales, where the regulations were only introduced in recent months, the change will be complete by March 1979. In Victoria the change will take until the end of 1979 to complete.
More than 75 per cent of retail counter scales throughout Australia are metric. The State regulations will remove the confusion which results when imperial pricing and advertising is used by shops equipped only with metric scales. Where such controls have already been implemented they have been generally well received by both customers and traders.
A conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for weights and measures was held in October 1977 and agreed in principle on the necessary action to ensure substantial completion of conversion by 1980. The Board is now devoting a major effort to these tasks which include:
The regulation of transactions involving goods described, but not sold, by measurement, for example, tools, furniture, and real estate; the progressive phasing out of imperial units except for specific applications; and restrictions on the availability of measuring instruments graduated in units unacceptable within Australia’s metric system.
There are, however, some areas where due to the long service life of capital equipment and /or interworking with overseas countries, a need will continue for imperial units. These include branches of engineering and especially engineering metrology, equipment for the defence forces, and aspects of civil aviation governed by international codes. In these areas, further action and monitoring of progress will be required for some years.
page 1710
– For the information of honourable senators I present the interim report of the Australian Wine Board for the year ended 30 June 1978.
– by leave- I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1710
– For the information of honourable senators, pursuant to section 25 of the Grants Commission Act 1973 I present the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on Special Assistance for States 1978.
page 1710
– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled ‘National Highway Linking Hobart, Launceston and Burnie: Appraisal of Penguin to Burnie Section, 1978’.
page 1710
– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Fitness Act 1941 I present reports of the activities carried out under the Act for the years ended 30 June 1 976 and 30 June 1977.
page 1710
– For the information of honourable senators I present the agreement and memoranda of lease associated with the lease of stage 1 of the proposed Kakadu National Park, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom).
-by leave- I move:
I have taken this action specifically to point out that under the Standing Orders a statement can be read. There should be no confusion in the future about our attitude in this respect.
-Is the motion seconded?
– Yes.
Question resolved in the negative.
Senator GEORGES (Queensland)-by leave- I move:
My attempt to have the text of the paper read to the Senate was not an empty exercise. The Opposition will move a similar motion in the future if copies of a particular statement are not made available. We hope that next time the Government will not refuse honourable senators the right to have a copy of a statement made available to them. If this cannot be done, I hope the Government will accept the proposition that the text of the statement ought to be read. It could be that in many cases we may need to debate a matter immediately and only one copy of a document is available. I doubt whether the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) had a copy of the text of the statement.
– Yes, I have.
– In many cases by the time we get copies it might be the next day. I do not want to be obstreperous although that, of course, is my nature. But on this occasion I did not intend to be. But in future if a matter is important the Opposition will move that the text of the statement be read so that it can determine whether it should make some comments. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted.
– I will take up with the Government the matter raised by Senator Georges and I will have a discussion with him about the availability of papers.
Debate adjourned.
page 1711
Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Family Law Act 1 975.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
– I move:
This Bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Family Law Act 1975. Nearly half the Bill consists of amendments to the provisions of the Act relating to the Institute of Family Studies. Most of the other amendments in the Bill are based on recommendations of the Family Law Council.
The Act establishes the Institute of Family Studies as a national research and educational body, the object of which is to try to identify, and disseminate information on, the. factors- both negative and positive- affecting marital and family stability in Australia. The Government attaches great importance to the establishment of the Institute, and is aware of concerned and continuing interest in the Institute both within this Parliament and throughout the community.
Under the Act, the Institute consists of a Director and four or more other members, and also support staff and consultants to be engaged by the Director with the approval of the AttorneyGeneral. Since the first step in setting up the Institute is clearly the appointment of a Director, the Government arranged for the position to be advertised within Australia and overseas early last year. A large number of applications from within Australia and overseas were received, and soon after I became Attorney-General I approved the constitution of an expert panel headed by the Chief Judge of the Family Court of Australia to interview applicants. Unfortunately, although the leading applicants were distinguished in their own fields of professional interest, with one exception the panel felt unable to recommend any for the position. The one applicant whom the panel did recommend to me as a suitable person subsequently decided, on further consideration, to withdraw his application for the position.
At about the time I received the report of the interviewing panel, it was discovered by my Department that the provisions of the Act concerning the Institute were defective in that they did not make adequate provision for terms and conditions of appointment of the Director. Subsequently, after further examination, it was found that the provisions, which were inserted by way of an amendment when the original Family Law Bill was before the Senate, were defective in several other respects.
I should, perhaps, make it clear that the defects in the provisions of the Act were not the cause of the decision of the applicant for the position of Director recommended by the panel to withdraw his application. However, because of the importance that the Government places on the establishment of the Institute, it approved my recommendation that the amendments in the Bill be made, with a view to re-advertising the position and inviting further applications. In fact, as honourable senators may be aware, advertisements for the position were placed in the national Press on 30 September.
The amendments contained in the Bill regarding the Institute are quite detailed. However, I can assure honourable senators that the functions of the Institute as presently provided for in the Act have been preserved without change. What the amendments do is to fill in the blanks, as it were, regarding the terms and conditions of appointment of not only the Director but also the members of the Institute. The terms and conditions provided for in the Bill are those usually found in legislation establishing similar statutory bodies, such as, for example, the Australian Institute of Criminology.
There are a couple of other provisions in the Bill regarding the Institute which I should mention briefly. Under the Act in its present form, both the Director and the members are appointed by the Attorney-General. Under the amendments they would be appointed by the Governor-General, which is more usual for offices of this nature. The Bill includes provision for a Board of Management of the Institute, since the Act as it stands does not distinguish between the Institute meaning the governing body and the Institute meaning the Director, members and staff as a whole. The respective roles of the Board of Management of the Institute and of the Director are defined by the amendments. Finally, the amendments provide for the terms and conditions of employment of staff and consultants by the Institute to be determined by the Director with the approval of the Public Service Board instead of the Attorney-General as is provided by the Act now.
As I mentioned earlier, most of the other amendments in the Bill are based on recommendations made to me by the Family Law Council. Honourable senators will be aware that the Council, which was also established by the Act, has the function of advising the AttorneyGeneral on the working of the Act and other family law legislation, as well as legal aid in family law and other matters relevant to this area of law.
I acknowledge the interest taken by honourable senators and members in another place in the recommendations published in the first annual report of the Council, and the questions they have raised regarding implementation of the recommendations. Since, on studying the recommendations, I felt that there were several which should be implemented at the first opportunity, when the need to amend the provisions of the Act regarding the Institute of Family Studies arose, I asio obtained the approval of the Government to include several of those recommendations in the amending Bill.
In one of my first statements after becoming Attorney-General, 1 supported the idea of the review of the Family Law Act by a parliamentary committee, which has now been approved by resolution of the Parliament. When I came to consider which of the recommendations of the Family Law Council could be implemented without delay, I had regard to the question whether implementation of any of the recommendations might pre-empt the findings of a parliamentary committee. Accordingly, the amendments in the Bill are of a technical and non-controversial nature, which do not make substantial changes in any areas of the Act that are singled out by the terms of reference for the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee, or which are likely to become the subject of submissions to the Committee. The amendments make no changes of principle to the Act; on the contrary, they generally correct defects or otherwise contribute to the smoother administration of the Act according to its existing principles.
Perhaps the most substantial of these amendments concerns the area of counselling. The Bill will extend the range of circumstances in which a court can order the parties to confer with a counsellor, or can order a counsellor to report to it, on the welfare of children of the marriage. These powers will become available to the court in any proceedings in which the welfare of children of a marriage is affected. The Bill also makes some formal amendments to establish more clearly the separate identity of court counsellors from officers of State and Territory welfare departments.
In the important area of enforcement of orders the Bill makes two minor or clarifying amendments, one of which implements a recommendation of the Family Law Council. On the recommendation of the Council, the Bill clarifies the authority of a person under a warrant directing him to take possession of a child who has been the subject of a custody order. The Bill also removes doubts about the validity of regulations permitting the salaries of members of the Australian Public Service and the public services of the States and the Northern Territory to be attached for the enforcement of maintenance orders under the Act.
The authority of courts to set aside or discharge property settlement or maintenance orders under the Act is extended slightly by the Bill. The discretion of a court to set aside a property settlement order will be exercisable where there has been a miscarriage of justice arising from circumstances other than those now specified by the Act, such as fraud or false evidence. The recommendation of the Family Law Council on which this is based was prompted by specific cases in which the existing provision of the Act was found to be too narrow. The power of a court to reduce or discharge a maintenance order as from a date in the past has been changed to the extent that the date can be earlier than in the preceding 12 months, which is the limit now prescribed by the Act.
A change recommended by the Council to the appeal provisions of the Act has been included in the Bill. Under the Bill, appeals from magistrates’ courts to the Family Court will be by way of a complete rehearing. The recommendation follows experience in cases under the existing provisions of the Act, which restrict the extent to which the appeal court can hear evidence and which have proved less than satisfactory.
In 1976, the Family Law Amendment Act extended the opportunity in the original Act for parties to divorce proceedings pending at the commencement of the Family Law Act to have the court decide their case on the ground of divorce under the Family Law Act. On the recommendation of the Council, this Bill further extends the opportunity in those remaining cases begun under the Matrimonial Causes Act that have still not been resolved. What the Bill does is to enable parties in such cases who were not separated for 12 months at the commencement of the Family Law Act but who have since been separated for 12 months to have their case decided on the ground of divorce under the Family Law Act.
Apart from amendments implementing the recommendations of the Family Law Council, the Bill also includes a small number of amendments of a largely formal or minor nature to facilitate the operation of the Act. 1 have already referred to one. Another ensures that the powers of courts to transfer, stay or dismiss proceedings apply to all proceedings under the Act and Regulations. The Bill also ensures that members of the
Commonwealth Police can continue to be appointed as Marshal and Deputy Marshals of the Family Court of Australia. It ensures that there is a full right of appeal from court approvals of maintenance agreements. Finally, it extends the power of a court of first instance to state a case to the Full Court of the Family Court, to the Family Court of Western Australia and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, which still exercises jurisdiction under the Act in the Territory.
As honourable senators will perceive, none of the amendments contained in this Bill affects the main principles of the Act. The feature that is common to all the amendments, including those recommended by the Family Law Council and those concerning the Institute of Family Studies, is that they are intended to facilitate the operation of the Act in the manner originally conceived by the Act. The amendments concerning the Institute have to be enacted before the formal appointment of a Director can be made, and the Government, not to mention interested senators, members and the community at large, would like to see this achieved as soon as possible. The other amendments, in so far as they are needed to overcome inconveniences or shortcomings in the Act, are also needed as soon as possible. I therefore ask honourable senators to give this Bill their early consideration. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 1713
– by leave- We are now entering the final weeks of the Budget sittings and I am sure that we are all looking forward to the Christmas adjournment. The Government has a full legislative program for consideration by the Senate. In order to debate this program properly and to consider other matters that honourable senators may wish to have considered in that time, steady progress will need to be made each week. For example, we have listed for debate today the dairy Bills, the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Bill and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill. For Wednesday and Thursday the two Appropriation Bills are listed for debate. I point out that we hope to set aside some three days for debate on the Appropriation Bills. If that time is used fully it ought to be adequate.
At this stage it is hoped that the program can be accomplished without any undue inroads being made into the time available for the consideration of General Business on Thursday of this week. We may, in the weeks ahead, have to superimpose the consideration of Government Business on Thursday evenings. With goodwill on both sides of the Senate we should be able to give the necessary consideration to the legislative program and still have time available for debate on other matters of importance to honourable senators. I seek the co-operation of all honourable senators. As soon as I can, I propose to set out a rough working timetable so that we can see what is regarded as a reasonable day’s work and week’s work in an orderly procession towards the Christmas adjournment.
-by leave- I do not doubt that the Government is eager to adjourn for Christmas so as to escape some of the problems that are facing it at the moment, but I will not develop that theme because it might start a debate that could take us into conflict with the proposition put forward by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) that we should, as far as possible, see an even processing of legislation. I should like to make the point that it is up to the Goverment to ensure that in the last two or three weeks of this session we are not faced with the same problem that we have faced year after year of departments bringing forward urgent legislation and Ministers seeking to get that legislation passed with as little debate as possible. It is a well-known technique that many governments have used. I take it that the Leader of the Government in the Senate will make certain that the legislation comes forward steadily and not in a congested form in the last week of sitting.
I assure the Leader of the Government in the Senate that General Business is very important to the Opposition. We would resist any attempt by the Government to take away from the Opposition that section of the Notice Paper. As we progress towards the end of this year it may be necessary for us to take up matters in General Business that are just as important to us as government legislation happens to be to the Government itself. Nevertheless, once the Government makes a firm announcement as to just when it wants the Senate to rise and bearing in mind the propositions I have put before the Senate, we on this side of the Senate will cooperate to see that no honourable senator is inconvenienced.
page 1714
– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Robertson resigning his place as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament’s delegation to the Australian Constitutional Convention. I have also received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, nominating Senator Evans as a member of the delegation in place of Senator Robertson.
Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:
That Senator Robertson be discharged from the delegation to the Australian Constitutional Convention and that Senator Evans be appointed in his place.
page 1714
Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.
page 1714
Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.
page 1714
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed”.
That the Bill be now read a first time.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 1714
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.
– I move:
I seek leave to have the text of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1978-79 for expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, advances and loans, plant and equipment, grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution, and new policies not authorised by special legislation. Details of the amounts sought by each department are shown in Schedule 2 to the Bill, the sum of these appropriations being $1,593,902,000. Of this, $592,418,000 was authorised by Supply Act (No. 2) 1978-79, the balance of $1,001,484,000 being authorised by this Bill. The main features of the proposed expenditure were outlined in the Budget Speech. The Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document entitled ‘Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in Respect of the Year Ending 30 June 1979’ which was referred to the Senate Estimates committees on 12 September for examination and report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 1715
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.
– I move:
I seek leave to have the text of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
The primary purpose of this Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal as to the salaries and allowances payable to judges and persons of judicial status. This is effected by clause 5 of the Bill which revises Schedule 3 to the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973 by including the rates of salary, annual allowance and travelling allowance recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal as part of its 1978 review. Clause 3 adjusts the rate of additional salary payable in certain cases where a judge holds more than one judicial office and fixes the maximum rate of travelling allowance payable in such instances in accordance with the
Tribunal’s recommendations. In accordance with the recommendations of the Tribunal, the new rates of remuneration are backdated to 1 July 1978.
Opportunity has also been taken to make an amendment of a technical nature to section 1 7 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973. Section 1 7 enables regulations to be made to prescribe the remuneration payable to certain statutory office holders who had previously been officers of the Australian Public Service or statutory officers. Where a regulation has been made in respect of an officer, the officer is unable to receive a higher rate of remuneration determined by the Remuneration Tribunal with respect to his office, even where a rate of remuneration prescribed by the regulation has not been reviewed in some cases for more than two years. Clause 4 will amend section 17 to allow a Remuneration Tribunal determination to operate in those cases where the rate of remuneration it contains exceeds the rate of remuneration prescribed in the regulation. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 1715
Assent to the following Bills reported:
Social Services Amendment Bill 1978. Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1 978. National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978. Health Insurance Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1 978. Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 1 978. Trade Marks Amendment Bill 1978. Patents Amendment Bill 1978.
page 1715
– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1715
– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
– In so moving I wish to make a very brief statement with application to one part of the report. I refer to the part of the report on page 4 which refers to certain payments made to the State of Queensland in respect of unemployment relief commencing as from 23 February 1 977 in relation to which there was a request for an audited statement that the expenditure was undertaken in accordance with the conditions under which the grants were made. No such statement has been received. The Committee states that in the absence of an acceptable explanation the Senate may wish to consider its attitude towards the approval of any further funds for the State of Queensland under this item.
page 1716
– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1 978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1716
-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1716
-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1 978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1716
-! bring up the report of Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1716
Debate resumed from 26 September, on motion by Senator Webster:
That the Bills be now read a first time.
– I want to take this opportunity to make a few remarks on a couple of subjects, but in particular on the current visit to Canberra and other southern areas by delegations from Aurukun and Mornington Island. During the week’s parliamentary recess I visited both communities. I am perturbed by the fact that the Commonwealth Government has not taken the action that it said it would take. It appears now even to be backing out of the situation which has become politically sticky in view of the confrontation between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government. I am particularly critical of the continued attempts by the Queensland State Government to control the communities at both Aurukun and Mornington Island. They are doing it in a very subtle way.
In the next day or two I will be writing a letter to the Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) asking the Government to take positive action by granting self determination to the communities of both Aurukun and Mornington Island. I think, when we debated this subject earlier this year, we felt that the legislation was a positive way of trying to overcome a very difficult problem, in view of the prior action by the Queensland Government. The Opposition suggested that certain amendments ought to be introduced. None of those amendments was found to be acceptable to the Government. One of them, which I think I have mentioned on a previous occasion, would probably have overcome the situation had it been used, and that is the backdating of the legislation. There is definitely an all-out campaign now proceeding by the Queensland Government to demoralise the people at both centres. I am pleased to be able to say that this campaign is failing dismally and the morale of the people there is very strong and very high indeed.
The eight strong delegation- five from Aurukun and two from Mornington Island plus a Bentinck Islander from the later delegation- has now been round the Canberra scene for two or three days. The question I asked today of the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this chamber I hope will be heeded. In fact, I am sure that Senator Guilfoyle will do her best. The delegations have had great difficulty in meeting the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The trial period is near enough to the finish and I think it is appropriate that the delegations should now be endeavouring to obtain some sort of further public support for their cause. The promises that were made originally when the administrator was appointed- and there were two significant promises, one that the rolls would be updated and a local government election would be held and the second that the leases would be finalised- have not come to pass. The rolls are apparently completed but no date has been set for the local government election, which in the normal course of events will take place in Queensland on the last Saturday in March 1979. I note a Press statement by Mr Hinze in the last 48 hours in which he says they may be brought on at an earlier date, but the people are not being consulted.
There are two Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs officers at Aurukun and one at Mornington Island. The two Aurukun DA1A officers have been there for approximately three months. They have done no work and, in the words of the Aboriginals themselves, they spend their time reading comics. The local people also know them as the flying foxes. They come out only at night time. They do not have any consultation with the people. The DAIA officer at Mornington Island also lives a life in isolation but he is protected apparently by two savage dogs which he is quite fond of setting on to the Aboriginal people when they pass the area. This is an intimidatory way of handling the situation in both areas. I paid the courtesy of letting both these groups of officers know that I was visiting the settlement. At no time did I set eyes on them at all; either during the day or, as the locals say, when they come out at night time. The Uniting Church Synod meeting which was held in Brisbane over the period 6 October to 13 October carried two resolutions in the following form:
The first wish of the people was expressed very clearly in a meeting of approximately 100 held on the sand outside of Nicholas Dugong’s home at Mornington Island when both those resolutions were carried unanimously by this very large group of Mornington Island people. Remember that it was held on a Sunday. There are those who go to church on Sunday, but it is also a traditional hunting day for the family. As we sat on the little sand spot families were coming home late in the afternoon bearing game they had captured or killed during the day, but they still came along to that meeting and gave it a very respectable attendance indeed under those circumstances.
The first resolution asked that the Commonwealth Government take control of the area. The second one was a clear indication that the Aborigines want their own land rights. I suppose 1 could get quite emotional about this matter. One gets close to people in these circumstances, particularly when one is in the habit of visiting them fairly regularly. One experiences the frustration to which they have been subjected, firstly, by the Queensland Government and now, unfortunately, by the Australian Government Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
The activities of the Federal Government are less than satisfactory. One proposal of which I am critical is that $75,000 of a reduced government grant this financial year is to be spent on upgrading the Aurukun aerodrome. The aerodrome certainly needs some upgrading but the sum required would not be anywhere near that figure if the aerodrome were upgraded to carry only the type of aircraft that normally use that particular strip. I think it is apparent to everybody that at this point in history the Commonwealth Government is actually backing a consortium which intends to mine at Aurukun. The upgrading of the aerodrome facilities is just one means by which the Government is providing that backing. When it is finished obviously the aerodrome will be able to take very much larger planes than those which Aborigines need in that area now. That represents double dealing by the Commonwealth Government. It is significant too that outside labour has been brought in to do the construction work. It is only in very recent weeks that three or four Aborigines have been given a job on the project. The upgrading of the outstations or homelands has not been very obvious so far, but some moneys have been allocated for the purpose.
I want to know, and I am sure that everybody at Aurukun and Mornington Island wants to know, why elaborate gaols are being built on both settlements. They will be of motel-type proportions. It is rumoured that the one at Aurukun is to cost approximately $200,000. The one to be built at Mornington Island is to be less sumptuous, but both sets of plans obviously provide for long term occupation by people other than Aboriginal people in charge of their own affairs. The building of new homes at both settlements for two white policemen who will be required to transfer there at a later date will probably cost another $300,000. So more than half a million dollars, probably $600,000 or $700,000, will be spent on the construction of gaols and the construction of homes for policemen. Is that money a separate grant or is it to come out of the allocation that has been made to the Queensland Government for funding its Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement? If the latter is the case, then quite frankly money which should be going to the Aboriginal people is being taken from them.
Another aspect that has to be looked at is the construction of homes for Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement personnel. The same sort of thing is happening at the moment in the Wyndham area, where I am told that the Department of Administrative Services is moving the headquarters of the local office of the DAA to another centre. That is to cost approximately half a million dollars. Is that money to come out of moneys allocated to Aboriginal affairs? I know that is a side issue but the principle is the same. I really want to know the answer to these questions and I hope that at some stage somebody can tell us something about the situation.
I point out too that the Queensland Government has misused funds that were allocated for relief following cyclone Ted, which struck almost two years ago. Of 130 to 140 houses that were totally destroyed- some 90 of those belonged to the Bentinck islanders who live along the beach- only 38 have been rebuilt after two years. Repairs are still being carried out. I understand from the flimsy evidence available that provision is made for another 10 houses to be built in the current financial year, and that six to eight houses will be built for policemen and Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement officials.
The reasons why I say that the performance of the Federal Government has been less than satisfactory are to be found in two or three different areas. First of all, obviously no attempt has been made to implement the legislation which was passed earlier this year by this chamber and by the other place. There are no real plans to try to do so in the future, if one can give any sort of credence to utterances made by fairly responsible people in the Department. No pressure is being applied to the Queensland Government to go ahead with the election of new Aboriginal councils. Incidentally, the Aboriginal people believe, morally and otherwise, that the members of the two sacked councils are still their leaders. That is my view too, because they are the people to whom I talked on both settlements. I talked to the council at Mornington and the council at
Aurukun, and of course, there was one large public meeting at Mornington.
No pressure is being applied by the Australian Government to make the Queensland Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act work. I know that all sorts of statements are made mostly by Mr Hinze, Mr Porter and Mr BjelkePetersen about how splendid the idea behind the provisions of the Act is, but no real attempt is made to make the Act effective. If Aborigines cannot have land rights and everything that goes with them, then obviously they have to be given something in the interim that will work. The people themselves are co-operative. They have not done all the wrong things which the people in the Queensland Government forecast they would.
The funding of Aurukun Community Incorporated Pty Ltd is on an ad hoc basis, as is the funding of the co-operative at Mornington Island. Moneys that should be provided on regular dates just have not been forthcoming. I understand that the DAA proposes to spend in the current year approximately $374,000 at Aurukun. If that money is allocated in the way in which I see it being allocated then obviously it will not be enough to sustain that community. No encouragement is being given to selfmotivation or self-determination in those organisations.
The delegations which are visiting Canberra this week and which I understand will travel to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane in the next week or two have endeavoured to state as clearly as they can the facts and the problems as they see them. They have not changed their minds on the decisions that they made in February-March of this year. I note that an article which appears in today’s Canberra Times reads:
Aurukun representatives were ‘playing their each-way-bet game ‘ in their latest appeal for Commonwealth Government intervention in the former Aboriginal reserve on Cape York Peninsula, Queensland Government officials said yesterday.
Until yesterday’s story from Canberra, all leaders of the Aurukun community had claimed they were happy with the way things were going up there’, the officials of the Department of Local Government said.
The Aurukun and Mornington Island shires administrator, Mr Ken Brown, had reported that residents at both former reserves were co-operative and interested in his work leading up to fresh community elections. The former Aurukun Council chairman, Mr Donald Peinkinna, had been one of the most co-operative.
Mr Peinkinna made a direct appeal in Canberra on Sunday to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, for Commonwealth intervention at Aurukun and Mornington Island.
Officials of the Department of Local Government confirmed that their Minister, Mr Hinze, was planning an amendment to the special legislation which created local authorities this year based on the two former Aboriginal reserves.
The amendment would provide for elections of the local authorities at times other than the triennial Queenslandwide local-government elections.
Two five-member shire councils at Aurukun and Mornington Island were created after the special Queensland legislation last June.
The State Government dismissed all 10 councillors and appointed Mr Brown to administer both communities about two months later.
When the legislation was going through this chamber we forecast that that would happen. In fact that is precisely what did happen. The administrator, Mr Ken Brown, is getting cooperation from the local Aboriginal people and I think that is important. Apparently they have no real objections to him as a person but they have objections to the policies that are being implemented.
The other criticism to which I want to refer- I think that it is most unfair- relates to the delegation of three people who have gone overseas to publicise the manner in which Aborigines are treated in Queensland. There was criticism of Mick Miller, who is a very articulate man, who is able to present himself very well in all sections of the media and who, quite frankly, has frightened the wits out of some of the DAIA people in Queensland; of Mrs Joyce Hall who is a very gentle lady; and of the third member of the delegation who also comes from Aurukun and who is a very moderate type of man. There are suggestions that the money used to pay their fares and expenses has been illgotten and that they have misused World Council of Churches’ funds. This has not happened. Organisations overseas are providing funds to see that these three people are able to tell their story which the Federal and State Governments are trying to suppress.
We must be a laughing stock in other countries, with the possible exceptions of South Africa, Rhodesia and probably Idi Amin’s country, because of the way we are handling Aboriginal affairs in this country. We have heard those loud noises that were made earlier this year by Mr Viner and by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who was just as vocal. He said ‘We shall not see these people suffer. We will do this and that. We will give them their land’. This is not now being done. In fact there has been so much backtracking that one would need one of the Aboriginal black trackers to find out which way Mr Viner and Mr Fraser are going. We are not going to find out any other way.
Then we have the incident of the signing of the Ranger agreement. From information which came to me today it appears that many other very strange things went on there. It appears that undue pressures were exerted by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and that somebody who is not a traditional owner and who was not entitled to sign the agreement may have signed it. No doubt over the next few days- if ever we get that secret document that went through here this afternoon- we will be able to discuss the situation in much more detail. It appears that the Minister is not quite so worried about having that document exposed in another place.
I want to speak very briefly about the encouragement for people who are going back to the outstations. The financial allocation is very frugal. I had the opportunity to talk with some of the people from the outstations and to visit one. or two of them. It is quite obvious that this has brought back psychological and physical happiness and physical good health. The State Government, of course, ultimately intends to clear them all out and to herd them back on to the one reserve, just as it did a hundred years ago. Believe me, when the time comes the State Government will be prepared to do just that. I hope that the Commonwealth Government will then be able to stand up and be counted. I could say some very rude things about what I think is a backing-off by both the Minister and the Prime Minister. But I hope that there will be second thoughts and that they will take the opportunity to straighten out the Queensland Government. If the Australian Government has not the courage to do what it said it would do in the first place, I hope that it will see that the small mess of pottage that has been handed to these people is not taken away from them.
I make an appeal to all sections of the community to listen to the story that the Mornington Island delegation is telling while it is here and which it will tell when it travels further south to other areas next week, and to listen also to the story that the Aurukun people are telling. They are telling it from their hearts and they are sincere about it. They want precisely what they are asking for. They want land rights and the right to run their own affairs. Both communities are capable of looking after their land and of running their own affairs.
– I take advantage of the first reading debate on the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill to widen the field a little and to raise questions regarding the promotion overseas of Australian goods. I am back in the
Senate after spending some weeks overseas. It was a rather quick trip through six or seven different countries, not all of which are connected with the European Economic Community. During that time I went shopping in suburban areas of cities in those countries. I walked through markets, supermarkets and department stores and I rode on buses and trains and walked through cities. Yet nowhere did I find any promotion of Australian goods, of Australian dairy produce or of any other sort of Australian produce. I bought food in those areas. I ate that food. I ate and drank in restaurants. Over and over again one could tell from the sight, taste and quality of the food that one was not eating and drinking Australian products.
I acknowledge that trade barriers in some of these countries make difficulties, but while we are trumpeting loudly about breaking into EEC markets and are making excuses about not breaking into markets in other parts of the world, I wonder why we do not promote the quality of Australian foods which might help break down those barriers in some parts of the world and might help to break through the barriers which are erected in other parts of the world. If Hawaiian pineapples, Florida oranges, English apples and French wines can become household names throughout the world in areas where those goods are not even sold or eaten and can be promoted to worldwide acclaim, I do not see why the delicious flavour, size and choice quality of Australian produce cannot also be promoted to become household names. In my opinion this sort of quality and the flavour that we produce in food in Australia must be a selling point and should be promoted.
I was brought up on Australian apples, on fresh jonathans, granny smiths and golden delicious. I went overseas and because I love apples I bought them. In England, for instance, I found tasteless, old, bruised and very expensive produce. All I get from the Apple and Pear Board here is a circular telling me what apples arrive in England and when. It does not tell me much about how we promote those apples. I must say that in various parts of Australia it is hard enough to buy Australian apples or even to know that we produce apples. Apple trees are pulled out wholesale in Australia. But overseas people would not think that we ever grew an apple in Australia. If the succulence, crispness and freshness of Australian apples could be promoted to the point of making one’s mouth water, perhaps we could break into some of those markets or at least have the people in those areas aspire to taste our produce. We always used to be told that the epitomy of apples were English Cox’s orange pippins. After eating them I wonder why. I am sorry for the people who have to rely on that tasteless product when they could have Australian apples.
If we promote the quality of Australian fruit I do not see why we should not have people queueing up for it, as presumably they queue up for Hawaiian pineapples. If the size, flavour and texture of Australian pineapples could be sold and promoted overseas and if people overseas could see the quality of our fruit, perhaps we might sell some of those pineapples in place of the pigmy-sized and sickly sweet fruit that one encounters under the name of pineapple in England. So one could continue. Australian cheeses, which come under the jurisdiction of the Dairy Produce Board, have texture, bite and flavour. They are a vast improvement on the dull mediocrity that is served up as cheese so often overseas.
Then we come to wines. If there is one joy about coming home to Australia it is the joy of returning to Australian wines. With the exception of America, wines are not cheap. After having drunk bottle after bottle of wine overseas, I think that it would do very well as paint remover in some instances. For American wines one could not possibly be charged any more for what one gets. But where is the promotion of Australian wines? I had a conversation with some Frenchmen about trade and the difficulties of the EEC and what might happen if crops fail. I said: ‘Well, the French might even contemplate importing Australian wines if phylloxera hit their vineyards tomorrow’. The face of one of the Frenchmen lit up and he said: ‘What joy! Fancy having those marvellous wines here to drink. I cannot think of anything better’. We know the problems that the French have with their farmers. In some ways the problems are very similar to the ones that we have with our farmers. But when does the Australian Wine Board or this Government take the advantage of promoting Australian wines? I went to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Jamaica. It does not seem to me to be beyond the realms of possibility for Australian delegations to take cases of Australian wines to such conferences and serve them when it has a party. Then when delegates go back to their countries, even if trade barriers exist there, at least they will know what they are missing. This sort of promotion would involve a piddling amount of money. We miss out on promotional opportunities like that because money is not provided. We have the expertise in this country. We have the skill but we hide it. We do not take advantage of promoting the very good produce and products that we have. We are not proud enough of what we produce in Australia and we are not proud enough when we promote it.
I return to the subject of Australian wool. In some parts of France the people think that we in Australia are mad. We produce the best wool in the world. Once we produced woollen cloth that was equal to what was produced in other parts of the world. But we do not produce cloth in Australia any more. If a person in Australia wants to clothe kiddies in wool it cannot be done; it cannot be bought. The wool has to be sent overseas to be cleaned and to be woven; then it is returned to us and sold at a price that we cannot afford to pay. Why cannot a country that produces the best wool in the world also sell the best woollen articles in the world? We have the designers and we have the workmanship. From observation of clothing overseas I would say that there is nothing overseas that one cannot buy in Australia when it comes to workmanship, colour or design. Our clothes are beautiful yet where overseas would people know that we produce clothes of that sort, apart from small pockets in some countries?
Moving on to another area, we are often told that Australia is a backward country; that there are many things we cannot do and that we do not, for instance, provide the standard of accommodation that would attract tourists to Australia. All I can say is that many of the people who make those statements have never had to stay in second-class hotels in other parts of the globe, otherwise they would not run down the standard of accommodation that Australian hotels and motels offer. We might not be able to provide a grand suite of rooms in Warrnambool but certainly, right across this country, we can provide first-class accommodation and plenty of it at a price that ordinary people can afford, which is more than can be said for many countries. It is certainly more than can be said for the standard of accommodation that can be found in many countries.
One area in which Australia could have excelled, an area in which it could have been promoted and one in which it could have been the tops, is the area of solar energy. I was ashamed when I found in a little country like Holland, one that has more cloud cover than most other countries, that industry and government had combined in extensive experimentation to make solar energy work for the Dutch.
– What is our Minister for Science doing about that? All he is doing is shuffling his papers over there.
– What are we in Australia doing, Mr Minister, to promote Australia as the capital of the solar energy world. It would appear that California is determined to be the solar energy capital yet we were ahead. We had the expertise and we had the running. But because nobody cared, because the researchers were starved of funds, because programs were cut off in mid-term and because evidently nobody cared about having the expertise or having excellence in that field, we did not go ahead with solar energy. It is an area of vital importance. We have a government that is preoccupied with uranium. Evidently it refuses to take up the difficulties in the other areas and it neglects other areas. So again, in an area in which Australian expertise and Australian excellence could have been promoted, we have missed the boat.
All our effort is half-hearted. We talk about trade missions overseas, we talk about promoting Australian goods, yet we do not do anything about promoting the standards of excellence that we could promote and that we could export. Certainly we have a government that believes in private enterprise but there are some areas in which governments must govern and governments must promote, and only government funds and government encouragement can succeed. We need government encouragement, I believe, and active promotion of our excellent produce, of our excellent workmanship, of our excellent products and expertise. I urge this Government to promote Australian goods vigorously and expertly. Let the world look with anticipation at the word Australian’ on the trademarks and on the labels on goods that are of an excellence that only Australians can produce.
– In deference to the Senate’s wish to avoid late night sittings I also take the opportunity, like my two colleagues, Senator Keeffe and Senator Melzer, of this first reading debate to ventilate a couple of grievances. I start off with an immigration matter which I trust will be referred to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard this communication I received from the staff of the Dame Eadith Walker SubAcute Hospital- which is a branch of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital- of The Drive, Concord West, Sydney. The letter, which has more than 50 signatures attached, is an appeal on behalf of a former employee named Sydney Widjaja who apparently is an illegal immigrant. The letter eulogises his services at the hospital. The fact that 50 people signed a petition seeking permission for this person to be allowed to remain in Australia is, I think, indicative of the impact he made on them. I ask that the document be incorporated in Hansard.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- Is leave granted?
– What is it? Is it just a letter?
– Have a look at it. I hand it to the Minister. Actually the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) and his colleagues would know -
– What is it that you want to incorporate?
– 1 want to incorporate that document in Hansard.
– With all the signatures on it?
– Yes. I think it can be done.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted?
– I think that the Acting Deputy President had better have a look because I cannot read half of the names.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It will be incorporated subject to Hansard requirements. Is that all right?
– The first page is all right; I would not know what the second page says.
– My difficulty is that this letter came to me today. Obviously the man is at Villawood. Although 50 people have signed this letter there is no indication to me as to who is the chief spokesman. I wish to get this on the record so that there can be a breathing space.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I would like to clarify the position. Has leave been granted for the incorporation of the document in Hansard? There being no objection, leave is granted.
Leave granted.
The letter read as follows-
Dame Eadith Walker Sub Acute Hospital ( Royal Prince Alfred Hospital) The Drive Concord West 2 138 3 Nov 1978
Senator A. Mulvihill, c/o Commonwealth Centre, Chifley Square, Sydney 2000.
Dear Senator.
On behalf of the nursing, paramedical and lay staffof this section of the hospital, we wish to appeal to you in the interest of Sydney Widjaja.
To our amazement we learn that he is presently being detained as an illegal immigrant and therefore we are writing to plead his case, hoping that you shall intervene where possible in the fight to allow Sydney to remain in Australia.
This young man has been a member of the staff for a period of one year and 10 months, acting out the duties of wardsman, for which he has shown a rare combination of reliability and devotion to duty.
At all times this attention to the patient’s well-being and personal care has been an outstanding feature.
Patients of this hospital have come to know Sydney as a thoughtful, considerate man with their interests at heart always. The staff have found him an invaluable colleague because of his competence and reliability beyond the call of his position.
It would be a great loss to the staffand patients to lose the services he has demonstrated in the past 22 months. And one would only agree that he shows the potential of being the desirable type of immigrant that the Australian workforce and society needs.
We hope that you shall find time enough to devote to our cause.
Yours faithfully, the undersigned
-I thank the Senate. I will take the opportunity tomorrow to speak to Mr Garry McIlwaine, M.L.A., to ascertain the instigator of the letter and the signatures. I should like to take this a bit further. Honourable senators who attended the estimates committee hearings- and I think Senator Messner was present- would be aware that I put questions to representatives of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations about the dilemma that people are facing in respect of quite a number of occupations that are not very glamorous and in which people are not overpaid. On the one hand employment offices do not have on their books people to fill these positions. It is debatable as to what is achieved in this area. I would like to qualify that and if my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland were here he would agree. I have been unequivocal in this area. I have referred to American visitors who might be top cameramen and who have been poaching, as it were, on our film industry to complete abrogation of the purpose of a tourist visa. I cite that as an example. But in this case it is a different story altogether. I thank the Senate for allowing me to incorporate that document in Hansard. The matter can now be taken up with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This is a holding action pending an examination of the case.
The other matter to which I wish to refer concerns partly the Department of Foreign Affairs and partly the Depanment of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the situation of people who come here from the western Pacific countries, including tourists. In this case I refer to a man of western Pacific origin- an employee of the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales and member of the Seamen’s Unionwho is seeking to have his 81 -year-old mother join him in Australia. I think that this is a reasonable family reunion request because, as honourable senators know, it is the people under 55 years of age who are potential units in the work force about whom we are circumspect. My grievance, not only in respect of this case but also with respect to the issue of tourist visas, is that there seems to be a slothful apparatus in Suva. I know that applications are received from people from outlying islands where correspondence has to go to Suva but this application got under way in May. I speak highly of the staff of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Sydney. The late President Truman referred to where the buck stops but I do not think that it even gets started in Suva. Officials in Suva seem to be masters of the art of procrastinating.
This morning I alerted the Department’s office in Sydney that this case commenced in May and the office has assured me that the delay is in Suva, which I believe. There seem to be people in Suva who are obsessed with tomorrow. Tomorrow seems to be the theme. It applies not only in this case but also in the case of trade union delegations. They seem at times to be afraid that visits by delegations of Australian trade unionists are going to hurt the present Fijian Government. My appeal today is about file number 78/404547 concerning the case of Mrs Mocelutu. I appeal to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) to take up with the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) the staffing situation in Suva, the definition of an Immigration officer, the definition of a Foreign Affairs officer and whether there is some sort of tacit plot with the Fijian Government whereby because somebody in Australia happens to have a trade union background it is thought to be a good security measure to stop his 81 -year-old mother from joining him. I doubt whether this woman, at 8 1 years of age, will be taking part in any street demonstration in Sydney, Brisbane or anywhere else. In think this is one of those situations where the case has to be ventilated here and put on the record so that there can be some probing in relation to it. On that basis, I leave the issue with the Senate.
– I wish to speak briefly- I trust that I will be able to finish before the suspension of the sitting- about the paper which was tabled this afternoon by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), of which the Opposition did not have a copy until some 15 or 20 minutes after its presentation. I refer to the paper entitled ‘Loan Council Financing of Development Projects’. If this paper means anything at all- and there are reasons outlined in today’s Melbourne Age why it may not mean anything- it is a clear repudiation of what the Government claimed was its central economic strategy of clamping down on public expenditure. This repudiation of government policy is hidden behind an elaborate facade built of accounting tricks. The impact on the money supply, the level of economic activity or the distribution of resources within the country of the spending of $ 1 58m on capital works funded by State government loans is identical to the spending of the same amount on the same projects with funds borrowed from the same sources but recorded in the Federal Budget, as it would have been recorded in previous years. The difference is economically meaningless but politically important; that is, if these transactions and expenditure were recorded through the federal accounts, the deficit would increase by the amount of this expenditure. This is a proposition to increase the deficit by $158m this year without acknowledging to the public that it is a proposition to do that. The fact that it is a proposition to do that has not been clearly spelt out by more than one or two newspapers and, I regret to say, was misrepresented by the Australian Broadcasting Commission yesterday morning. On its morning news service the ABC said:
There’s something in it -
That is, the proposal- for the Commonwealth too because overseas loans raised by the States wont affect the Federal Budget -
That much of the Commission’s assessment is correct. But the Commission went on to say: . . and Fraser can allow big job creating programs to get under way without compromising his strategy of clamping down on public spending.
The latter part of that statement is palpable nonsense. This proposition is the antithesis of the Government’s strategy of clamping down on public spending. It is a mechanism for expanding public spending without that expansion being recorded in the deficit. But that is only a cosmetic adjustment. The underlying realities are unchanged. They are exactly as they would be if the money had been recorded in the normal fashion and the deficit increased to the extent of the expenditure on these public capital works. Of course, the Opposition does not argue that there is anything wrong with increasing expenditure on capital works. Indeed, the Opposition has argued quite strenuously for a couple of years that precisely this should be done. We welcome the Government’s belated recognition of the truth of what we were saying, of the accuracy of the Opposition’s diagnosis of the economy and the limited degree to which the Government has adopted the policies long advocated by the Opposition. I regret to say that the Government has not had the honesty to admit that it had repudiated its previous policies and is now pursuing a policy in the opposite direction to that which it said it was essential to pursue. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government has not had the honesty to admit that this is what it is doing, that it is taking this devious way of increasing expenditure and has taken these elaborate measures to conceal the fact that effectively the deficit is being increased by this amount.
It is also, of course, a panic measure arising out of the by-election results in New South Wales and Victoria in the last couple of months and the crushing defeat of the Liberal Party in the State election in New South Wales. As we would expect with a panic measure, there is very good reason to question the wisdom of the specific projects which have been chosen for funding as distinct from the overall policy of increasing expenditure on public capital expenditure. Whilst we approve of the increase in public capital expenditure, some serious questions must be asked about the viability of and the justification for the specific projects. The most outstanding example of this, of course, is the overseas trade display project of the Victorian Government. It is only by the most extraordinary manipulation of the guidelines which the Government claims to have laid down for projects of this kind last June that this Victorian project could be accommodated. According to the Government, projects must contribute to the development of Australia’s natural resources and the balance of payments, must help to strengthen the structure of industry and must contribute to employment. Obviously only in the last instance- the contribution to employment- can the Victorian project be seen to be accommodated within those guidelines by any reasonable definition of what they mean. Incidentally, at no stage did the Commonwealth make it clear whether any one of those guidelines would be sufficient for a project to qualify or whether the project would be assessed by some composite consideration of them all. I think that a fair measure of the degree of desperation and panic which underpins this matter is that every project put up by any State government was accepted and approved. I note that the Australian Financial Review had the perspicacity in this morning’s editorial to draw a very appropriate analogy with the panic funding of the Ord River scheme in 1967. There is this difference: Some private cost benefit analyses which had been done on the Ord River scheme and which were ignored by politicians of the day have since been more than justified. Since that very appropriate analogy has been drawn- it is one that occurred to me before I read it in the *Australian Financial Review- * think we might well ask about the cost benefit analysis for the $4 16m to fund the gas pipeline from Dampier to Perth.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
– Before the suspension of the sitting of the Senate I said that the Commonwealth’s agreement to the funding of development projects by way of loans raised by the States was a panic measure directly attributable to the Liberal Party’s crushing defeat in a Federal by-election in New South Wales, a State byelection in Victoria and, of course, the New South Wales State election. As we may predict with a panic measure, at least some of the projects have been hastily considered or perhaps ill considered. A prime example is the world trade fair building, as I think it is called, in Melbourne which has been appropriately compared to another panic measure introduced for purely political electoral reasons, the funding of the Ord River scheme in 1967.
I think questions must also be asked about at least one other proposition in the package, that is, the $4 16m that is proposed for the gas pipeline from Dampier to the south-west of Western Australia. Of course, if this speech is reported and Sir Charles Court gets to hear about it, he will say that the trouble with some people in the Australian Labor Party is that they are knockers and they have no vision. But before Sir Charles gets too hypnotised by his own rhetoric, I suggest to any journalist who may interview him that he ask Sir Charles how the Ord River scheme is going. Sir Charles Court was responsible for that scheme and he said precisely the same things about the people who told him back in the mid-1960s that the Ord River scheme was not economically viable. So before Sir Charles is too enthusiastic in castigating what he calls knockers, he should be confronted with some of his glaring failures, the most dramatic and best known of which is the Ord River scheme. He was also responsible for the settlement of what he used to boast was 1 million acres of new land a year in the south of Western Australia. As usual, when that ill-considered settlement went bad in the early 1970s for ecological as well as economic reasons, Sir Charles attempted to hand responsibility over to the Federal Government.
This leads me to the question which has not been answered in the statement- whether these funds to be borrowed overseas will be guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government against possible default by the States. Regardless of what the formalities might lay down, I assume that no Federal Government would permit a State to default on an overseas debt and that if any State were in a position in which it was likely to default, the Commonwealth would step in to prevent the default. Ultimately, the Commonwealth would probably be taking on financial responsibilities at least for funds that are borrowed overseas. That question has not been answered. If the States behave in the way they are accustomed to behaving, they can ingratiate themselves with their own electorates by funding pork barrelling projects like the Ord River scheme. Indeed, a number of State governments seem to have developed a very pernicious method of operation under which they bribe enough pressure groups and pork barrel enough electorates to gain or retain power. They then send the bill for their pork barrelling to Canberra. If Canberra will not pay they then pick up an electoral bonus by condemning Canberra for refusing to fill the pork barrel with which the States maintain political power within their domains. I suspect that there will be elements of this sort of pernicious irresponsibility in the policy which this Government has adopted in panic and in desperation.
We have not been told who will carry the exchange rate risks if the money is to be borrowed overseas. Are the States to carry the risks of the likely further depreciation of the Australian dollar against most other currencies in which loans are likely to be borrowed or are the risks to be underwritten by the Federal Government? I wish to make two final comments. If the money is to be borrowed within Australia, this is directly contradictory to the Government’s stated policy of forcing interest rates down or of allowing interest rates to fall down. Forcing interest rates down by decree is a more accurate description of what the Government is trying to do. If an extra $ 158m is to be recruited this year and $340m is to be recruited next year on the domestic loan market, it will be in direct conflict with the Government’s stated objective of getting domestic interest rates down. If, on the other hand, the money is to be borrowed abroad- this has been left as an option- quite clearly this will add to the money supply. It will thereby be in conflict with the Government’s stated policy of maintaining control of the money supply. The commitments, as far ahead as the Government says it will accept them in this proposal, severely or significantly restrict the Government’s feasibility on such matters as the balance of payments, control of the money supply and the general level of capital works in the future.
I would like to make reference to a few lines on page 7 of the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on Loan Council financing of development projects which is before us. It stated:
Loan Council acknowledged that the additional borrowings approved under this program will need to be borne in mind in considering the normal ‘semi-government’ borrowing program in June.
I would like to know what that means. Does it mean that the $340m which is envisaged will be borrowed under this program next year will be taken out of the normal semi-government borrowing allocation? If this is the case the whole policy becomes meaningless, except that irresponsibility by particular State governments is encouraged. The statement continues:
It was unanimously agreed that as Tar as possible, all capital equipment required for the projects should be purchased from Australian manufacturers.
What does that mean? Does it mean that the Commonwealth Government will lean on the States to provide additional protection for Australian produced capital equipment? Whatever the arguments might be for or against providing additional protection for Australian produced capital equipment, it should not be done in this back-door, underhand way of leaning on the States and saying: ‘If you want approval to borrow X amount of dollars, you have to guarantee to give a kick-back to some Australian manufacturer in the form of higher protection, preference to locally sourced products and so on’.
– Or go without.
– Yes, or go without. Whatever the validity of the arguments about higher or lower protection, I hope that there would be general agreement, even on the Government side of the chamber, that this is not the way to pursue a high protection policy. If the passage that I have quoted does not mean that the Government envisages additional hidden protection wrapped up in this policy, I would like to know what it does mean.
Finally, it is a panic measure. If it means anything at all, it entails a clear repudiation of what this Government has said has been its fundamental economic strategy in terms of restricting the size of the public sector and restricting the level of government expenditure. The Government said that government expenditure had to be restricted or it would crowd out the private sector and kill off recovery. The Government is now expanding public capital expenditure. While we in the opposition approve of that in principle, we assert that the Government ought to have the honesty to admit that this is what it is doing. Although the Government is doing the right thing, it is doing it in a bad way and for the wrong reasons. It is doing it for political opportunism. It is not doing it in a manner which is considered, rational or compatible with the national interest.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a first time.
Senator WEBSTER (Victoria-Minister for
Science) (8.10)- I move:
Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows-
Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1978
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972 in order to remove any legal doubts in regard to two aspects. The first relates to the imposition of the Commonwealth levy on whole milk and butter fat which is produced in Australia and supplied by the producer to a co-operative dairy factory for processing by the co-operative on behalf of the producer. The second aspect relates to the obligation of co-operative dairy factories to make deductions equal to the levy from amounts payable to producers in respect to whole milk and butter fat supplied by a producer to a cooperative dairy factory for sale or processing by the co-operative on behalf of the producer and to pay such amounts to the Commonwealth.
The Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972, as amended, imposes a levy on whole milk and butter fat produced in Australia and sold by the producer. To facilitate the collection of the levy, the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972, as amended, provides that a person who purchases whole milk or butter fat from the producer becomes liable to pay the levy on behalf of the producer if it has not already been paid.
The need for the amendments to the above mentioned Acts relates to circumstances where whole milk or butter fat is not actually purchased by a co-operative dairy factory but is delivered to the co-operative and then either sold by the cooperative on behalf of the producer or processed by the co-operative for subsequent sale. Doubts have been raised as to the liability of the cooperative in these instances to pay levy to the Commonwealth.
Clause (4) of the Bill amends the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972 so as to clearly provide that whole milk or butter fat which is not sold by the producer but is supplied to a co-operative dairy factory for sale or processing by the co-operative on behalf of the producer, is deemed to have been sold by the producer and purchased by the co-operative for the purposes of the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972, as amended, and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972, as amended.
The Bill also provides for the above amendment to come into operation on the first day of the month after the month in which the Act receives the Royal Assent. The levy which is imposed under the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972, as amended, is used to finance the research activities of the Dairying Research Committee and to finance the administration and promotional activities of the Australian Dairy Corporation. I commend the Bill.
Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Bill 1978
The purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1978 which I have just introduced, is to regularise deductions in respect of the levy that have been made by cooperative dairy factories and paid to the Commonwealth since the introduction of the original Dairying Industry Research Levy Act on 1 July 1972.
Clause (3) of the Bill validates actual past payments in respect of the levy made by cooperative dairy factories to the Commonwealth since the introduction of the Dairying Industry Research Levy Act 1972 as if the amendments proposed in the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1978 had been in force at the time the payments were made to the Commonwealth. There are no other changes. I commend the Bill.
– I will speak only briefly to the second reading of these Bills. As will be seen from the second reading speech of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), the purpose of these two Bills is to clear up what was seen to be a legal doubt as to whether levies applied to dairy products for promotion purposes could be applied to cooperative dairies. The need for this legislation arose, I understand, because it could be argued that the dairy product at no time becomes the property of the co-operative. The research and promotion levy is paid by the processor of dairy products. A private individual or a private company processing dairy products actually assumes ownership of those products. There is some doubt about whether a co-operative actually assumes ownership of the product. The legislation will ensure that the same levy is applied to dairy products processed by co-operative factories as is applied to those processed by private factories. Therefore the Opposition can see no reason why it should oppose either Bill. The two Bills, of course, are associated; indeed, they are inseparable.
The promotion of manufactured dairy products in Australia is handled by the Australian Dairy Corporation whilst the promotion of liquid milk sales is the responsibility of the State dairy authorities. The funding for the promotion of liquid milk sales is not directly covered by this legislation. There is some evidence- and I do not like to be seen to be indulging in carp and criticism- that both the State liquid milk handling authorities and the Australian Dairy Corporation and their predecessors have been perhaps less alert than they could have been in the area of promoting the sale of dairy products. For example, after a few decades of strong resistance to any sort of a deal with margarine manufacturers the Australian Dairy Corporation is now promoting the butter-margarine mix. It is recognising implicitly that margarine has certain physical advantages that butter does not have. Of course, implicit in the Dairy Corporation’s involvement in this program is a belief that it would have been better for the dairy industry had it been less inflexible in the past and accepted that some sort of compromise had to be reached with margarine in the spread market.
The liquid milk handling authorities are Statebased organisations. Although they are not directly funded by this legislation, the whole dairy industry is, of course, integrated. It is worth noting that last year, the Victorian Liquid Milk
Marketing Authority- the State authoritylaunched a very successful campaign to promote the sale of liquid milk as an alternative drink to Coca Cola. The Authority was successful in pushing the consumption of liquid milk in that year some 9 per cent above its trend level. Given that milk sales return at least twice as much per unit to dairy farmers as do manufactured products, it is clearly to the advantage of the whole dairy industry to sell in liquid form the greatest possible proportion of total milk production.
The Bills are designed only to remove what was seen to be some doubt about the legality of collecting levies from co-operative factories. The Opposition is not opposing the legislation.
– I too support the Bills, the basic purpose of which, as has been stated, is to regularise an existing condition. I noticed that Mr Fry when speaking on these Bills in the House of Representatives, made quite a lot of comment about the numbers of farmers and processers that have been lost to the industry. He somewhat lamented the position. However, he did not say why this was the case. I accept that the number of dairy farmers in Australia at the moment is reputedly of the order of 24,000. The number was probably three times as high some years ago. The reason why this has come about would need some elaboration and I will not go into that now. But certainly the numbers are reducing. However, whilst this is happening we have to consider that the efficiency of the industry is improving. We only have to look at the production per cow, per acre or per farmer to see just how much improvement there has been in recent years. Regrettably many of the benefits resulting from these improvements have been absorbed in cost increases and in meeting the requirements of world markets at times when our inflation rate and the value of our currency have been high. Whichever way we look at it we have to admit- and I do very willingly- that the dairy farmer has met the requirements of the market very admirably. We now have a most efficient production unit.
I have many friends as well in the processing end of the industry, and I would have to say that regrettably they have not shown the same degree of advancement as has the milk producer. I think they are now starting to improve in this respect but it has been noticeable for years that this improvement has been very slow in coming. I believe that the industry needs considerably more rationalisation. I believe that the Government and the Dairying Research Committee need to give a lot more thought to how we are to assist in this rationalisation process. The processors are now going into the production of new items. However, we do not want them just to increase their capacity. I think as we look around Australia, we will find that many manufacturers, instead of rationalising, have in fact increased their capacity. There is now quite a scramble in many areas to handle more milk and to try to encourage farmers to produce more milk when this may not be what we are looking for in any short, medium or long term program. We will require a lot more co-operation from the manufacturing sector. I believe that we genuinely need fewer factories, particularly where overlapping is obvious. If we get better utilisation we will automatically reduce some of the costs and increase farmer returns and improve production.
The Research Committee spent $878,013.20 on research in 1976-77. In 1977-78 the figure was $863,776.87. In those two years approximately $629,000 was spent on the farm end and $849,000 on the manufacturing end. The Research Committee has done a magnificent job since 1 972. 1 do not wish to query the work that it has done or its many achievements. The industry owes a great deal to this Committee and to all those whose projects have been considered and funded. But I have to ask the question: Is it achieving what we are all trying to achieve? Frankly, I doubt it because I do not think that we are meeting the market and I do not think that sufficient funding is being spent on the market.
I do not think that we know enough yet, by a long way, of what the market- that is, the people- wants. I do not think we know enough of what we have to do to the product to improve it and its saleability. I think we need to look a lot more closely at the presentation, the packaging and the promotion of the product to see whether it is attractive to the retailer by way of margin when compared with other lines. In a grocery shop it is a grocery item which is being sold and is has to compete with all other groceries for shelf space. I think there are many cases in relation to butter, cheese, yoghurt or any of these sorts of products where this has not been so.
I too would like to pay great credit to the Victorian department in the promotion of the Big M. It was the best single shot that the dairy industry has had for many years. This program has now been started in Tasmania and in today’s Tasmanian Press it was announced that there is currently a shortage of milk in Tasmania because of the success of the Big M program.
But what about the two basis products, butter and cheese? Have we done enough to win the extra shelf space and the extra sale at the point of sale for these products? Information provided to Senate Estimates Committee D states that in 1972-73 butter had 109,000 tonnes of the spread market while margarine had 75,000 tonnes of the market. The estimates for 1977-78 are that domestic consumption of butter will have dropped from 109,000 tonnes to 72,400 tonnes while at the same time margarine consumption will have increased from 75,000 tonnes to 118,000 tonnes. There are many reasons why this may have happened but really no work has been done by the Dairying Research Committee to see why this has happened, although efforts have been made by some sources to improve the position of butter.
Over the last year or so, many manufacturers have decided to take some of these projects fairly seriously. They are working on them. In particular they are working on trying to provide a more appealing presentation. The product has to appeal to the buyer before it will be taken by the buyer. I seriously urge that the Committee should change from being a highly technical body to being more of a practical body. I think that it should see how to go about spending more money on the retail end of the market. We need to look at items that are included in the Dairying Research Committee report to see where money is being spent. The 1978 Dairying Research Committee report of which I have a copy shows that there are five main areas comprising dairy farm research. They consist of soils and pastures, animal-pasture relationships, animal health, animal physiology and farm management. They are essential in the production area. Dairy manufacturing research involves fermented dairy products, whey, milkfat and milk protein products. The dairy education scheme involves training, post-graduate studentships, travel grants, dairy industry bursaries, study grants and awards for 1978. But none of these projects are oriented towards the one important factor, that is getting the product into the home market.
Much has been said recently about the cholesterol question in dairy products. I do not think that the industry has engaged in the sort of research that would determine whether it has a problem in the cholesterol field. I believe that the dairy industry itself must take an active part in coming to grips with the cholesterol question. The moneys that are spent by the fund are backed dollar for dollar by the Government. This provides a good base from which to work. If the charter that the Research Committee has does not cover items such as promotion and cholesterol investigation, then I submit that the Committee should apply to have its charter extended to cover those two items in particular or other items of a similar nature. Production of all dairy products has to be carefully monitored and organised. There are still very real problems in marketing in both the Australian and the international field. It is very worrying to find increasing access by the European Economic Community to the world markets and to several of the markets that we have traditionally chosen to supply. We have to consider the effect that this will have on New Zealand. We will have to compete with New Zealand on the markets it holds. It probably has a fairly tenuous grip on some of the markets.
I think everybody interested in the dairy industry is absolutely delighted with the prices that are being paid this year. In Tasmania, the price is up to 83c per pound and it is producing an excellent return. I hope that this price will be maintained and that seasons will prove that this is worthwhile. The great advantages that have come from the Government’s underwriting scheme have been felt right throughout the industry. The scheme has given many farmers a lot of hope to continue. Also, the Government’s controlling of inflation has made a tremendous difference to the people who are involved in both an internal and an export marketing business. The rationalising of Australia’s exchange level has also made a lot of difference in the export field.
In closing my remarks, I repeat that great care has to be taken as to priorities. Although we are currently having great success with our Big M program, we have to make sure that we do not get carried away into an over-supply situation. We must ensure that our production is geared to sales and that sales are geared to profit. I do not believe that we should be making an additional product so that we can supply it on the international markets at less than a reasonable price. We must make sure that the interests of the manufacturers cannot override the interests of the primary producer, that is the milk supplier. Although many manufacturers are still trying to increase their throughput, this may result in an increase in product for which there is no market. The research must not diminish but I believe it must be concentrated on the market end first. We have to concentrate on producing the product in the nature and form that the market, both at home and abroad, require. I support the Bills.
– in reply- The Bill further strengthens the Government’s support for the dairy industry. The passage of marketing arrangements to remove the long-standing danger that previously existed where equalisation of domestic and export returns might be endangered by the withdrawal of some factories has found support now in improved marketing arrangements. It is the decision of the Government to offer the industry underwriting support on a wider basis and at a higher level than has operated for a number of years. The increasing attention being given to the improvement in the quality of dairy products placed on the domestic market and of course on export products specifically to significant and sensitive markets such as Japan is particularly important. In this effort to improve dairying quality there has been close and continuing co-operation between Commonwealth and State authorities. A good example of that, of course, is the implementation of the Australian dairy code of factory practice.
The continuation of inquiries by the Industries Assistance Commission into problems of the dairying industry and, more particularly, the recent inquiry into the problems caused by the rising volume of imported cheese, has meant that producers, manufacturers and people interested in the domestic market must give them greater attention. I understand that a draft IAC report is now before the Government for its consideration in due course. I think it is fair to say that the support given over the past 20 years by the joint industry-Commonwealth program of dairy research, to which the present Bills refer, has been very important. The program has had the endorsement of all political parties, as did the addresses given to the Senate this evening by Senator Walsh and Senator Archer. It should be noted that over the past 20 years in excess of SI 5m has been allocated to farm and manufacturing research which has benefited the dairy industry as a whole. In the current financial year, the allocation for the dairy industry research program is about $1,159,000. That is a sizable figure and that expenditure will obtain some results for the industry.
The Bills now before the Senate remedy a deficit found in the legislation governing that research program and will ensure its continuation on an even sounder basis than previously. Senator Walsh expressed his support for the legislation and I thank him. Senator Archer dealt with a number of matters which are of considerable importance to the dairy industry. He mentioned the inroads that have been made by competitive products. Of course, over a number of years the industry has been plagued by this problem and has attempted to decide the reasons for it. The reasons seem to me to be particularly clear but it has taken the industry some time to settle down to the necessity of taking certain action to be able to meet competition. I think the comments made by Senator Archer relating to presentation and attractiveness so far as sales are concerned will be given close attention by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) when he studies the speeches that have been made on this Bill. I thank the Opposition and Senator Archer for their contributions.
Questions resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment, requests or debate.
page 1730
Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Senator Webster:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-This Bill is one of a series of Bills which the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) has introduced in this place and in respect of which he has had tremendous success. He has had the approval of all members of the Senate. He has had the support of the Opposition. His record in the last few weeks is unblemished. This is another Bill in that process. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill; in fact it supports it. The proposal is to amend the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act of 1 960. The principal Act, which is referred to and which this Bill is intended to amend, provides for a National Standards Commission which regulates the units of measurement of physical quantities and approves the designs of weighing appliances and so on. That is just a simple explanation of what is contained in the main Act.
Earlier this evening I saved one of my colleagues, if I might say so, from what could have been almost a disaster. He told me that he was going to use this Bill to attack the metric system of which he strongly disapproves. I managed to meet him in the passage and point out to him that this Bill has nothing to do with the metric system. In fact I find, strangely enough, that he is here in this chamber now. He has an interest in weights and measures as well as in the metric system. This legislation is, in a very real sense, machinery. It might even be described as an updating. I refer the Senate briefly to the report of the Birch inquiry, an independent inquiry into the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It stated:
CSIRO is specified as the guardian of the Commonwealth’s standards of measurement under the general direction of the National Standards Commission.
That in fact defines the essential relationship because the responsibility carried by CSIRO is exercised by the National Measurement Laboratory of CSIRO. In effect the Commission which is the subject of this Bill determines what are to become uniform units and standards of measurement. The practical, technological and scientific work in connection with this function is carried out by the National Measurement Laboratory. So there are two functions- one which is reposed in this Commission and the other which is reposed in CSIRO. There are some changes of arrangement in this legislation. CSIRO, for example, in the past has had a greater function, a stronger function, in the appointment of members of the Commission. This legislation changes that and gives CSIRO a more advisory function in relation to the appointment of members of the Commission. Such appointments in future will be made by the Governor-General. Those are the sorts of things which the legislation encompasses. As I said, we see no vast gulf of political principle dividing the Senate on this issue. If any of us had our life to live over and the drafting of this Bill was a key part of our life then the Bill might be slightly different. But the legislation before the Senate has the approval of the Opposition and for that reason 1 do not intend to talk any longeron it.
– in reply- I thank the Opposition and I thank Senator Button for his remarks on this Bill. I am delighted that the Opposition found it could support this particular legislation.
– Yet another piece of your legislation, Mr Minister.
– Yet another. I can see that it is due to the wisdom of my counterpart in the Opposition, the shadow Minister in charge of scientific matters. He has recognised the importance of this legislation and is anxious to see it passed hurriedly through the Senate. I think that if one refers to the second reading speech one will find that it indicates fairly clearly the matters which are behind this Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Bill. It is quite an important Bill. Indeed, I am delighted that it will be passed by the Senate at this early stage of the November sitting. I thank the Opposition.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1731
Debate resumed from 28 September 1978 on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– While I am aware that one ought not to refer to the debate just concluded, this is the first opportunity I have had to comment on Senator Button’s reference to my inability to understand the Bill we have just finished debating. I might say that I could have made an excellent speech on metric conversion and the need to reconsider it if I had been given the opportunity. As to the matter of weights and measures, it is something that has concerned me lately because a cartoon was recently published that showed me in a rather unfortunate light. If I needed some incentive to reduce weight and consider my weights and measures, then of course I got the incentive through that cartoon.
The Bill before us, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill, as Senator Webster would be aware, deals with a matter with which I have been concerned for quite a number of years. In fact, I believe I have not paid sufficient attention to the matter over the past two or three years and for this reason this Bill comes at an appropriate time for me to make some comments. There seems to be a tendency to drift away from the proposition that we all accepted during those great investigations that took place here in the Senate and by a variety of associated committees. Those investigations led us to the conclusion that the Great Barrier Reef was a single ecosystem, a heritage that was not only an Australian heritage but a world heritage. I would have thought that by now it would have been declared as part of our national heritage; in fact, we may have gone further and considered it for acceptance as a world heritage area. What seems to be emerging, and it is unfortunate, since the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority three years ago, is a concept that this great ecosystem can in some way be divided up or fragmented for a variety of purposes.
I know of Senator Webster’s concern in this matter because I remember going to Melbourne on one occasion seeking support for an expedition to the Great Barrier Reef to carry out a survey on the crown of thorns problem. We were receiving support from divers in Victoria. I think one of the divers was related to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), who is in charge of the House tonight. We were invited out to his place for entertainment, but unfortunately the lights failed. It was a precursor of the slogan that the Liberals used in the last election campaign, something that referred to the lights. On that night there just were not any lights at Senator Webster’s place and we ate in the dark. Nevertheless I enjoyed myself. Getting back to the point, at that time Senator Webster was well concerned with the future of the Great Barrier Reef. There are many people on both sides of the House concerned about the future of the Great Barrier Reef and the need to retain it in its wilderness form as one great ecosystem that needs to be protected from a variety of threats including man-made threats.
Then there was the great battle, and I use that word advisedly, against drilling on the Great Barrier Reef which placed the Premier of Queensland at a disadvantage. It almost brought him to his defeat. He had a proxy from somewhere which he took out of his pocket and used, unlike Mr Gorton who on a similar occasion refused to use a proxy to survive. The great Bjelke-Petersen used his proxy to survive but was brought to that point by a campaign against oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. That campaign was mounted by people throughout Australia and led to the establishment, together with the various investigations carried out by the Senate, of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The point I am making is that there is still no declaration of areas of the reef as a national park. I ask the Minister why this is the case. Further, might I just pronounce a fear that again a lot of speculation is emerging about oil exploration on the reef. On 11 May 1977 the Nation Review reported that a draft Cabinet submission had recommended oil exploration at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef and the Government has not said no to that. In spite of questions asked there still has not been a straight no.
I pose to the Minister a question that he may pose to the Minister who is directly responsible: Just why has it come about that we again begin to speculate on oil drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef when, after so much controversy, so much research, so much investigation, it was decided that oil drilling just was not to be considered? It seems to me to be so unnecessary that the Government should now be engaged in investigation as to whether oil spillages will affect coral when the overwhelming consensus of people not only in Queensland but throughout Australia is that there ought to be no oil drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. So all this speculation, all this research, all this inquiry into the effects of oil on coral, to me seems to be so unnecessary when one concludes that the strong popular feeling is against any drilling for oil on the Great Barrier Reef.
I do not want in any way to understate the great concern about any mineral or oil exploration in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. I also do not want suddenly to have to accept or to consider, together with many of the people who were engaged in the campaign against oil drilling in the area of the Reef, the possibility of the campaign needing to start all over again. We have been through all that and our memories are long. If the Government is speculating about oil drilling, let it say so clearly so that we can again commence the campaign to convince both the Government of Queensland and the Federal government that that really is not on. The unions will not accept oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. The population of Queensland as a whole will not accept oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. Any effort in that direction will prove to be wasted. I suggest also that the mining and oil exploration companies ought not to be permitted to show any inclination to commence drilling or to commence lobbying for drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. I make this suggestion because such an inclination would bring us back into the area of disputation and contention. Such is the feeling that surrounds the protection of the Reef that oil drilling will not be accepted by the people at large.
What concerns me also is that the Government has decided for some reason or other that the States should be given back- I take it that this was taken away from the States by legislation and various High Court decisions- the responsibility for the supervision of waters within the three-mile limit. I want a clear statement from the Minister and the Government as to whether the Commonwealth Government has handed back the responsibility for the supervision of waters within the three-mile limit to the State governments, especially the Government of Queensland. If it has done so, we will find that the Great Barrier Reef will be again subject to the mercy of the Premier of Queensland and those who support him.
I know that Senator Maunsell is taking notes. He will possibly say that I have engaged in an unjustified attack on the Premier of Queensland, who is a great national hero and who is two months away from holding the record for being Premier of the State. However, I say that in the past the Great Barrier Reef has almost proven to be Bjelke-Petersen’s downfall.- Looking at the events of the past few weeks, I think that it is a pity that it has not. The future of the Great Barrier Reef, a national and world heritage, cannot be entrusted to the decisions of Mr BjelkePetersen. I ask the Minister whether it is correct that the responsibility for the three-mile limit now rests with the Government of Queensland. If that is the case, let us start showing our concern about the future of the Great Barrier Reef.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is already at a disadvantage. Its jurisdiction does not extend further than the shallow water around each island. The Bjelke-Petersen Government has allowed, and even encouraged, the development of industrial complexes on these islands as well as along the coast. These industrial complexes are a very real threat to the ecology of the Great Barrier Reef. Even with this knowledge the Federal Government seems to be intent on handing over even more of the responsibility for the Reef to those people who can be described only as vandals- vandals who seem to be in control of the Government of Queensland.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority seems to be in a strange position. I have not been able to ascertain who is the Chairman of the Authority. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me that. It was Don McMichael. Who is it at the present time? Is there an Acting Chairman? If so, who is he? Why is the position still being filled in an acting capacity? If I recall correctly, the legislation was changed some time ago to alter the status of the person who could be the Chairman of the Authority. Why is there a delay in filling the position? What is the purpose of it? Is it to weaken the standing and status of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Is it to give added strength to the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, which was supposed to be merely an advisory committee? Incidentally, the Consultative Committee was set up to enable people with particular expertise to assist the Authority. I should have thought that the Consultative Committee would consist of people with a special interest in the Great Barrier Reef. I should have thought that it would consist of not only environmentalists but also laymen who have a sincere desire to see that the Great Barrier Reef is maintained as a single ecosystem- people who realise its importance and know its worth to the community at large. In that regard I refer not only to the Australian community but also to the world community at large.
I have always questioned the character and composition of the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee. I have just been handed a list of the membership of that Committee. Mr J. F. S.
Brown, the Chairman, is a member of the Queensland Confederation of Industry. The Committee members include Mr L. F. Backen of the Commonwealth Department of National Resources, Mr J. C. Ballingall of the Queensland Commercial Fishermen’s State Council, Dr D. W. Connell of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr P. B. Eccles of the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Mr P. F. Ellis of the Queensland Co-ordinator-General’s Department. Mr Gilmartin of the Australian Institute of Marine Science was on the list but his name seems to have been deleted. Other Committee members include Mr E. Hegerl of the Queensland Conservation Council, Mr J. H. Izatt of the Queensland Game Fishing Association, Mr J. P. Killoran- a familiar name- of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, Dr J. T. Baker of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Dr P. Mather of the Great Barrier Reef Committee, Professor J. D. Ovington of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Mr A. J. Peel of the Queensland Department of Harbours and Marine, Mr E. A. Purnell-Webb of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry, Mr G. W. Saunders of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, Professor K. Stark of the James Cook University of North Queensland, Mr J. Wilson of the Queensland Tourist Bureau and Mr J. T. Woods of the Queensland Department of Mines.
I am reinforced by some of the names on that list. Nevertheless, on reflection, there seems to me to be too many representatives of the bureaucracy upon the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee. It seems to me that there are representatives of a variety of organisations whose interests would conflict with the general interest, which 1 believe is a strong interest, namely, the protection of the Great Barrier Reef as a whole. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill will ensure that the representative of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee will remain a member of that Authority, as he should do; that the representative status is that of a direct appointee. The Authority’s representative on the Committee is a member or an acting member of the Authority. The Bill delineates the northern boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef. It closes off the tip of Cape York to ensure that the region has been legally declared.
This Bill is concerned mostly with changes in legislative machinery. On the whole these changes are acceptable to the Opposition, but one of the proposed amendments does not satisfy us. For that reason we intend to move an amendment to sub-section 5 of section 10 of the principal Act by omitting paragraph (a) of clause 3 of the Bill and substituting the following paragraph:
I think that amendment will be circulated.
– Will it be circulated tonight?
– I take it that the Clerks have that in hand. If not, I should hand in the proposed amendment so that it is available for the Committee stage of the Bill. I think that there is sufficient time for us to go through all stages of this Bill tonight. We will be moving that amendment at the Committee stage. The Government wishes to change the legal requirement for the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority so that he must hold special academic qualifications and have experience in the field of biological conservation. The Government wishes to substitute for the appointment of the Chairman the requirement that the Chairman will have to possess qualifications or extensive experience in a field related to functions of the Authority. We agree that the existing requirement is too rigid. Very few people would qualify under such strenuous demands, but the Government’s proposed amendment means that the Chairman need have no relevant experience or qualifications; that is, no environmental or scientific experience or qualifications. It would mean that the Authority could be made up of three people without specifically relevant experience or qualifications. Of course, that supports a query I raised previously about the reason for the delay. Because I am a suspicious person the suspicion arises that perhaps the changes are being made to fit a particular person that the Government may have in mind. I am entitled to express that suspicion strongly, having in mind the track record of the Government when it comes to making appointments. Either it deletes people it does not like or it bides its time and appoints people whom it specially requires and who it believes will carry out its requirements and wishes.
– You would never do that?
-The trouble with us, if I might say so, is that we took a view that such behaviour was reprehensible. I know that we were always accused of creating jobs for the boys, but we really did not know how to do it. If we need an example of how it should be done we should be looking at the record of appointments of this Government over the past couple of years because this Government can do it with impunity. It is part of its ethic, but it is certainly not part of ours. When we do it, we are rather clumsy about it. When the Government does it, it does it with style, it does it regularly and it gets away with it because it is never really exposed. Honourable senators should not divert me from what 1 was saying because I do not wish to take up too much time of the Senate. I know that there is other business to come before the Senate. We were promised that legislation would come forward rapidly. It is not my place to be holding the floor to make the Government comfortable. Judging from the way we are proceeding, if the Government does not produce some further legislation for debate tonight we may as well pack up and go home at 9.30. That, of course, is a reflection on the Government. It is not a reflection on the Opposition. We maintain our position and we make our comments, but at least we expect the Government to be keeping legislation up to us. I am afraid it is failing to do so. If the Government Whip suddenly races through the door and starts to complain about the comments I am making, let him reflect very carefully on just what we are going to be doing between 9.30 and 10.30 tonight.
The other two members of the Authority are not required to have specific qualifications or experience. If the Chairman is not required to have specific qualifications and experience, what will be the status of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? The Authority is the paramount body responsible for the future protection of the Reef. Having in mind the representations from so many departments and from such a varied field, the Consultative Committee, if it were not checked by a firm strong, reasoned and experienced Authority, could lead in my view to the fragmentation of the Reef. My view is that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s special scientific status would protect the Reef against any desire or endeavour of the Consultative Committee to fragment and to divide this vast area.
Why is there to be no legal requirement on any member of the Authority to have experience or qualifications directly relevant to the environmental sciences? We believe that many people, conservationists and others, will see this alteration to the professional requirements of the Chairman as an attempt to re-order the legislation and to fit it to a particular nominee for the job. That spells out the matter in more particular terms than the general terms in which I expressed it previously. The Australian Conservation Foundation is disturbed by this proposed amendment. It did not want any change to the legal requirement for relevant expertise. Although it is true that the existing requirements make it too difficult to find suitably qualified people for the job of Chairman, I believe that this ought not to lead to the weakening of the qualifications of the status of the position. Surely there are many men or women overseas with sufficient status who, given the necessary economic incentive, would take on such a responsible and worthwhile job.
There is a way in which the Government can ease these difficulties and at the same time fulfil the obvious need for the relevant environmental and scientific.experience. We will be moving an amendment to section 10 of the principal Act. We will move that in sub-section (5) the words the field of biological conservation’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘the environmental sciences’. I believe that our amendment would serve to calm the justifiable fears of the conservationists that the Chairman could be merely a cipher for government policies. It would make the job accessible to a wider variety of people who, although eminently suitable in terms of experience and qualifications, nevertheless are unable to fulfil the demands of the existing requirements.
I could add to those remarks. I could repeat my concern, but again I have a feeling that my concerns about the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and the many threats that face it are shared by others. There is no doubt that the Authority grew out of that concern. All of us in the Senate desire to see that the Authority works effectively for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. One does not need to list the threats to the Reef from pollution from the rivers and the industrial complexes such as those at Gladstone. One can go back over the ground and consider the threat to the Barrier Reef from the movement of tankers in the channel coming from the north to the south. One can also speak of the cleaning out of tankers travelling between ports which adds to the general pollution of the area. One can speak of the threat to the Reef from insecticides which are used in a prolific way to control the pests that invade our cane fields.
One could also point out the threat to the Reef from the tourist industry and the penetration of the Reef by people without proper advice on how to prevent the Reef from being damaged in any way by an overcollection of shells or by the overexposure of some of the micro-organisms that exist on the Barrier Reef. One can also speak of the continuing threat to the Reef from the crownofthorns starfish, a problem which still exists. In addition to those problems one could also clearly state that unless the problems are met, properly investigated and understood then the overall standard and acceptance of the Reef as an area of tremendous natural beauty might in some way be diminished. If that acceptance is allowed to diminish then it will permit commercial interests to invade the area.
It needs to be accepted that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is a prestigous authority with a great responsibility which this legislation gives to it. It would be unwise to allow that Authority and its status to be in any way diminished. What the Opposition expects to do in support of the Bill, by way of the proposed amendment, is to make it easier for the Government to carry out the wishes of the people of Australia as expressed many times within the Senate.
– I rise to support the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill. If we go back into the history of this matter we will find that as a result of an inquiry by the House of Representatives in 1972 into what should be done about the Great Barrier Reef the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act came into force during the term of the Labor Government in 1 975 with the support of the then Opposition. All that the Government seeks to do by this Bill is to make a few small amendments to the Act to streamline it and to make the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority more effective. The only matter about which Senator Georges and apparently the Opposition are concerned relates to the position of Chairman of the Authority. The Government’s position has been explained in the second reading speech and also in the findings of the House of Representatives Legislation Committee which considered the legislation. There was no debate in the other place. The Committee report was accepted and the legislation was passed in the other place without comment. One can see from the report that the explanations for the proposed amendments are quite justifiable and feasible. I cannot see the ramifications that Senator Georges says he sees in clause 3. Let us face it, if we have a chairman who is responsible for looking after this marine park and for all the interests which may be involved then it would be much better to have as chairman someone who could talk to these people, combine all the interests, coordinate all the thinking and use the professional expertise which is available to the Authority to perform the technical tasks.
It also seems to me that Senator Georges is a bit concerned about what might happen if the three-mile limit jurisdiction is returned to the Queensland Government. One would imagine that Senator Georges had resigned himself to the fact that Joh Bjelke-Peterson, who is now aged about 65, will be the Premier of Queensland for the next 20 years.
– No.
-The honourable senator is more or less saying that. After all, if control over the three-mile limit were handed back to Queensland tomorrow it would take years before all the machinery could be worked out, including approval by the Authority and the Federal Government to continue drilling. I am very pleased to think that Senator Georges maintains that Mr Bjelke-Petersen will be the Premier of Queensland for a long time to come. It also interests me to think that Senator Georges has no faith in the electors of Queensland being able to look after the interests of the Great Barrier Reef. He thinks that the electors of Australia, including those way over on the other side in Western Australia have more interest in the Barrier Reef than the electors of Queensland. Irrespective of who looks after the interests of those three miles, whether it is Bjelke-Petersen or a Labor Party which is in Government, I am sure that the electors of Queensland and the Government of the day will ensure that the Barrier Reef is protected. There is an attitude that we should not have any commercial development whatsoever on the Barrier Reef or anywhere near it, that it should be a reserve where no one can go and there should be a ban on the area.
– Who said that?
– That is more or less what the honourable senator is saying. He has said that he is disturbed about all the commercial interests that might start on the Barrier Reef. I suggest that very few people in Australia today would have seen the Barrier Reef if it had not been for commercial development on places like Green Island off Cairns, all the other islands off Mackay and Heron Island and others where, under controlled development, tourists are able to go on conducted tours. This prevents the robbing of shells and the disturbing of marine life. This is the best way to handle the situation rather that letting people go out on to the reef in their own little boats. I do not know who would be able to patrol the areas because we do not have enough patrol boats to look after fishing vessels let alone the thousands of canoes and little motor boats that might be rushing out to the Reef. It is people in these boats who do the damage. I think the more controlled tourism that we have on the Great Barrier reef the more Australians and overseas visitors will see for themselves this wonder of the world. It is not much good having this Reef and saying that it is a wonderful sight if we do not allow anyone to see it. I believe that reasonable development on the Barrier Reef should be allowed to proceed, provided it is under complete control to ensure that there is no chance of pollution or disruption to the ecology of the area. Senator Georges mentioned the crown-of-thorns starfish. With the establishment of the Australian Institute of Marine Science at Townsville there is no doubt that in the years to come the problems associated with the crownof.thorns which, after all, is just one of those biological things that happen every so many years–
– Where have you got proof of that?
– If Senator Georges goes out to the Reef and traces where the crown.ofthorns has been in the last five or six years he will see that the regrowth is twice as good as it was before. If he goes to Port Douglas or any of those places and talks to the people who go to the Reef often, particularly the fishermen, they will tell him what has happened over the years. In any event the Institute of Marine Science at Townsville will carry out the necessary research to ensure that problems such as the crownof.thorns starfish will be controlled in future.
As I said earlier, I welcome these changes to the Act. They are only minor changes to an Act that was brought down by the Labor Government. The views expressed by Senator Georges and apparently by some members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to the effect that we are going to throw away the Great Barrier Reef, that there is an ulterior motive behind all these changes, minor as they are, and that eventually we will allow indiscriminate oil drilling on the Reef with no controls, are, of course, absolute nonsense. Senator Georges should be aware that the people of Queensland would not allow indiscriminate drilling on the Reef.
– They will not allow any.
– I would not say that. Not everyone is opposed to development of any kind. If it can be proved that drilling can be done without damaging the Reef, I am sure that the majority of people, even Queenslanders, would agree that it should be allowed. We cannot stop development but we must make sure that no damage whatsoever will be done to the Reef before any of that sort of drilling is allowed. Senator Georges referred to previous drilling on the Reef. I believe that once all the dust cleared and we read the full reports of what happened at Repulse Bay, with the tides and what have you, we saw that there was no danger whatsoever to the Reef from that drilling. It would all have been in-shore drilling anyway. However, this is what happens when people become involved in emotional issues and allow the facts to be clouded. There is no question that in the future we will see oil rigs at the top end of the Great Barrier Reef, particularly near Papua New Guinea, even if they are only oil rigs allowed there by the Papua New Guinea Government. They must have just as much effect on the Reef, if drilling does affect it, as anything that happens within the three-mile limit of the Queensland coast. I want to assure Senator Georges, who is concerned about the appointment of the Chairman, that I certainly have no interest in the job and am not looking for it. I am quite sure that whoever the Government appoints will be someone who will be able to carry out those responsibilities efficiently and effectively.
– I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on this Bill. I recognise immediately the interest of both sides of the House in the maintenance and preservation of one of the great wonders of the world, the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Georges and Senator Maunsell represented the feelings of people from their State of Queensland, and Queensland certainly has a responsibility in this area. The Government is amending an Act which was brought down by a previous Government. I listened to Senator Georges’ comments in proposing the amendment moved by the Opposition. I can assure him that the Government has looked at the amendment fairly closely. It would be encouraged to accept it if it were reasonable but Senator Georges would know from debate in the House of Representatives that our side of politics does not agree with this proposition. Therefore we will be opposing the amendment.
Senator Georges brought up a considerable number of points and I do not know whether I will be able to touch upon each of them. He commented that there had been no declaration of areas of national park in the Great Barrier Reef and questioned why that was so. There are a number of authorities associated with this matter and from my own knowledge I am not able to say why that has not been done. I do recall that in earlier discussions it was proposed that some areas should be reserved within the Barrier Reef. I am advised that proposals to drill on the Great Barrier Reef have been put forward over a number of years. From time to time one reads articles in the newspapers which suggest that there may be certain prospective areas along the very great distance covered by the Reef. I think that Senator Maunsell raised an important point when he indicated that we would have little control over what happens in those areas where our waters join with those of Papua New Guinea. In case of an oil spill or any other problem we would have little control.
There have been on-going and active discussions relating to proposals whereby the effects of an oil spill on the Great Barrier Reef could be tested. Various proposals have been put forward during the last three or four months. There must be an energetic program to understand fully the effect of an oil spill on parts of the Reef. Of course, such spills do not necessarily come about only because of drilling. I would have thought that Senator Georges could have included in his comments the effects of the movement of tankers just outside the Reef. If he is right in thinking that drilling may present a problem, I would imagine that there would be a much greater problem were a tanker to founder. Senator Georges did not refer to that problem in his address this evening.
– Why have both? The tankers are bad enough. So you are going to add oil drilling as well. That is the point I am making. I know one is as bad as the other.
– I take the point you make, Senator Georges. However, I certainly say to you that the Government is involved in much wider thinking about the protection of the Reef generally. This discussion revolves around getting decisions based on competent advice. Senator Georges mentioned the three-mile limit and I can say only that it is the Commonwealth’s general view that there should be greater power within the States in regard to this matter. This has led to statements during the last 12 months by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in discussions at Premiers Conferences and following the High Court decision that power in relation to those waters in actual fact lies with the Commonwealth. I would think that within the near future we will see decisions being made which will give the States some power in relation to those waters. Naturally, the Commonwealth is not able adequately to supervise the limit without engaging in great expense. This Government shows in its federalism policy that it wishes the States to accept their responsibilities and this is certainly an appropriate area for them to do so. One of the main points that Senator Georges discussed- I understand this to be the main thrust of the Opposition’s amendment- was the qualifications of individuals. The proposed amendment as put forward by the Opposition does little to remove the existing uncertainties. I think anybody reading the present Act would recognise that its original drafting, whatever the instructions were at that time was not competent. I think that Senator Georges might agree with me on that point. For example, it is stated in section 10 (5) of the Act:
The Chairman shall be a person who is suitable for appointment by reason of qualifications relevant to and experience and reputation in the field of biological conservation.
It is a pretty onerous task to place upon any government to find a person who may represent -
– You have not tried hard enough.
- Senator Georges says that the Government has not tried hard enough. I think the honourable senator would agree with me that in the selection of a chairman it is not just the qualifications that are important. Other qualifications are necessary when choosing a chairman. This would be the position on the honourable senator’s side of politics as well as on the Government’s side of politics. If one were looking for the chairman of a medical council, it may be necessary to select a qualified doctor. In my experience of the refined areas of science in which I am obliged to work, the qualifications required of an applicant are never spelt out by giving the degrees or the experience that an applicant must have for the position to be filled. Generally, one would select a chairman because of his qualifications, competence and the regard that his fellows may have for him. He would need to have a reputation in the field. But the fact is that at this time we are amending that section of the Act. If the honourable senator reads section 10 (6) of the Act, he will see that the proposal of the Government is to withdraw the word parttime’ and to state that a member of the Authority shall be a person with qualifications or extensive experience in a field related to the functions of the Authority. Senator Georges puts forward the proposal that the member should have qualifications in the field of environmental sciences. I note that that was exactly the proposal advanced by the honourable senator’s colleague in another place. I do not know whether it is the aim of the Opposition to find somebody from overseas or what the real thrust of the Opposition may be in this respect. If the honourable senator looks at the courses in environmental sciences which have been recently established in this country, he will see that the scope for selection is very limited if we attempt to find an Australian with the necessary qualifications in environmental sciences. It is stated in a document I have before me that in 1974 the University of New England offered diploma courses in natural resources. In 1973 the University of New South Wales had an applied science master’s degree course in environmental pollution control. Very few students in those recently established courses would be available for consideration or selection for this position. I think it would not take much judgment on the part of honourable senators to decide that a chairman for such a vital Authority needs to have perhaps more than qualifications in the environmental sciences. We view the proposed amendment as being severely restrictive. We believe that it makes uncertain the type of person to whom the Authority may be tied. It is an unnecessary restriction. I am advised that it is not usual for such qualifications to be specified in Acts, other than those which, as I have said, are relevant to medical positions or legal positions. The suitability of a chairman is to be determined not by technical provisions in the Act but rather by the calibre, integrity and suitability of the applicant appointed. I believe that the fears espoused by Senator Georges are not removed in any way by his proposed amendment. The present restrictive provisions that I have mentioned and those suggested by Senator Georges may prevent an eminently suitable, capable and qualified person from gaining appointment. The Authority is presently headed by an Acting Chairman- Senator Georges queried his position- who is Mr Horrie Higgs. He is also the present Director of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. When the amending Bill is passed, the Government will move towards the appointment of a full-time chairman to replace Mr Higgs.
I think I have dealt with the points raised by Senator Georges. I noted the points raised by Senator Maunsell. He reiterated some of the points that have been made relating to the position of chairman. He instanced the interest of the people of Queensland that that important area is preserved. From my visits to Queensland I certainly understand that there is great concern about the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef. That concern will continue. Senator Maunsell mentioned that some commercial development is necessary. I do not think that there would be any argument about that in the Senate. Honourable senators on both sides of the chamber take pride and encouragement in the fact that proper commercial development exists along the coast of Queensland, which is so precious to everybody. I thank honourable senators for their comments. This is a Bill of great importance to all honourable senators, many of whom would wish to speak this evening. In view of the lateness of the hour, I thank them for their reticence in contributing at this time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
– I have an amendment to clause 3, which reads:
Section 10 of the Principal Act is amended-
by omitting sub-section (5); and
by omitting from sub-section (6) ‘part-time’.
I move:
Copies of the amendment have been circulated. We have debated the proposition at the second reading stage of the Bill. I do not wish to enlarge upon that debate. I believe that what the Opposition is proposing will at least give some very definite limits to the nature of the appointment. The Government’s amendment will have the effect of opening the field and the person appointed may not be an expert in the field. It is not necessary for the chairman of certain scientific instrumentalities or boards to be expert in the scientific area- he may be an administrator. However, the Great Barrier Reef is an area of special concern and I think it is necessary to have a scientist as Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority- the dominant person of a committee of three. Since there has been some difficulty in obtaining someone with qualifications in the biological field, we could widen the concept by appointing someone who is an expert in the environmental sciences. I cannot understand why the Government does not accept that proposition. Perhaps the intention of the Government is to place the Authority under a commercial type of administrative control which in some way would limit, inhibit or put down the scientific expertise of the rest of the Authority.
I ask the Minister to give me the names and the qualifications of the two other members of the Authority. I have already read into the record the names of the members of the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee. I think the Senate will appreciate that a consultative committee should function in the way that its name implies- it should be consultative. We should never have a situation in which the tail wags the dog. Perhaps when the Minister gives us the names of the other two members of the Authority and details of their qualifications we will be able to judge how much more strongly we should push our amendment.
- Senator Georges asked for details of the membership of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I have already mentioned that Mr H. J. Higgs is the Acting Chairman of the Authority. Of course, Senator Georges will be familiar with Dr J. T. (Joe) Baker, who is the Director of the Roche Research Institute of Marine Pharmacology–
– At Dee Why.
– In Senator Baume ‘s State. He is a very eminent scientist in his field. The other member is Mr Schubert, who is the Co-ordinator-General of Public Works in Queensland and who is also a particularly eminent man in this field. Senator Georges should recognise that they are men of great quality.
I reiterate quickly that what we have been attempting to do has been to get rid of the confinement of certain words that were placed in the Act. We feel we have done that. The Opposition’s amendment would have the effect of again confining the wording of the legislation by stating that there will be qualifications in the environmental sciences. Section ( 10) 5 of the Act, which we are seeking to omit, states:
The Chairman shall be a person who is suitable for appointment by reason of qualifications relevant to, and experience and reputation in. the field of biological conservation.
We have found that provision to be most restrictive. I think we would find the Opposition’s amendment most restrictive. We are proposing that sub-section (5) be omitted and that subsection (6) be amended. Sub-section (6) would then read:
A member shall be a person with qualifications or extensive experience in a field relating to the functions of the Authority.
Really, I think there is nothing more for me to say on that point at the present time. We feel that the legislation will provide for a wider field of selection. It is obvious that if a person has the qualifications that Senator Georges suggests he should have they would be a further mark in his favour in the selection of a Chairman. On reflection it would not be desirable to confine the selection of the Chairman to someone from the field of the environmental sciences. The Government opposes the amendment.
-I think that the Minister is under a misconception. By substituting the environmental sciences for the biological sciences we are broadening the field considerably. There is no doubt that the environmental sciences cover a larger field than the biological sciences. They are directed fairly strictly to biological expertise, but the environmental sciences can cover a fairly large field. They can cover ecologists and many other people. With my layman’s knowledge, I have gained the impression that we are broadening the field.
The Government is opening the area of appointment so that a person with little scientificability but considerable commercial and administrative qualifications could be appointed. The Government may argue that this is necessary. We argue that this is dangerous when one takes into consideration the position of the two other members of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Mr Schubert is a distinguished publicservant in Queensland. He is, as the Minister stated, the Co-ordinator-General of Public Works in Queensland. But his position on the Authority is that of Queensland ‘s representative. I should have thought that the Queensland appointee would have come from the ecological, environmental or biological sciences. There are quite a number of people in Queensland who would have been suited to hold that position. Nevertheless, it has been decided that Mr Schubert is to be the person to hold the position.
Dr Baker is eminent in his own field of pharmacology. He is the Director of the Roche Research Institute of Marine Pharmacology, which has done a deal of research on the Great Barrier Reef. But that research has been directed to its own interests. He is not an ecologist or a scientist in the environmental area. Perhaps I would be doing him an injustice if I were to say that he is not a scientist in the biological area. Perhaps the Minister will give me some information which will enlighten me further on this point. But these two men are limited in respect of the basic scientific requirements that are needed for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and the development of a concept that will protect the delicate ecosystem of the Reef.
I have some concern about the Government’s proposition. It is quite possible that as a result of the Government’s amendment we will have as members of the Authority an administrator and a co-ordinator-general, who do not have the necessary scientific background, and who could outvote Dr Baker and make decisions which could be detrimental to the future of the Great Barrier Reef. So I am not comforted by what the Minister has said. I merely suggest that he may do better if he accepts the proposition that the Opposition is putting forward, that is, that the amendment will broaden the rather narrowness of the original Bill and as such should really be acceptable. The danger of having an Authority that is too limited in its scientific knowledge and its scientific dedication to service of the Great Barrier Reef needs to be avoided.
– I recognise the strength with which Senator Georges puts his argument. I am not actually impressed with the assertion that the Opposition ‘s amendment would widen the ambit of people who could be selected for the Authority. After hearing Senator Georges I am convinced that a re-reading of his words in the Hansard will indicate the confinement that such a provision would place on a suitable appointee. Senator Georges questioned the academic qualifications of Joe Baker.
– You could give them to me. I am sorry if I questioned them.
– 1 am very anxious to give them to the honourable senator because Dr Baker is the type of man we are very anxious to have serving on such a body. Indeed we are very proud to have him.
– Come on, let us hear his qualifications.
- Senator Georges wants to hear only the qualifications and not something of the excellence of the man.
– Let us have the qualifications. I agree with his excellence but let us see what his field is like.
– We both agree that we have an excellent appointee there. His academic qualifications are that primary and secondary schooling at Warwick and Townsville -
– Let us get to the tertiary stuff.
– Does Senator Geoeges want to get to the hard stuff?
– Yes.
– His academic qualifications are: Bachelor of Science at the University of
Queensland, 1956; Bachelor of Science, Honours First Class, University of Queensland, 1958; Master of Science, University of Queensland, 1960; Doctor of Philosophy, University of Queensland, 1966 -
– In what?
-He is a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute; a Fellow of the Chemical Society of England; a member of the Australian Marine Sciences Association; a member of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science; a member of the Marine Technology Society of the United States of America; a member of the American Chemical Society; a member of the Society of Sigma-XI of the United States of America and a member of the Royal Society of Queensland.
– Enough, enough.
– Whatever the point is, I think that we would agree that the two gentlemen, other than the Acting Chairman at present, certainly have a basis of excellence on which to be appointed. We on the Government side believe that we are making the correct amendments. I can assure Senator Georges that the points that have been brought forward by the Opposition in the House of Representatives and in this place have had full consideration. We still oppose the amendment.
– Putting the Acting Chairman to one side, I put it to the Minister that neither of the present members- Dr Baker and Mr Schubert- has the correct qualifications. I am glad that the Minister read out Dr Baker’s qualifications. He is an expert in his field, but he is not a biologist, he is not an ecologist and he is not an environmentalist. Neither is Mr Schubert. What the Minister is suggesting is that there is a possibility that the third person to be appointed will not be any of these either. That is what I am talking about. The Government is appointing a person who has all the qualifications in his particular field, but he has no expertise, no discipline, in the three areas that are most necessary and which ought to be represented in full on the Authority. What the Government is doing by this Bill is altering the qualifications to add another person who, though he may be excellent in his own field, may be similar to the other two but neither an environmentalist nor a biologist nor an ecologist. It seems to me that the Government is downgrading the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and it is allowing, shall we say, access to those who would seek to consider the
Great Barrier Reef as other than a very important and delicate ecosystem that needs to have the supervision of a biologist or an ecologist or an environmentalist, or all three.
– Do you know what the degree is leading to that of ecologist?
– Let me say that the early stages of Dr Baker’s training are those which would lead one to become an ecologist or an environmentalist or, for that matter, a biologist. But when he came to his speciality and to his discipline, of course he confined himself to the pharmacological area and to the chemical area. I am getting out of my depth to a certain extent, but I know what I am talking about even if I cannot use the correct term. I know just exactly what is likely to happen unless the status of the Authority is maintained at the highest scientific level that is concerned with the protection of the Reef, the ecology of the Reef, the environment of the Reef and the biological life of the Reef.
– We acknowledge the comments that Senator Georges has made as to the type of qualifications that the Opposition would like to see of a person holding a position on the Authority. His words will be impressed upon the Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom).I am sure that he will take note of them. I can only say that we have considered that matter. We feel that the situation would be the opposite to what the Opposition is suggesting. It would be a confinement as far as we are concerned whereas the Opposition feels that it would be an advantage. We must leave the matter there. I suggest that we vote on the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Webster) read a third time.
page 1741
– I advise the Senate that I have been informed by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter as follows: An industrial dispute at the Government Printing Office has resulted in a cessation of work at least until a meeting of employees is held at 8 a.m. tomorrow. This means that the Hansard report of today’s proceedings will not be published at the usual time tomorrow. If work is resumed following that meeting, the Government Printer expects to be able to publish Hansard tomorrow evening.
-by leave- We are now advised of an industrial dispute. I consider it important that we should be advised of the nature of the dispute and the reason for it. I think you, Mr President, have given us some general information. But it is coming to a stage now where Parliament is being affected by people removing their labour. This happened with the strike in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. We found ourselves without the services, most unnecessarily, of our staff at Parliament House. Subsequently we discovered that the causes for that stoppage could have been avoided. I wonder, Mr President, whether you could tell us just what is the nature of the dispute and whether it is being, shall we say, handled in a way which may prolong it to the disadvantage of the Parliament? Is there any way in which we can rapidly come to some understanding of the problems of the people who are involved in this dispute? Why is it that we are faced with a withdrawal of labour? In my experience I cannot recall a previous occasion when this has happened. We find that the records of the Parliament will not be available in time for the sitting tomorrow. Perhaps it might be reasonable in the circumstances for us all to go out on strike in sympathy because if we do not have the records, how can we proceed to carry out our work effectively. If you gave us the reason, Mr President, for this action then we may have cause to go out in support. Without enlarging on that, Mr President, I wonder whether you could assure us that we are not entering an area of industrial disputation that could easily be avoided.
– I must inform the Senate that I have no details at all in respect of this industrial dispute. The advice 1 have just given to honourable senators is that which has been given to me. I know of no detail about this matter at this stage.
page 1741
Debate resumed.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a first time.
Senator WEBSTER (Victoria-Minister for
Science) (10.2)- I move:
The second reading speech is a short speech. With the concurrence of the Opposition I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate amounts required for expenditure in 1978-79 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund other than those amounts provided by special appropriation and those included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1978-79. The amounts sought for each department are shown in detail in the second Schedule to the Bill, and total $8,755,462,000. This Bill seeks authority for the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) to issue $4,91 1,423,000, the balance of $3,844,039,000 having already been authorised by the Supply Act (No. 1 ) 1 978-79.
The expenditure program of the Government was outlined in the Budget Speech and the Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document ‘Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending on 30 June 1979’ which was referred to the Senate Estimates Committees on 12 September for examination and report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 1742
Motion (by Senator Webster) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– As honourable senators know, I am privileged to be the Senate’s representative on the Council of the National Library of Australia. I also enjoy the privilege of serving as its deputy chairman. It was in these capacities that during the recess I visited Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea on the occasion of the presentation and opening of the new Papua New Guinea National Library. The Papua New Guinea National Library was Australia’s independence gift and was officially presented by the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, and opened by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Somare. A welcome guest at these functions was the Honourable E. G. Whitlam, a former Prime Minister, who was in office when the gift was announced. His Government’s gift and his presence were referred to by both Prime Ministers in the several speeches that were made during the course of the events in connection with the occasion.
The establishment of a national library was approved by the Papua New Guinea Government in January 1975. Later that year, the same Government, in response to an invitation from the then Australian Government to nominate the form which Australia’s independence gift might take, suggested a national library. The Prime Minister of Australia at that time, Mr Whitlam, announced on 16 September 1975 that the gift from the Australian Government would take the form of a national library building, along with associated books and equipment. It was announced at the time that the site of the building had already been allocated and Mr Whitlam said that the basis of co-operation and joint consultation would proceed in matters of design, structure and library content. He pointed out that when completed the National Library would truly reflect the wishes of the two countries and their people. Since then, this co-operation and joint consultation to which Mr Whitlam referred has continued. A task force of Australian officials from the National Library and from the Department of Foreign Affairs has been in New Guinea and has been in touch with Papua New Guinea officials, and, in particular, with Sir John Yocklunn, the National Librarian of the Papua New Guinea National Library.
The final design very much reflects the wishes of both governments. The result is what I would call an appropriate addition to the other national buildings at Waigani, adjacent to Port Moresby. Honourable senators would be pleased with the new building. It is a large steel-framed building mainly air conditioned. It provides comfortable conditions for staff and members of the public. Local timbers have been used in the panels and in the furniture. Australian slate also has been included. A key feature of the building is the two steeply pitched roofs. They provide what the architect called sun-screened lighting over some very important areas within the Library itself. Two of these are over the public reading area and the executive area. These roof forms are sympathetic with the traditional architecture of the area. I would add that it is the Library itself that will be of most value to Papua New Guinea. The contribution from the Australian people will give the National Library of Australia a continuing connection with Papua New Guinea, a continuing interest in its library services and, indeed, a continuing involvement in all the benefits that a library brings to any community.
In the early days of the development of the Papua New Guinea Library, Mr Arthur Ellis of the National Library here in Canberra, spent considerable time in Papua New Guinea. Miss Margaret Baggott of the National Library of Australia also had a strong hand in the various projects. The National Library of Australia was involved in the acquisition of originals, of titles and of other materials. Some $400,000 was used in this particular area. The film collection, which is of considerable value, has some 6,000 titles and will be of the greatest assistance in the development of library services to the community of Papua New Guinea. The guidelines for this and for other related matters concerning the Library were laid down by the National Librarian of Papua New Guinea, Sir John Yocklunn.
We are indebted, I think, to the Royal Australian Air Force transport unit for its assistance in the transportation of materials from Australia to Papua New Guinea prior to the opening of its National Library.
Other contributions which were made by the National Library of Australia included a vast quantity of reference material, a whole range of material on appropriate publications relating to the social sciences and the humanities, a very significant collection of Australiana and a collection of government publications as well as other related reference material. This took its place alongside the local collection of what is called, I believe, Papua New Guineana, which is now housed in a special and carefully preserved area. Other gifts which relate to the involvement of the National Library of Australia include special maps, while the film, audio-visual and video and television equipment will be a particular asset. I have conducted a detailed inspection of it all. I am indeed very well pleased with it and I am sure it will be a great asset to the community of Papua New Guinea and form a worthy independence gift. Alongside all of this is a series of services described as public library and lending facilities, which means that the material relating to a national library also has a community relationship with particular community benefits. There is a series of lending services and these lending services extend to all libraries throughout Papua New Guinea- the provincial libraries, the community libraries and indeed to school libraries.
So it was that we came to the particular presentation following a state dinner on Sunday evening, 29 October, and the opening ceremony following the presentation at 9.30 the following morning. There was a ceremonial arrival by both the Papua New Guinea Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister as well as the contribution made by the Police Band playing the Australian national anthem. The National Librarian invited the Papua New Guinea Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Science and Culture, Mr Kore Maor, to speak and he invited Mr Fraser to present the National Library. He did so and this was acknowledged by Mr Somare and declared open. Those of us who were privileged to be present were very interested in the ceremony which followed the presentation and opening of the National Library which included a series of national dances, the appropriate beating of drums and the handing over of documents and other ceremonial material.
Mr Fraser made a speech during which he pointed out that the very core of any library is one of life’s most precious gifts, that of knowledge. He pointed out that knowledge of history, culture, arts, sciences, religion and world affairs was essential to the development of any nation. He also instanced that the National Library would become a place for thought, creation and stimulus of ideas. I have received a copy of the speech which the Australian Prime Minister made on that occasion. I have shown it to the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip and I would seek leave to have this speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows-
OPENING OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA NATIONAL LIBRARY
It’s a privilege to be here today to hand over Australia’s independence gift to your nation- the new National Library of Papua New Guinea.
Today’s ceremony is a real and tangible symbol of the special relationship that links Australia with Papua New Guinea. This relationship, fostered by peace and war, has stood the test of time because it reflects the respect the people of our two nations have for one another.
Mr Whitlam, a Labor Prime Minister of Australia, invited you, Mr Prime Minister, to nominate the kind of gift your people wanted. He joins with me today in welcoming this opportunity to acknowledge the bond between our countries.
As you can see, Mr Prime Minister, inside Australia our esteem for the people of Papua New Guinea transcends any passing political differences we may have amongst ourselves from time to time.
The National Library is a fine structure which in every sense belongs to this nation. From its concept to its design and to its construction this Library stands as a fitting monument- and a reminder- of Papua New Guinea’s search and desire for knowledge and education. It is based on the traditional council meeting place where tribal elders passed on their knowledge and experiences down through the generations.
Mr Prime Minister, I am sure that the people of Papua New Guinea will find this National Library an invaluable part of the life of the community. We hope that the National Library will be an essential part of the research facilities in New Guinea; a place to be enjoyed; a source of creative leisure activities; a national archive and repository for all important national documents: a storehouse of a vital part of the nation’s history and culture, preserved for present and future generations; a place for thought, creation and stimulus for ideas; and a meeting place, a focal point of community life.
At the very core of any library is one of life’s most precious gifts- knowledge. Where else does man have access to a myriad of information on life- information on history, culture, art, science, religion, world affairs. What other single institution can provide this kind of impetus to uplift the human spirit and advance the cause of man.
A free library, open for all, is part of the essence of democracy. Democracy cannot survive without access to knowledge. To develop and strengthen, democracy demands the widest possible contact with new ideas, new information and new horizons. It’s appropriate that this library will serve the greatest symbol of democracy at work- your Parliament.
Clearly, a library is a relevant, living and active force for good, for the values which all countries of the free world share.
Papua New Guinea’s selection of a library for an independence gift was a most significant choice. It says something special about the way the people of Papua New Guinea want to live their lives. It’s a clear sign that this nation will takeand is taking- the path to freedom and democracy.
Today is only a beginning for the National Library. The Library will grow and develop with Papua New Guinea. It will evolve and play its part as this wonderful new country takes its place in world affairs. It will help to preserve the rich and diverse history and cultural heritage of this great country.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have great pleasure in now officially handing over Australia’s independence gift- the National Library of Papua New Guinea- to stand as a permanent reminder of the deep and enduring fellowship between our two countries.
– The Prime Minister of Australia also indicated that he would arrange for an examination of material at present in Australia which in his words might very properly belong to Papua New Guinea; he would arrange for an examination to take place so that materials with Papua New Guinea significance would be obtained and sent to Papua New Guinea for the purpose of being housed in the National Library. One of the interesting events relating to the opening of this National Library was the presentation of a series of bibles in various languages and dialects of Papua New Guinea. These had been housed here in Canberra at the Australian national headquarters of the Australian Bible Society. For many years the Society has had a strong organisation within Papua New Guinea and there has been a close association between the societies in Papua New Guinea and Australia. Having some involvement in the organisation myself I inquired whether it would be a very suitable idea for certain translations and certain volumes and copies to be presented on this occasion for permanent housing in the National Library of Papua New Guinea. I am very glad to say that this has been done and will be a useful ingredient within the total resources of the National Library of Papua New Guinea.
In conclusion I think it is important to point out that whilst an independence gift consisting of a National Library with all the contents to which 1 have referred may be a very valuable gift to a nation, we have got to look very carefully and indeed very sympathetically at the ongoing work from this point. It is obvious that there is now in Port Moresby an establishment which is uptodate and sophisticated. It is important that it be efficient and effective, widely and wisely used. One of the ways that this can be achieved is to have an adequate staff who are adequately trained. As a further indication of our continuing involvement in this independence project, arrangements are being made for staff from the National Library of Australia to visit Papua New G uinea for the purpose of engaging in staff training. Arrangements are also being made for staff of the Papua New Guinea National Library to come to Canberra and elsewhere in Australia to receive appropriate and adequate training in relation to the new facilities and amenities that are available in the new establishment in Port Moresby.
The Director-General of the National Library of Australia, Dr Chandler, was in Port Moresby for the opening ceremonies to which I have referred and has stayed on for some days to make ongoing arrangements so that we can have a continuous and continuing relationship at the training and professional level to aid the effectiveness of the National Library within the Papua New Guinea society. I have taken a few moments of the Senate’s time tonight to outline these events which of course gave me a great deal of pleasure and which I appreciated very much indeed. The opening of the library is, I believe, a significant event in the relationship between Papua New Guinea and Australia. It is one in which the Australian Senate has had a very significant part, albeit an indirect part.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.17 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19781107_senate_31_s79/>.